Individual Rights under the Human Rights Act - Essay Example

Individual Rights and the Human Rights Act The United Kingdom’s constitution is neither codified nor written. The national law operates on its own in the absence of a written constitution. Despite this, the people have individual rights, and Britain has long standing tradition, whereby the rights and civil liberties of UK citizens have been accorded protection. This tradition creates an environment in which the legal position of such civil rights is always a debatable matter. It is also uncertain as to the extent the people have these liberties, if any conflict arises between the unwritten liberties and the extant legislation. The European Convention on Human Rights which was formed in the year 1950 has been an international agreement, which has kept the UK bound by the ECHR. The UK adopted and integrated the ECHR in its national legislation, and operates in compliance with the provisions of the ECHR. As such, the ECHR protects the fundamental civil and political rights of all citizens of the European Union1. The UK enacted the Human Rights Act in the year 2000 and adapted the provisions of the ECHR in it. The courts in the UK have to respect the human rights laid down by the act. In the absence of a written constitution, the Human Rights Act protects the fundamental rights and civil liberties. The underlying objective of this Act is to comply with the rights provided by the ECHR, wherever possible. Therefore, the Human Rights Act strengthens the scope of the ECHR rights. The Human Rights Act strives hard to protect the fundamental rights of all citizens of the UK. The act ensures that an individual’s rights do not interfere with the rights of other individuals. On the other hand, the interests of the community should be treated as a whole. The ECHR also considered this aspect while drafting the Convention rights. Articles 8 to 11 of the ECHR provide that the community’s interests are protected. The first part of these Articles established the rights and the second part deals with the limitations of these rights2. The English courts have to follow the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights and interpret them in the cases coming before them. The Human Rights Act ensures that the Parliament invariably takes into account, while proposing legislation, that balance is maintained between individual’s rights and the interests of the community. Furthermore, the Human Rights Act also requires the English courts to comply with the legislation enacted by Parliament. It permits the High Courts or the Supreme Court to disallow any law that is in breach of the Convention rights, and any a law that is incompatible with the ECHR provisions. It is the responsibility of the Parliament to review such conflicting laws and to amend them. As such the Human Rights Act balances the individual’s rights, the duties of the lawmakers and the judiciary3. All public authorities should ensure that their activities with regard to human rights are compatible with the ECHR provisions and fall within the scope of the Acts of Parliament. Prior to the Human Rights Act, the governmental authorities had to frequently review the existing laws and procedures, in order to ensure that they were compatible with the standards of human rights. Government Departments had to search out the best possible ways to protect human rights and respect Convention rights4. The Human Rights Act attempts to make the people realize the practicability of their rights. This led to understanding between the people and the government departments, which enabled them to cooperate with the state bodies. The overall effect was to engender openness and active participation of the people in the democratic process. This served to further promote the unity and integrity of society. The government widely publicized the importance of Human Rights Act, which led every individual to realize their basic rights. With this knowledge, people have come forward to complain against any decision of the government that violates their rights. Instances of such complaints can be seen with regard to the unwarranted interference of the government with the right to respect for private life and family life. Therefore, considerable public attention was brought to bear on the unlawful activities of public authorities, which could result in the breach of their human rights5. In the Diane Pretty case, Diane Pretty sought assisted suicide with the help of her husband. She filed a petition to the Director of Public Prosecution to allow her husband to do so and requested an undertaking from him, whereby her husband would not be prosecuted for having assisted her in committing suicide. The Director refused to do so. She brought the matter before the court. The court held that her request conflicted with the provisions of the ECHR and there were no such right to euthanasia provided by the ECHR6. In another case, the court turned down the appeal of the plaintiffs, which had challenged the Hunting Act 2004 and contended that it was in violation of the Human Rights Act. The court ruled that the plaintiffs were precluded from invoking Article 8 of the ECHR. The court also clarified that even if the Convention rights could be invoked, the court would hold that the interference of the Hunting Act 2004 with human rights is justified and cannot be challenged7. There are several cases that challenged interference with human rights. For instance the courts held that the existing statutes, with regard to the supply of water8, the regulation of the profession of the lawyers9, and the gathering and preserving of embryos by health care clinics10 were compatible and compliant with the ECHR provisions. In R (Begum) v Denbigh High School, the House of Lords decided that the refusal of school management to permit the plaintiff to wear a jilbab in school would cause interference with the principles of Article 9 ECHR. However, such interference could be justified11. Similarly, the constitutional right of freedom of expression was constantly being interfered with by the libel laws. This would be in breach of Article 10 ECHR12. These cases establish that the Human Rights Act is reliant on the common law principles to a certain extent. Thus the courts recognize the element of common law constitutional rights in cases invoking the European Convention on Human Rights. In A (No.2) v Home Secretary, the House of Lords concluded that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission and courts could not allow evidence that had been obtained through torture, which was based on common law. However, the courts could allow evidence obtained through the Human Rights Law13. The Human Rights Act protects individuals from both mental and physical torture, inhuman punishment, degrading treatment and any sort of deportation or extradition. The Act requires governmental authorities to abstain from inflicting such inhuman treatments on individuals. In Z v United Kingdom, it was alleged that a public authority had failed to protect four children by procrastinating in bringing about their separation from their mother. The children were subjected to unbearable abuse and neglect for more than four years. The Court ruled that there was a positive obligation on the authority, which required him to remove the children. It also opined that the authority had violated Article 3 ECHR provision for having failed to separate them from their mother, immediately on coming to know that the children were being subjected to torture14. In another case a woman, addicted to heroin and suffering from asthma, was sentenced to four months imprisonment. While serving the sentence, she developed heroin withdrawal symptoms; but the nursing staff in the prison, did not call the doctor or shift her to a hospital. She died to delayed medical attention. The Court found the jail staff to have been guilty of gross negligence and of having subjected the deceased to inhuman treatment15. In Harrow LBC v Qazi, the House of Lords held that the plaintiffs could not invoke Article 8 ECHR, since it does not provide a right to home. However, it does provide a right to respect for a person’s home, along the lines of the right to privacy16. In Douglas v. Hello, the Court of Appeal stressed the need for developing wider scope of applicability for privacy rights17. In contrast to this decision, the House of Lords in Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Wainwright held that the English law did not provide any cause of action for invasion of privacy18. Campbell v. Mirror Group. In this case the House of Lords held that reporters and journalists should shoulder the responsibility for their articles relating to strictly confidential matters, and that the publication of such intimate and purely personal information would entail serious and adverse consequences19. The human rights law provides special protection to victims. In addition, their objective is to ensure that no person is deprived of respect and his dignity. Several cases have clearly established that it is essential to prevent physical and mental harm to victims, and to safeguard their privacy and prevent their being browbeaten in the court. Nevertheless, on occasion, in order to comply with the provisions of the Human Rights Act; the government can and should interfere with the individual rights so as to ensure the safety of society at large. Bibliography 1. A (No.2) v Home Secretary ([2005] 3 WLR 1249 2. Campbell v Mirror Group (2004) 2 WLR 1232 3. Department for Constitutional Affairs, October 2006. A Guide to the Human Rights Act 1998. Retrieved 03 March, 2008. 4. Douglas v Hello (2001) QB 967 5. Evans v Amicus Healthcare [2005] Fam 1 6. Harrow LBC v Qazi (2003) 3 WLR 792 7. Holder v Law Society [2003] 1 WLR 1059 8. Marcic v Thames Water [2004] 2 AC 42 9. Mc Glinchey and Others v. the United Kingdom, no. 50390/99, 29 April 2003 10. R (Begum) v Denbigh High School ([2006] 2 WLR 719 11. R (Countryside Alliance) v Attorney-General [2006] EWCA Civ 817 12. R (Pretty) v DPP [2002] 1 AC 800 13. Reynolds v Times Newspapers [2001] 2 AC 127 14. Secretary of State for Home Department v Wainwright (2003) 2 WLR 1137 15. Z v United Kingdom [2001] 2 FCR 246 Read More