Human Rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 offers a framework for the enforcement of rights which would
otherwise be lacking in order to ensure their effective protection.” Assess this comment with
regard to the relevant provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 and illustrate argument with
relevant case law.
Human Rights Act represents a United Kingdom’s law that was accorded royal assent on
the 9 th November of the year 1998. It was put into force in October 2000. It is also referred by
other names such as the HRA or the Act. The main purpose of the act was to incorporate the
rights that were contained in European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into the United
Kingdom law. Lord Bingham succeeded Donald even in giving the public support for the
incorporation of ECHR into the English law before it was passed as the Human Rights act in

1998. The act is made up of various sections. The ECHR is a treaty that is international and it
      protects the rights of human beings as well as their basic freedoms while in Europe. This was
      incorporated in the UK laws. The human rights Act is a framework that is made up of various
      articles, where each of the articles ensures that humans are well protected. 1 The framework
      ensures that an individual can defend his/ her rights in the courts of the United Kingdom and that
      everyone is treated in an equal manner, with respect, fairness and dignity by the public
      organizations which include the police, government and the local councils. Using the relevant
      case laws, this paper assess and illustrates an argument on the comment that, ‘Human Rights Act

1 Harlow, C, & R Rawlings, Law and administration. in, London, Weidenfeld and
Nicolson, 1984. p.381.

HUMAN RIGHTS 3
1998 offers a framework for the enforcement of rights which would otherwise be lacking in
order to ensure their effective protection.’
The Human rights act is a framework that protects every citizen including the old, young,
the poor and the rich. When the law was being passed, most individuals hoped that it would not
be relied upon but individuals accord each other the necessary rights. However, despite that
hope, most people do rely on the act in one way or another from time to time. The framework
has been important to such an extent that people depend on it and they know they would suffer in
the absence of it because their rights would not be protected any more. Despite its importance,
there was a time when the government wanted the Act to be replaced with something different
that they called ‘The British Rights and responsibilities’ 2 . That would have weakened everyone’s
rights and it would have left everything for the politicians to make the decisions when the rights
of individuals applied. The same thing that had happened sometimes back would have happened
again. The politicians had taken open justice, attacked the judicial review and destroyed the legal
aid. 3
In order for the Human rights act to be of help as it was meant to be, any individual can
use it. This includes all the residents of the United Kingdom regardless of their British
citizenship or not, and regardless of their foreign nationality. They can also use the framework if
they are adults or children, members of the public or prisoners. Organizations can also use the act

2 V Devinatz, “A Response to the British Journal of Industrial Relations Symposium on the
Human Rights Watch Report: A Minimum Program for Promoting Collective Bargaining Rights
as a Human Right”, in Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, vol. 16, 2004, p.19
3 Devinatz, p.13

HUMAN RIGHTS 4
where it applies. Without this act, most of these individuals would be discriminated against with
arguments that they are not credible to enjoy the rights.
Individuals have the right to life and the government is supposed to protect the life of
every resident. 4 It therefore means that no one can end the life of another, not even the
government. This also means that one can be protected if their life is at risk. Whenever public
authorities are trying to make decisions, they are supposed to consider the right to life so that
they do not put anyone’s life in danger. For instance, in a case where a woman was suffering
from a degenerative disease wanted to have the control of how and when she would die. So that
she would avoid the undignified death via respiratory failure, she asked for help from her
husband to help her commit suicide. However, European court of Human Rights established that
there was no entitlement of choosing death to life as provided by the right to life. In that case, the
woman had no right to die in the hands of a different person or from public authority. 5
Under article 3 of the human rights act framework, no individual should be subjected to
inhuman, degrading treatment, torture or punishment 6 . In a certain case, there was a man
suffering from a mental illness and was being cared for in a residential care. Parents realized that

4 Turner, I, “Positive obligations and Article 4 of the European Convention on Human
Rights: a defense of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998″. in The International Journal of Human
Rights, 18, 2014, 99
5 Department of Constitutional Affairs, “Human rights, human lives”. In Department for
Constitutional Affairs, 2006.
6 Crawford, C, “Dialogue and Rights-Compatible Interpretations under Section 3 of the
Human Rights Act 1998″. in King’s Law Journal, 25, 2014, 37

HUMAN RIGHTS 5
there were bruises once during a visit and had to raise the issue with the managers of that home.
Their concerns were dismissed and were denied the permission to visit their son again. They
approached the home and wanted the human right of their son from mistreatment to be respected.
Using this act’s framework, the ban of them visiting him was revoked and an investigation was
started to find out how the bruises came to be. 7 If this framework did not exist, the son would not
have had the protection.
The fifth article of this framework states that everyone has the right to liberty as well as
security. Every UK resident has the right to personal freedom 8 . Not even the government is
allowed to detain an individual without a sensible reason even for a short duration. If the human
rights framework did not exist, most people who are found demonstrating would be captured and
detained. A case provided by British Institute of Human Rights 9 was judged according to the
right to liberty. In that case, members of a befriending scheme on mental health realized that
there were mental health detainees held in a psychiatric department and they did not
communicate in English. This group also found out that interpreter services were not provided to
the mental ill patients that were detained. After the case argument on the liberty right basis, the
hospital practice had to be changed completely and interpreters provided even for the mentally

7 British Institute of Human Rights, “The Human Rights Act: Changing Lives”. In British
Institute of Human Rights,, 2006.
8 Culverhouse, M, “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person”. In Nursing
and Residential Care, 16, 2014, 580.
9 Ibid,

HUMAN RIGHTS 6
ill. The absence of the Human Rights Act would have led to many more mentally ill individuals
to be denied the right to interpreters and spend their lives under detention.
The human rights act of 1998 provides an article that states that all the UK residents have
rights to fair trial 10 . Everyone has the right to public and fair hearings when they are charged with
offences and have to be taken to court or if a public authority wants to make a decision with a
decisive impact upon an individual’s obligations or civil rights. The UK law recognizes various
areas of the civil obligations or rights and some of them include planning law, employment law,
family law and property law 11 . Without the human rights framework, public hearings would be
denied and sometimes they would not be done in a fair manner. For instance, some public
authorities may decide to do it away from the reasonable time, deny an individual the access to
the relent information or conduct the hearing after an impartial and independent decision has
been made.
All the residents in UK have the right to express themselves freely 12 . Human rights act
framework allows individuals the rights for their opinions as well as to how they freely express
them without interference from either public authorities or the government. People can express
their views aloud or use works art, books, articles or the internet 13 . This article applies in a case

10 C Crawford, “Dialogue and Rights-Compatible Interpretations under Section 3 of the
Human Rights Act 1998″, in King’s Law Journal, vol. 25, 2014, 44
11 “The right to a fair trial”, in New Scientist, vol. 211, 2011, 3.
12 F Davis, “The Human Rights Act and Juridification: Saving Democracy from Law”, in
Politics, vol. 30, 2010, 94.

HUMAN RIGHTS 7
where a journalist or any other individual in the media wants to criticize the state. The right to
expression allows them to do so without the fear of being persecuted because of their words. In
the case of media personnel, the individual does not have to keep in mind other rights such as
respect for one’s private life. If the framework does not exist, most individuals would not be
enjoying the freedom of enjoying themselves because they may put their lives in danger or even
be captured and persecuted for their words.
The Human Rights Act calls for protection of all people from being discriminated
against. Even though the framework does not provide protection from all the discriminations that
exist in life, one should not be discriminated from enjoying human rights that are under the
European Convention of Human rights. Though protection from discrimination in this Act is
guaranteed, it does not stand alone. Therefore, for an individual to depend on this right, they
have to prove that their enjoyment of the other rights that appear in human rights have faced
discrimination. A good example of a case is when anti-discrimination protection was requested
for gay couple that wanted to be treated similarly to heterosexual couples on the rules that related
to tenancy succession. 14
In conclusion, the Human Rights Act 1998 offers a framework for the enforcement of
rights which would otherwise be lacking in order to ensure their effective protection. The human
rights Act contains different articles, each of which touches on a specific human right. These
human rights include the right to life; freedom from torture, degrading or inhuman treatment;

13 Hassan, T, “A Jurisprudential Definition of Freedom of Expression”. In SSRN Electronic
Journal.
14 Department of Constitutional Affairs.

HUMAN RIGHTS 8
right to security and freedom; liberty from forced labour and slavery; right to a trial that is fair;
exemption of punishment that is out of law; freedom of religion, belief or thought; right of
marrying and starting a family; the right for an individual to enjoy their property in a peaceful
manner; right of participating in elections that are free; and the right to associate and assemble. If
Human Rights Act did not exist, the residents in UK would not be protected from enjoying their
rights. Lady Hale was a strong supporter of these Human rights and spoke about them wherever
she gave the speeches 15 . However, these Human rights are restricted by the authorities if they are
able to prove, based on the law, that an individual’s action would be a problem to the national
security, may lead to crimes or may be a danger to the reputations and rights of other people.

Bibliography

15 Court, T, “Speeches – The Supreme Court”. in Supremecourt.uk, , 2016,
<https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/speeches.html> [accessed 10 April 2016].

HUMAN RIGHTS 9
“The right to a fair trial”, in New Scientist, vol. 211, 2011, 3.
British Institute of Human Rights, “The Human Rights Act: Changing Lives”. In British Institute
of Human Rights, 2006.
Court, T, “Speeches – The Supreme Court”. in Supreme Court, 2016,
<https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/speeches.html> [accessed 10 April 2016].
Crawford, C, “Dialogue and Rights-Compatible Interpretations under Section 3 of the Human
Rights Act 1998″. In King’s Law Journal, 25, 2014, 34-59.
Culverhouse, M, “Everyone has the right to liberty and security of person”. In Nursing and
Residential Care, 16, 2014, 580-581.
Davis, F, “The Human Rights Act and Juridification: Saving Democracy from Law”. in Politics,
30, 2010, 91-97.
Department of Constitutional Affairs, “Human rights, human lives”. In Department for
Constitutional Affairs, 2006.
Devinatz, V, “A Response to the British Journal of Industrial Relations Symposium on the
Human Rights Watch Report: A Minimum Program for Promoting Collective Bargaining
Rights as a Human Right”. in Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 16, 2004,
13-23.
Harlow, C, & R Rawlings, Law and administration. in, London, Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1984.
Hassan, T, “A Jurisprudential Definition of Freedom of Expression”. in SSRN Electronic
Journal.
Turner, I, “Positive obligations and Article 4 of the European Convention on Human Rights: a
defense of the UK’s Human Rights Act 1998″. In The International Journal of Human
Rights, 18, 2014, 94-114.