After the Enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998 (AQA A-Level Law): Revision Notes
After the Enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998
Introduction
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) represents a landmark development in UK constitutional law. It was the first dedicated piece of legislation designed specifically to protect fundamental human rights domestically. The Act has generated significant debate and controversy since its implementation, particularly regarding its relationship with parliamentary sovereignty and the balance between domestic and European legal authority.
Human rights law refers to laws governing fundamental rights and freedoms that exist in our legal system simply because we are human beings. Before the HRA 1998, human rights protections in the UK were fragmented and largely based on common law principles and residual freedoms.
This content is assessed in Paper 1: The Nature of Law and the English Legal System.
Incorporation and interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights
Incorporation of Convention rights
The Human Rights Act 1998 was enacted by Parliament in 1998 and came into force in October 2000. It marked a fundamental shift in how human rights were protected in the UK by bringing European Convention rights directly into domestic law.
The Act incorporates Articles 2 to 12 and Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, into UK domestic law. This means that individuals can now rely on these Convention rights in UK courts without needing to take cases to Strasbourg.
Significance of Incorporation
The incorporation was significant because it allowed UK courts to apply Convention rights directly when deciding cases. Previously, individuals seeking to enforce their Convention rights had to exhaust all domestic remedies before petitioning the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg—a process that could take several years and was often prohibitively expensive.
Interpretation of legislation under the Act
The stated purpose of the HRA 1998 is to give further effect to the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights. This purpose shapes how UK courts must approach legislation.
Section 3 HRA 1998 creates a crucial interpretative obligation. It requires that primary legislation and subordinate legislation must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with Convention rights, so far as it is possible to do so. This means that whenever a court interprets any Act of Parliament or piece of delegated legislation, it must try to find a Convention-compatible interpretation.
Critical Limitation
The phrase "so far as it is possible to do do" creates an important limitation. This wording suggests that there may be circumstances where it is not possible to interpret legislation compatibly with Convention rights. In such situations, the government can effectively avoid full compliance with the Convention.
It is noteworthy that English courts had already begun giving weight to the Convention even before the HRA 1998 came into force. In R v DPP ex parte Kebilene (1999), the House of Lords demonstrated willingness to consider Convention rights when examining domestic legislation. The case involved three defendants charged with terrorist offences under the Terrorism Act 1989. The trial judge held that section 16A of that Act was contrary to Article 6 ECHR (the right to a fair trial), and the House of Lords agreed with this assessment.
Impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on UK constitutional arrangements and law
The HRA 1998 introduced several important provisions that fundamentally altered how human rights operate within the UK constitutional framework. While you do not need to memorise every section number, understanding the purpose and effect of key sections is essential for exam success.
Public authorities and Convention compliance
Section 6 HRA 1998 establishes that it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right. The term "public authority" is interpreted broadly and includes organisations and individuals working in the public sector. This encompasses bodies such as:
- Government departments
- Local councils
- The police
- NHS trusts
- Publicly-funded schools
Important Exceptions
The definition of public authority does not include government ministers or those connected to Parliament when they are exercising functions related to Parliamentary business. This exclusion preserves the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and ensures that the legislative process itself is not subject to challenge under the HRA 1998.
Bringing proceedings against public authorities
Section 7 HRA 1998 provides individuals with a direct mechanism to enforce their Convention rights. If someone believes that a public authority has acted (or proposes to act) in breach of a Convention right, they may bring proceedings against that authority in the appropriate court or tribunal. Alternatively, they can rely on their Convention rights in any existing legal proceedings.
This provision was significant because it created a domestic remedy for human rights violations. Before the HRA 1998, individuals typically had to pursue claims through the European Court of Human Rights after exhausting all domestic remedies—a lengthy and expensive process.
The role of European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence
Section 2 HRA 1998 requires that courts and tribunals must take into account any judgment, decision, declaration, or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights when determining questions involving Convention rights. This creates an obligation to consider Strasbourg jurisprudence, even where there may be conflicting domestic precedent.
However, the section states that courts must "take into account" such decisions, not necessarily follow them. This wording suggests that UK courts retain some flexibility in how they apply European Court of Human Rights judgments. Nevertheless, in practice, UK courts generally follow clear and consistent Strasbourg case law unless there are compelling reasons to depart from it.
Statements and declarations of compatibility
Section 19 HRA 1998 introduces an important procedural requirement for new legislation. Before a Bill receives its Second Reading in either House of Parliament, the minister in charge must make a statement of compatibility. This statement declares that, in the minister's view, the provisions of the Bill are compatible with Convention rights.
Government Can Still Proceed with Incompatible Legislation
Section 19 also permits a minister to make a declaration of incompatibility and still proceed with the Bill. This means that the government can explicitly acknowledge that proposed legislation breaches Convention rights yet continue to pursue it through Parliament. This provision demonstrates the continuing supremacy of Parliament and shows that Convention rights can be overridden by explicit legislative choice.
Court powers to declare incompatibility
Section 4 HRA 1998 grants courts the power to make a declaration of incompatibility where they are satisfied that a statutory provision is incompatible with a Convention right. This declaration brings the specific incompatibility to the attention of the government and Parliament.
Declarations Do Not Invalidate the Law
Critically, a declaration of incompatibility does not affect the validity, operation, or enforcement of the incompatible provision. This means the law continues to apply to the parties in the case, and the incompatible provision remains valid UK law. The declaration serves as a signal to Parliament that legislation should be reconsidered, but it does not strike down the law or provide an immediate remedy to the affected individual.
Fast-track remedial procedure
Section 10(1) HRA 1998 provides a fast-track procedure for amending legislation found to be incompatible under Section 4. If an Act of Parliament is declared incompatible with Convention rights, a statutory instrument can be used to amend it to comply with the Convention. This avoids the need for a full Parliamentary Bill and speeds up the reform process.
Weakened Remedial Mechanism
Section 10(2) significantly weakens this remedial mechanism. It states that the relevant government minister "may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility." The word "may" indicates that amending the law is discretionary, not mandatory. This means the government is not legally obliged to amend incompatible legislation, even after a court has declared it incompatible.
This discretion preserves parliamentary sovereignty by ensuring that the ultimate decision about whether to change the law rests with the government and Parliament, not the courts. Critics argue that this undermines the effectiveness of the HRA 1998, as the government can simply ignore declarations of incompatibility.
The HRA 1998 and devolutionary settlement in Scotland and Northern Ireland
The relationship between the HRA 1998 and devolved administrations adds another layer of constitutional complexity. In both Scotland and Northern Ireland, the European Convention on Human Rights is embedded in the legislation that created the devolved governments.
The Scotland Act 1998 and the Northern Ireland Act 1998 both incorporate ECHR obligations directly into the framework of devolution. This means that the devolved legislatures and executives in these nations cannot act in ways that contravene Convention rights. The HRA 1998 is therefore enforceable in these jurisdictions through their devolution statutes, not merely through the HRA 1998 itself.
Political Implications of Repeal
This constitutional entrenchment has significant political implications. Despite successive Conservative governments promising to repeal or replace the HRA 1998, it remains uncertain how such a repeal would apply to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Repealing the Act in either country would require amending their devolution legislation, which could prove politically and legally complicated.
In Northern Ireland particularly, any attempt to weaken human rights protections could be especially contentious. The Good Friday Agreement of 1998, which brought peace to Northern Ireland after decades of sectarian conflict, contains explicit commitments to human rights protections. Religious and political tensions between parties in Northern Ireland continue to create challenges for the power-sharing devolution settlement, and changes to human rights law could destabilise this delicate arrangement.
Criticisms of the Human Rights Act 1998
Despite being presented as a landmark piece of constitutional legislation, the HRA 1998 has attracted substantial criticism from various perspectives. Understanding these criticisms is essential for evaluation questions in exams.
Loopholes allow government avoidance of Convention rights
One fundamental criticism is that the Act contains numerous loopholes that allow the UK government to avoid complying with Convention rights. The requirement in Section 3 to interpret legislation compatibly with Convention rights only applies "so far as it is possible to do so". Similarly, Section 10(2) makes it discretionary, not mandatory, for ministers to amend incompatible legislation. These provisions suggest that the Act functions more as a symbolic gesture than as a binding legal framework, benefiting citizens only when the government chooses to comply.
"Altruistic Paper-Exercise"
Critics argue that these escape clauses undermine the entire purpose of the legislation. If the government can simply declare a law incompatible and proceed anyway, or ignore declarations of incompatibility made by courts, then the Convention rights lack meaningful legal force. This reduces the Act to what some have called an "altruistic paper-exercise" with limited practical effect.
Challenges to parliamentary sovereignty
A second major criticism concerns the impact on parliamentary sovereignty—the constitutional principle that Parliament is the supreme legal authority and can make or unmake any law. Critics argue that the HRA 1998 removes sovereignty from the UK Supreme Court and transfers it to the European Court of Human Rights. This means that judges in Strasbourg, who are not part of the UK legal system, can effectively influence decisions on domestic UK issues.
This criticism reflects a broader concern about the relationship between domestic and international law. Opponents of the Act argue that it is inappropriate for foreign judges to have influence over UK law, particularly on sensitive issues involving criminal justice, immigration, and national security. However, defenders of the Act point out that the UK voluntarily signed the European Convention on Human Rights and that international human rights standards should transcend national boundaries.
No mandatory amendment of incompatible laws
As discussed earlier, even when a court finds that UK legislation is incompatible with Convention rights and issues a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4, the government is not legally required to amend the law. Section 10(2) makes amendment discretionary. This means that incompatible laws can remain in force indefinitely, continuing to violate human rights.
Fundamental Tension
This criticism highlights a fundamental tension in the Act. If the purpose is to protect human rights, why does it allow the government to maintain laws that breach those rights? The answer lies in the desire to preserve parliamentary sovereignty, but this comes at the cost of effective human rights protection.
Reliance on individual action rather than systematic oversight
The HRA 1998 depends on individuals, rather than organisations or public bodies, to bring actions for declarations of incompatibility. There is no overarching scrutiny committee that systematically monitors whether Acts of Parliament comply with Convention rights. Instead, the system relies on affected individuals (or organisations supporting individuals) to identify and challenge incompatibilities.
This reactive approach has several weaknesses:
- Litigation barriers: Litigation is expensive and time-consuming, which may deter individuals from bringing claims
- Vulnerable groups: Some human rights violations may affect vulnerable or marginalised groups who lack the resources to challenge them
- Standing issues: There may be situations where legislation is incompatible with Convention rights but no individual with sufficient standing has been directly affected
These gaps mean that some incompatible laws may never be challenged or corrected.
Key cases on human rights law
R v DPP ex parte Kebilene (1999) demonstrates that UK courts were already considering Convention rights even before the HRA 1998 came into force. Three defendants were charged with terrorist offences under the Terrorism Act 1989. The trial judge ruled that section 16A of that Act was contrary to Article 6 ECHR (the right to a fair trial). The House of Lords agreed with the trial judge's assessment. This case illustrates judicial willingness to engage with Convention rights and foreshadowed the approach that would become mandatory once the HRA 1998 came into force.
Further Important Cases
Further important cases that demonstrate the application of the HRA 1998 include:
- Re: Medicaments (No. 2), Director General of Fair Trading v Proprietary Association of Great Britain (2001)
- R v A (2001)
- H v Mental Health Review Tribunal (2001)
These cases show how courts have used their powers under the HRA 1998 to interpret legislation compatibly with Convention rights and, where necessary, to make declarations of incompatibility.
Remember!
Key Points to Remember:
-
The Human Rights Act 1998 was passed in 1998 and came into force in 2000, incorporating ECHR Articles 2-12, 14, and First Protocol Articles 1-3 into UK domestic law
-
Section 3 requires courts to interpret all legislation compatibly with Convention rights "so far as it is possible to do so"—but this phrase creates an important limitation allowing the government to avoid full compliance
-
Section 6 makes it unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights, though this does not include Parliament itself
-
Courts can issue declarations of incompatibility under Section 4, but these do not invalidate the incompatible law or provide an immediate remedy—and the government is not required to amend the law under Section 10(2)
-
The Act faces significant criticism for:
- Containing loopholes that allow government avoidance of Convention rights
- Challenging parliamentary sovereignty
- Not requiring mandatory amendments to incompatible laws
- Relying on individuals rather than systematic oversight to identify violations
-
The relationship between the HRA 1998 and devolved administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland is particularly important, as Convention rights are embedded in their devolution statutes, making repeal of the Act politically and legally complicated