Role of Domestic Courts (AQA A-Level Law): Revision Notes
Role of Domestic Courts
Introduction to domestic courts and human rights
Before the Human Rights Act 1998 was introduced, UK law (including both common law and statute) already offered protection for certain rights and freedoms. However, many rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) were not protected by domestic law at that time.
The Human Rights Act 1998 transformed this position by allowing citizens to bring claims directly in UK domestic courts when they believe a public body has violated their Convention rights. This means individuals no longer need to exhaust all domestic remedies before applying to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR).
Bringing claims in domestic courts
When citizens believe their human rights have been breached, they can now apply to domestic courts under the Human Rights Act 1998. The court will examine whether a public body has violated one or more Convention rights. If the court finds a breach has occurred, it can grant an appropriate remedy to the claimant.
The requirement to use existing domestic law first
An important principle exists: if domestic legislation already covers a particular human right, that route must be used before pursuing a Human Rights Act claim. For example, the Equality Act 2010 protects certain rights relating to discrimination. Where such legislation applies, claimants must use those statutory provisions as their primary method of seeking redress.
Only after using existing domestic law can an individual argue that the law itself is incompatible with the Convention and challenge it on human rights grounds.
Conflicts between domestic law and the ECHR
Several important cases have highlighted tensions between established domestic law principles and the requirements of the Convention. These cases demonstrate how courts must navigate between following precedent and ensuring Convention compliance.
Re: Medicaments (No. 2), Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain (2001)
This case concerned an alleged breach of Article 6 (the right to a fair trial) and specifically addressed the test for bias in UK court proceedings.
Facts and legal issue: The domestic law test for bias had been established in R v Gough (1993), which involved a situation where a jury member lived next door to one of the defendants. However, the Gough test was found to be incompatible with several decisions made by the ECtHR.
Court's decision: The Court of Appeal took the significant step of refusing to follow the House of Lords' decision in Gough. This demonstrated the court's willingness to depart from binding precedent where necessary to ensure compliance with Convention rights.
This case illustrates the hierarchy of obligations under the Human Rights Act: courts must interpret law compatibly with the Convention, even when this conflicts with established domestic precedent.
R v A (2001)
This landmark case examined the interpretative obligation contained in section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998. Lord Steyn's judgment provided crucial guidance on how courts should approach statutory interpretation.
Key legal principles established:
Lord Steyn stated that the interpretative obligation under section 3 is a strong one. Importantly, it applies even when statutory language is clear and unambiguous – the obligation exists "even if there is no ambiguity in the language in the sense of the language being capable of two different meanings."
The judgment went further, acknowledging that courts may need to "adopt an interpretation which linguistically may appear strained" to achieve Convention compatibility. This means judges can interpret legislation in ways that might seem forced or unnatural if necessary to protect human rights.
Lord Steyn also emphasized that a declaration of incompatibility should be treated as a measure of last resort. Courts should exhaust all possible interpretative techniques under section 3 before concluding that legislation cannot be read compatibly with Convention rights.
Significance: This judgment establishes that courts have wide powers to reinterpret legislation to make it Convention-compliant, going well beyond traditional methods of statutory interpretation.
H v Mental Health Review Tribunal (2001)
This case demonstrated the limits of judicial power under the Human Rights Act when legislation cannot be interpreted compatibly with Convention rights.
Facts and legal issue: The case concerned certain provisions within section 72(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA83). The Court of Appeal examined whether these provisions were compatible with Article 5(1) (the right to liberty and security) and Article 5(4) (the right to have the lawfulness of detention decided by a court).
Court's decision: The Court of Appeal held that the relevant sub-sections of the Mental Health Act 1983 were incompatible with Articles 5(1) and 5(4) of the Convention.
Key limitation on judicial power: Crucially, the court could only make a declaration of incompatibility. It had no power to change the law itself – that responsibility remained with Parliament. The court could identify the incompatibility but could not remedy it through judicial decision.
Significance: This case illustrates the constitutional balance maintained by the Human Rights Act. While courts can interpret legislation broadly and declare incompatibilities, they cannot strike down or amend primary legislation. Parliamentary sovereignty is preserved, with Parliament retaining the ultimate authority to amend incompatible laws.
Effect of decisions on states and claimants
An important paradox exists in the enforcement of human rights decisions: while domestic court decisions are binding and enforceable on the parties involved, ECtHR decisions, though also binding, are considerably more difficult to enforce in practice.
Effects on states
When the ECtHR finds that a state has breached Convention rights, several consequences follow:
The Court may decide the state is in breach and award compensation to the successful claimant. However, the ECtHR possesses no power to compel the state to change its domestic laws. The Court must rely entirely on the state voluntarily choosing to amend incompatible legislation.
This creates a situation where states are under an international obligation to comply with ECtHR judgments, but no direct enforcement mechanism exists to force legislative change. The system depends on states acting in good faith to honour their Convention obligations.
Effects on claimants
For individual claimants who succeed before the ECtHR, the outcomes are similarly uncertain:
The most typical remedy would be an award of compensation to the successful claimant. However, even this is not guaranteed. The ECtHR may decide that finding a violation occurred is sufficient satisfaction in itself.
Furthermore, even when compensation is awarded, the ECtHR has no means of enforcing payment. The Court cannot compel the state to make the compensation payment. Again, the system relies on voluntary compliance by the state.
This enforcement gap represents a significant limitation in the international human rights protection system. While domestic courts can enforce their judgments through established legal mechanisms, international human rights decisions depend on state cooperation for their effectiveness.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
Domestic law priority: If existing UK legislation (like the Equality Act 2010) already protects a right, that route must be used before pursuing a Human Rights Act claim
-
Section 3 interpretative obligation: Courts must interpret legislation compatibly with Convention rights where possible, even using "strained" interpretations – this is a strong obligation and declaration of incompatibility is a last resort only
-
Declaration of incompatibility: When legislation cannot be interpreted compatibly, courts can declare incompatibility but cannot change the law – only Parliament can amend incompatible legislation
-
Key cases: Re: Medicaments (bias and Article 6), R v A (section 3 interpretation), and H v Mental Health Review Tribunal (declaration of incompatibility and Article 5)
-
Enforcement paradox: Domestic court decisions are fully enforceable, but ECtHR decisions, while binding, rely on voluntary state compliance with no direct enforcement mechanism