We are all protected by the Human Rights Act, regardless of age or wealth. Every year, hundreds of people use it to secure justice and protect their rights.
For help with the Human Rights visa or other visa related matters, you can simply contact us 02033939272. You can complete the online form as well.
This law was passed in the UK is referred to as the Human Rights Act, which was enacted in 1998.
The Human Rights Act is an act of parliament of the United Kingdom that provides a legal instrument for the implementation of the European Convention of Human Rights in the country which came into force on 2 October 2000 after the royal assent was given on 9 November 1998. Its aim was to incorporate the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom. The Act gives the possibility for a UK court to read a remedy for a violation of a Convention right instead of appealing to the ECHR in Strasbourg.
Besides, it allows you to protect your rights in the United Kingdom courts, and ensure that public authorities, including the Government, Police, and local councils, do not discriminate against any person, and must act with respect and in a dignified manner to everyone.
The Human Rights Act applies to every person physically present in the United Kingdom and it does not matter if they are a citizen of the United Kingdom or of any other country, they are a minor or an adult they are a prisoner, a student, a farmer, or a bus driver, a man or woman, a child or a grown-up, they can and should invoke the Human Rights Act.
That is why even different businesses or organisations (such as Liberty) can follow it.
The human rights safeguarded by this Act are based on the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Act “given further effect” to the freedoms and rights guaranteed by the European Convention. That means:
The human rights listed in the European Convention on Human Rights are protected by the Human Rights Act. These are called Convention rights.
In the United Kingdom, the Human Rights Act of 1998 is in place to protect human rights. The Act must be complied with by public authorities referring to the NHS or a local authority. It is probably possible for you to claim a remedy under the Act if you have found that your human rights have been breached by a public authority.
The basic charter of your human rights is in the ”Articles” of the Act. Each article discusses one right. These are collectively referred to as “the Convention Rights” and are all extracted from the ECHR:
Conventions or human rights examples include:
Here is a detailed version of the Human Rights Act 1998:
The Human Rights Act mandates all UK courts and tribunals to uphold and scrutinize domestic legislation in a manner, which bears as close a resemblance as possible to the rights contained within the European Convention of Human Rights. If that is not possible then it can make a “declaration of incompatibility.” The declaration enables the revision of the legislation with the help of the special, rather swift procedure, stated by section 10 of the Act; nevertheless, the legislation is not annulled. Out of the 20 declarations made up to September of 2006, six of them were reversed on appeal.
All UK bodies whether central, local or those acting as public authorities are under the Human Rights Act. It is, however, silent on the Parliament’s exclusion while it is performing its legislative power.
Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is one of the broadest sections of the Human Rights Act as it requires the courts to interpret the primary and secondary legislation in such a manner as to eliminate any inconsistency with the Act and the rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.
This interpretation, however, goes far beyond the normal process of statutory interpretation and even takes into account prospective legislation, which means that the Human Rights Act cannot be impliedly repealed.
Three methods of interpretation have been used by courts:
Courts have been very reluctant to “read out” parts of statutes because they do not give it an interpretation that could go against the provisions of the legislature. They may label something as incompatible under section 4 if it cannot at all be reasonably regarded as so intended.
The Illegal Migration Act of 2023 is out of Section 3.
Section 3 cannot be utilized to make a rational interpretation of primary or secondary legislation in a way that is compatible with the articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are a part of the Human Rights Act, and courts may declare legislation being incompatible using sections 4 and 10. In such cases, the interpretation of the act may cause an organization to act in ways that contradict the purpose of the law in the first place. It is considered as a final safeguard. A declaration of incompatibility may be made by any superior court of the United Kingdom.
A government minister may under Section 10 make a “remedial order” when a European Court of Human Rights decision has been made or a declaration of incompatibility is given, to which there is no right of appeal.
As stated under Section 10, a government minister can make a “remedial order” in respect of a Barney Ackroyd type judgment or declaration of incompatibility which can not be the subject of an appeal.
A remedy order may “make such amendments to the legislation as [the Minister] considers necessary to remove the incompatibility.” Remedial orders require resolutions of each House of Parliament to be made but it is not a full legislative measure. Parliamentary approval may only occur in retrospect in cases of extremely urgent need.
Thus, while remedial orders are capable of working such changes retroactively, no person may be convicted of a crime for having committed the act solely because of the remedial order.
However, where entirely new laws are occasionally necessary, Section 10 has been used to amend legislation in some minor way so that it complies with the rights set out in the Convention.
There have been twenty-nine decisions citing incompatibility up to December 2014 of which
As of December 2014, Smith v. There was only one issue, namely, Scott, which concerned the serving of the voting rights of convicts in the UK.
Although the Act applies strictly to the public entity according to its definition, its precedents have gradually been enforced in private law matters between citizens, and therefore, there are scholars who argue that it has both the vertical and the horizontal effect, as in the case between the state and the citizen. This is because the Human Rights Act in Section 6 defines courts and tribunals as public bodies. What this entails is that their decisions must reflect and comply with the state’s human rights responsibilities even if the matter is domestic or international between citizens of the same state or the state and its people respectively excluding declarations of incompatibility. Thus, even where the action is between two private parties, the courts, that is, local courts have the duty to perform in respect of the Convention.
The decision made in June 2016 in the McDonald v. The case of McDonald & Ors [2016] explained how accountability of public powers is handled under private law. UKSC 28. Here, the UK Supreme Court considered whether, in terms of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Human Rights Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the court is to have regard to the proportionality of the eviction of a residential occupier in the consideration of the possession claim by the private sector owner against the occupier.
The Supreme Court held to the effect that it cannot review the terms of a contract that have been freely entered into by the parties thereto unless the government has thereby clearly or by necessary implication authorised any weighing of rights. Hence, under European Human Rights Article 8, it is impossible for the courts to decide on proportionality when the parties have a contract under the legislation regulations of the contract.
For more details contact our human rights lawyer at 02033939272.
According to Section 8, UK judges have the authority to provide any remedy that is deemed suitable and reasonable.
When submitting a bill to parliament, a minister is required under Section 19 to provide a statement of compatibility or, in the event that they are unable to do so, to say that the government intends to move forward notwithstanding. Usually, the statement is released alongside the bill’s text.
If you need help with anything related to the Human Rights Act, our skilled UK attorneys can help. Call Now at 02033939272.
The human rights of citizens of Council of Europe member states is protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. The UK is included in this. The important thing is that the European Union is not the same as the Council of Europe.
The Human Rights Act safeguards every individual in the UK. For example, it does not matter if you are more or less a foreigner, a citizen of Great Britain, or an applicant for political asylum.
Public officials have to follow the provisions of the Human Rights Act. Subject to the provision of this law, they are required to protect and promote your human rights. They are obliged by the Human Rights Act to act in a way that upholds their human rights.
A public authority is an institution that carries out public functions of government and is controlled by law. This could be in the shape of a government ministry, hospital, judiciary, or any other chapter in the public service. Private groups such as Charities undertaking public functions also come under the public authorities, for instance, private prisons.
It has become the official rule that all actions of public officials have to be consistent with the Human Rights Act. In decisions affecting you personally, they have a duty to respect, promote and protect your human rights. When they launch rules or design services, companies must also follow the Human Rights Act.
You may not have your human rights violated by any public authority. If someone wants to kill you or harm you and wants to attack you physically, then you may also have to fight to protect your rights.
For instance, if the police think that a certain person poses a danger to your life, then they’re under a duty to protect you. If they fail to defend you they are likely to infringe Article 2 of the Constitution which protects your right to life.
According to the Human Rights Act, you are entitled to do something when your rights have been invaded by a public body. This means you may seek one from the government or you may seek it from the court of law.
While the Human Rights Act grants rights they impose duties only on governmental authorities. You have no ability to act against the person or any private organisation that has violated your human rights.
But the courts may ask, as well, whether your human rights were infringed too when you take someone to court for another reason like an unfair dismissal claim against your employer. This is in view of the fact that, like all public authorities, courts have a duty to take account of human rights in all cases that come before them.
