The Human Rights Act has revolutinized the way in which judges interpret statutes Research Paper

Name:
Instructor:
Course:
Date of submission:
The Human Rights Act Has Revolutionized the Way In Which Judges Interpret Statutes
The United Kingdom was not initially a single country as it is today; instead, it was created from a group of countries that came together. As a result, the legal system that the United Kingdom puts in practice is a product of these countries’ legal systems. These legal systems include that of the English law, the Scots law and the Northern Ireland law (Bowcott 2012). All of the three legal systems apply in different parts of the kingdom. The system is based on the common law, which leans on the civil laws that date back to the Middle Ages.
Although most of the laws that are used in these parts of the kingdom are different in terms of level of detail common law, they have a substantive chunk of their laws that is applied across the whole kingdom. These countries became one, after they signed a treaty to form the United Kingdom. The Article 19 as a result, of the other countries’ political union, captures part of that treaty. In the year 1707, through the acts of union, that created the Great Britain, stated that there was a union between the kingdom and Scotland, although the later was to remain independent as a legal system (Mou, 2012). The same took place in the year, 1800, where the United Kingdom and the partner Ireland were to maintain different courts, although they shared the same legal system. It is crucial to note that the highest court in the land is Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. These means that all the civil and criminal cases from the independent countries come here for the final hearing (Bowcott 2012). Before the Supreme Court was formed in the year 2009, there was House of Lords committee that practiced the roles of the court.
United Kingdom human rights
The laws that govern the right s of the people of the United Kingdom, spreads its tap root in the 1689 English Bill of Rights, while borrowing some of its parts from the European legislations. These laws have had their share of criticism from the public, activists and some of the scholars in and out of the kingdom. Some of this criticism has from the fact that the legal system has had de facto and de jure human right laws that are discriminating in nature. To most of the people, this is a clear violation of their rights as the citizens of the United Kingdom. These events are surrounded by mostly the national crises, which are due to security (Equality and human rights commission 2013). In particular, the rights have been criticized to be leaning onto the human rights of the offenders while those of their victims are overlooked. Some the cases that have brought these issues to the lime light include the case of the Afghan hijackers, which took place in 2006, and the Laerco Chindamo. The conservatives and other critics of the human rights have been calling for the review of the human right among other related legislation.
The citizen
When one is a citizen to any country that is sovereign and most importantly democratic, the state owes it to its people to extend to them their certain kind of protection that is spelled out in the fundamentals of their rights as human. This position will only hold if the citizen on the other hand meets some certain set of requirements as a citizen of the country in question (Mou 2012). In the English laws, the concept has not had a lot of gravity, as the Britons have extended these rights as they are treated as subjects to the crown (Liberty 2013).
Britain and Britons
Unlike the case of the United States of America where the law is very categorical about how the state owes it to its citizens to offer them protection, the British law has not been very kind. However the common law and some statutory provisions define the relation of the state and its citizens. The state however, requires the citizens to perform certain duties in return for the half-hearted rights (Bowcott 2012).
The interpretation of the human rights in the United Kingdom
Before the human right act of 1998 was enacted, the European convention was the only statutory that was relevant for interpretation. Unless the statutory was ambiguous, the interpretation would not mean much as it would not be a source of the human rights. As such, the Human Rights Act of the year 1998 gave effect to the rights that are contained in the European convention. This ,therefore, means that the rights that are stipulated in the Human rights Act of 1998, should be considered in the Strasbourg courts, although is also important to note that under section 2, the courts are not in any way bound to following the same. However, the Human Rights Act section 3 imposes upon the courts to interpret the domestic laws in a way that is deemed compatible with the European Convention rights. With the support incompatibility, the courts are not bound to construe the compatibility of a statute, but they can make a declaration of that kind.
It is however worrying that the Human Rights Act does leave enough room for the ministers to enact into law legislations that can violate the rights in the European Convention if they so wish. Although the interpretation of the European convention has been very dynamic over the years, it is also important to note that the statutes from the members countries may at one point conflict since the jurisprudence by then may have changed and probably moved on. It is worth of note the section 3 of the Human Rights Act, does require the domestic courts in the UK (Equality and human rights commission 2013), in the context of the European Convention, to construe a legislation with regard to the time that the judgment is to be passed.
The human rights fight
In the words of Eleanor Roosevelt, it is important that the idea of human right is taken well at home, as they will not have meaning anywhere else. If the people of the kingdom do not feel protected by the rights that are extension of their citizenship, then extending the same rights to the other people and in this case the offenders will not be taken well. It is not just the citizens that will not take it well, but a country that does not respect its own people will not influence even the international community. In the recent past, the government has been under strict scrutiny and criticism, with allegations that is bent on destroying the reputation of the country to the world (Bowcott 2012). There was even an incident where the justice secretary and home secretary had threatened on separate occasions to withdraw from the courts. While the conservative party was dealing accusations that they were caving in to the discriminative human rights, after they were defeated in the by-elections in Eastleigh. Most of the leading lawyers felt that the ministers in the UK are putting the state at risk of turning into pariah state. This would mean that the UK joins the likes of the states like Belarus, which up to date has never taken the step to sign the Europ...