What does the Human Rights Act actually mean?

I recently wrote about the Human Rights Act 1998 and my belief that it is the interpretation of the Human Rights Act that is the problem not the Act itself. The current interpretation of the Act seems to manifest itself as an abuse to common sense which has resulted in the extreme negative reaction given by many people when it is discussed. In its purest form, the Human Rights Act is a worthy legislation that can provide a strengthen legal foundation for many.

Prior to October 2000, it was necessary to go to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to claim your human rights. Cases were long and drawn out and the expense to do this were high and for many this option was beyond their financial means. However, the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 ensured that the human rights contained within the European Convention became enforceable in UK courts. Whilst procedures may still be long and drawn out, the costs have been somewhat lowered and it has given more people access to claim their rights.

As highlighted in my earlier blog, for many the Act is open to extreme abuse and this has resulted in a negative acceptance of the Act but what does the Act actually ensure? Many people do not know or do not want to understand the Act in its simplest form and, therefore, I felt it would be interesting to go back to the basics of the Act.

The rights under the law are:-

Articles:
The right to life;
The right not to be tortured, also not to be treated or punished in a degrading or inhuman way;
The right not to have to do forced labour or be a slave;
The right to liberty and security of person;
The right to a fair trial;
The right to freedom from retrospective penalities or laws;
The right to respect for private and family life, home and correspondence;
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
The right to freedom of expression;
The right to freedom of assembly and association; and
The right to marry and have a family.

Protocols:
The right to peaceful enjoyment of possessions;
The right to education;
The right to free elections at regular intervals; and
The abolition of the death penalty.

At the present time, it is fair to say that the Human Rights Act does not have a particularly good public image mainly due to the fact that the true and honest cases do not make as clever headlines as when the act is abused by criminals or by those charged with upholding the law. To try and rebalance this I show below some positives that have come about because of the Human Rights Act and I hope it may just sway you to see the benefits of this legislation.


Rachel Gunter is severely disabled and requires constant nursing. After caring for Rachel 24 hours a day for 6 years, her parents were no longer able to give her the physical support and mental stimulation she required. Mr and Mrs Gunter approached the Primary Care Trust for help. The Trust, reluctant to provide care in the Gunter's home, hoped to put Rachel into a residential facility. However, Rachel’s parents felt this would deprive her of the mental stimulation that they could provide, and that had already increased Rachel’s confidence and communication skills. In 2005, the courts ordered that the Trust reconsider its decision on the grounds that taking Rachel from her home would infringe on her right to family life under Article 8.

The right of same-sex couples to succeed to a tenancy in the event of the death of a partner was established in the case of Antonio Godin Mendoza in 2004. The House of Lords concluded that the less favourable treatment of the survivors of long-term homosexual partnerships resulting from the literal reading of the Rent Act provisions could be remedied by altering the definition of ‘spouse’ to include persons of the same-sex. This would be to ‘read and give effect to’ the Defendant’s right to respect for private life (Article 8) and the prohibition on discrimination (in Article 14).

Smith v Oxfordshire Coroner 2009 defined that British soldiers were protected by the human rights act and that a government was therefore under a duty to take all reasonable steps to protect them. The ruling doesn't mean that soldiers can't go in to battle and risk their lives, but it does mean the government is under a legal obligation to properly equip soldiers and can be held responsible for their deaths if a soldier dies when the government could so easily have prevented that death.

Last year the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the UK government CANNOT keep DNA records of innocent people - it also put a time limit on the DNA records of "minor criminals".

Prior to a woman taking action against the British government, rape victims in England were subject to lengthy cross-examination in person by men who were alleged to have violated them. As a result of a judgment protecting her right not to be subject to "inhuman and degrading treatment", the law in this country was changed.

In fact in the last few weeks those of you who voted in the General Election benefitted from the Human Rights Act. That is the right to vote in free elections.

And every one who enjoys slating the Human Rights Act is doing so under the Human Rights Act - the right to free expression.

Maybe we should all take another look at the Act in its purest form and be proud that we respect the human rights of people, even if they don't, at times, strictly "deserve" it.