The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) is a beacon of hope for aggrieved individuals and corporations in the United Kingdom downcast in the conclusion that they have been let down by the British courts. Of those aggrieved the majority comprise celebrities, royals, public figures holding top positions, even a section of common citizens, and the media.
The Act has sufficient clauses to assist those enmeshed in legal complications with the fourth estate. Its provisions hold out the olive branch to hapless victims of snoopy, uncouth journalists, and those taken into custody for serious offences such as acts of terrorism. It is a step in the right direction for fairer trial and accurate justice.
The courts are empowered to impose corrective, punitive or deterrent measures, although in the context of law relating to civil liberties in the United Kingdom, sometimes the sentences delivered by the honorable judges are found either too lenient with rogue elements or unduly harsh on law abiding plaintiffs.
The media in UK has lobbied hard to dilute the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 in its original form, and continue to do so to this day. The reasons are obvious. The HRA is permanent hindrance to their right to free expression. This Act has come as breath of fresh air especially to celebrities and powerful individuals caught in the glare of an uncompromising media. (Privacy And The Press)
The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force in the UK on 2nd October 2000. ...