The Human Rights Act 1998

Name:Institution:Course:Tutor:Date of submission
The Human Rights Act 1998
Question 1
The Human Rights Act 1998 is one of the most analyzed topics with regards to the United Kingdom legal system and environment. The act - which became functional in October of 2000 - received its Royal Assent on the 9th day of November in 1998. It is also important to note that the act is as a result of the effective functionality of the parliament of United Kingdom. There were different goals to be accomplished through the implementation of the Human Rights Act but the main aim was to ensure that the law in the United Kingdom was well versed with the fundamental freedoms and human rights presented in the European Convention of Human. After the implementation of the Human Rights Act, courts in the United Kingdom were provided with the power to intervene in conventional rights cases. Before the act was implemented, the various cases which involved the breach of convention rights had to be handled in the European Court of Human Rights located in Strasbourg. The European Convention of Human Rights is the represents the core within the analysis of the impact of the Human Rights Act of 1998 in the interpretation of law by judges and other sections of the judiciary (Hickman and Craig)
Before the implementation of the act, the involvement of judges with in matters shaping up or concerned to the European Convention on Human Rights was maintained at minimum level. Most of the judges were in possession of background information with regards to the convention but there was very little with regards to practical activities taking place within the various courts and judicial institutions. It is important to assess the European Convention on Human Rights in handling the topic presented in the impact of the Human Rights Act on the interpretation of law by judges (Lairg, Andrew and Irvine).
Formally referred to as the convention for the protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, the European Convention on Human Rights is one of the world`s most renowned international treaties. Within the legal arena, it is among the top most discussed treaties that have impacted the interpretation of law in the United Kingdom and Europe at large. The treaty has a rich history which dates back to the year 1950 when it was being drafted. The Council of Europe is an international European organization whose main aim is to establish and constantly develop the cooperation of countries within the European continent with regards to the rule of law, human rights, cultural cooperation, democratic development, and the legal standards. Today, there are 47 member states that shape up the Council of Europe. Due to the fact that this council is concerned with the interpretation of law within its member states, there have been different adjustments made with regards to how judges interpret the law within the various member states. The interpretation of law within the various member states in the Council of Europe has been under constant harmonization. This has been the main reason behind the unification of judicial operations within the European councils. Today, the judges under the council of Europe seek to ensure that they interpret the law according to the statutes that established - and continue to develop - the council of Europe (Lairg, Andrew and Irvine).
Judges in the United Kingdom are not only expected to embrace the Human Rights Act within the course of interpreting the law, but also ensure that they embrace the aims of the Council of Europe in their endeavors. Protection of human rights has become the foundation through which judges in the United Kingdom - and neighboring countries - interpret the law. Today, judges execute their functions with the fundamental freedoms and human rights being the main reference points. The European Convention on Human Rights has become the one of the most important legal statutes since the implementation of the Human Rights Act of 1998. Here, judges have been presented with a new - and revised - legal framework through which they are to operate (Forsyth)
The conventional rights and their interpretation form the basis through which the law is interpreted in the United Kingdom in accordance to the Human Rights Act of 1998. The legislation has also been affected by this act and this is presented in the interpretation of legislation, declaration of incompatibility and the Right of Crown to intervene. Interpretation of law within the public authorities has also changed as a result of the implementation of the Human Rights Act of 1998. Judges are expected to ensure that their interpretation of law is in accordance to the various Acts of public authorities, proceedings, judicial remedies, and judicial acts governing the practice of law within the public authorities. The power to take remedial action, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, thought, and conscience are also important factors with regards to the change that has taken place in the practice of law with regards to the implementation of the Human Rights Act of 1998. Derogations and reservations are also an important element with regards to the analysis of justice processes and how these have changed since the implementation of the Human Rights Act. Judges have been forced to embrace a legal culture that takes into account the role and impact of the statements of compatibility in their various operations (Jones and Gnanapala).
Some of the greatest developments that have been made with regards to the judicial processes after the implementation of the Human Rights Act of 1998 can be traced to the convention rights. After the implementation of the Human Rights Act, the judges in the various member states embraced the convention rights. Through these rights, cases were handled differently and the conventions became a decisive factor in the handling of cases. Some of the most important sections of the convention rights are outlined in articles 2 to 12 of the convention. The statutes shaping up Article 14 of the convention rights are also an important as they have brought transformation with regards to the interpretation of law by the various judges. Article 2 is one of the most common articles as it deals with the right to life. In the Article, judges have learnt to interpret - into action - the clauses within the law that outline the importance of everyone`s life. According to Article 2, the life of each individual is protected under the law. The only exception to this law is with regards to the court actions when executing a sentence following the legal conviction of an individual. This article also provides for instances where the right to life can be overlooked. For instance, in the defense of any individual as pertaining to unlawful violence is accepted by law. This not only made judges re-evaluate their stand with regards to the Right to life, but also brought up important elements with regards to unlawful violence and self defense. Deprivation of life can also be allowed in the course of preventing the escape of an individual who has been lawfully detained as well as in the process of effecting lawful arrests. Article 2 also has exceptions with regards to the lawful actions taken for the sole purpose of either quelling or controlling an insurrection or a riot (Lairg, Andrew and Irvine).
The deprivation of life is an important title to take not of with regards to this topic. Judges has embraced the stipulations laid out in this section of Article 2 in the interpretation of law. According to the article, the state has been bestowed with the responsibility of ensuring that there are mechanisms in place so as to protect the life of every individual. The law contains rules through which the various agents of the state are expected to stay within the regulated boundaries with regards to the usage of lethal force. This article also bestows upon the state, the responsibility to ensure that suspicious deaths are investigated and that life is protected within specified circumstance (Jones and Gnanapala).
Article 12 of the Convention on Human Rights has changed the manner in which judges interpret cases related to marriages and relationships. According to this article, men and women who have attained the marriageable age have been provided with the right to not only marry, but also found a family. This is however confined to the national laws through which the various rights therein are governed. The main impact of this article is brought out in the argument against same sex marriages as well as in the analysis of family and relationship cases. Since the implantation of this legal clause, judges have had to deal with varied cases which ranged from lack of recognition for homosexual marriages to the lack of opportunity to a transsexual to marry an individual who is of now-opposite gender. Some of the headlines with regards to this discussion also include the lack of an opportunity to get married to a prisoner as well as the lack of marriage options for a person who is found responsible in a divorce for the period of the first three years after the divorce (Lairg, Andrew and Irvine).
Article 3 has had a profound impact on the interpretation of law in both theory and actions. This article is concerned with unfair treatment of human beings. Here, the article prohibits any degrading or inhuman punishment or treatment. The article has been set to ensure that all acts of torture are prohibited and well taken care of by the law. The article has been important in the change instituted with regards to the interpretation of law concerning police violence, detention conditions, and human rights within the law institutions. The article has ensured the law has set in place measures to ensure that there is prohibition of extradition to a foreign state in the event the person being extradited will be subjected to torture and or other similar conditions (Forsyth)
Liberty and security have always been important factors influencing the effective functionality of the law. One of the main assessment tools with regards to the assessment of law is brought out in how the legal system has been structured to cater for liberty and security of the individuals being governed. Article 5 of the conventional rights is specifically designed to ensure that there is security and liberty provided for within the constitution. The article states that every individual has been provided with the right to liberty as well as security. The law however interprets the liberty and security of a person as being compound concepts. This has been important as it has changed the manner in which judges interpret the law with regards to security and libe...