CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - Term Paper Example

Prior to the HR Act 1998, any individual seeking to challenge the government on breach of rights as provided by the Convention, usually sought refuge at the European Court of Human Rights at Strasbourg, after proving that there was no remedy in the courts in the United Kingdom. From the perspective of individuals, the HR Act 1998 has implications at the workplace, in the development of legislation, ministerial decisions and use of government policy regarding prosecutions or the enforcement of law (Home Office, 2000).

Implications of HR Act 1998 The HR Act 1998 came into force in 2000. From the time it came into force it strengthens and gives effect to the rights and freedoms that are available to all citizens through the ECHR. The HR Act 1998 on its own has not created any new statutory or common law rights, but it places the onus of responsibility on public authorities like government departments, local authorities, borough councils, health authorities and the law enforcement agencies to take actions in such a way that it is compatible to the rights provided to individuals by ECHR.

Furthermore, the HR Act 1998 also makes courts and tribunals duty bound to take into consideration any relevant judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights into consideration when settling disputes over ECHR conferred rights in the United Kingdom. In such an exercise, it is also necessary for the courts to take into consideration any opinion or decision of the European Commission for Human Rights and the decision of the Committee of Ministers under Article 46 on the jurisdiction of the European Commission for Human Rights.

In addition, the reading of primary and subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom must be read in such a way as not to reduce their validity, continuing operation and validity and given effect in a compatible manner to the ECHR (Chandler, 2003). An important distinction has to be borne in mind in that the HR Act of 1998 has only vertical direct effect. This means that only civil servants and public sector undertaking employees can sue their employees, which include government departments, local authorities, borough councils, the police and other public or quasi-public authorities for damages for any believed breaches of their rights guaranteed under ECHR.

This avenue is not available for private sector employees. Workers in the private sector having grievances with regard to breach of one or more of their statutory or contractual rights may pray on the basis of a particular right as provide by the ECHR, but cannot bring proceedings against employers solely on the basis of the alleged breach of this right provided by ECHR. However, the can expect the courts in the United Kingdom to interpret the law in a way that foes no harm to their rights guaranteed trough ECHR (Chandler, 2003).

Thus full implications of the HR Act 1998 to a certain degree will depend on the manner in which interpretation of primary and subordinate legislation in the United Kingdom is read against alleged breaches of human rights as guaranteed by the ECHR. Criticism of the HR Act 1998 lies in this aspect, for it is not clearly worded and the English judiciary has been used to examining words in detail, but will now have to examine and interpret on the basis of purpose and intent and also take into consid