Human Rights Act 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 received Royal Assent on 9th November 1998 and, for the most part, came into force on 2nd October 2000. Its aim of this Act is to "give further effect" in UK law to the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act, therefore, makes available in UK courts a remedy for breach of a Convention right, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

From its introduction the Human Rights Act 1998 has been somewhat controversial and there have been many high profile cases that, through media exposure, have given the Act a bad name. For many, the Human Rights Act has been seen to be legislation that helps only the villain to the detriment of hard working honest citizens.

Cases such as:-

Venables and Thompson v. News Group Newspapers – The James Bulger murder case tested whether the Article 8 (privacy) rights of Venables and Thomson, the convicted murderers of Bulger, applied when four newspapers sought to publish their new identities and whereabouts, using their Article 10 rights of freedom of expression. Dame Butler-Sloss granted permanent global injunctions not to publish the material because of the disastrous consequences such disclosure might have for the former convicts, not least the possibility of physical harm or death;

Afghan hijackers 2006 - In May 2006, a politically controversial decision regarding the treatment of 9 Afghan men who hijacked a plane to flee from the Taliban. It was ruled by an Immigration Tribunal, under the Human Rights Act, that the hijackers could remain in the United Kingdom; a subsequent court decision ruled that the government had abused its power in restricting the hijackers' right to work;

and most recently

Abid Naseer and Ahmad Faraz Khan - won the right to stay in Britain even though the court accepted they were planning an “imminent” attack in Manchester when they were arrested last year. The judge said he was “satisfied” that ringleader Naseer, in particular, “still poses a serious threat to the national security of the United Kingdom” but his hands were tied by the Human Rights Act because the two men might be tortured if they were sent home to Pakistan;

have done little to enhance the general opinion of The Human Rights Act.

However, in my opinion, it is the interpretation of the Human Rights Act that is the problem not the Act itself. In its purest form, the Human Rights Act is a worthy legislation that can provide a strengthen legal foundation for many. It is unfortunate that abuses of its aims have occurred but the law will always be tested to the extreme.

As our Coalition Government begins its working partnership, it will be interesting to see how they address the Human Rights Act. In the past, David Cameron and the Conservatives have stated that they want to see the Act scrapped and replaced with a Bill of Rights but Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats oppose this idea.

One thing is for sure, they need to work on improving the image of the existing Act and we need to see more positive stories of how the Act has been implemented.