Human Rights in UK

After World War II, Europe focused on protecting fundamental rights, leading to the creation of
international documents like the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. The
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was drafted by the Council of Europe and has been
binding on the UK since 1953. It is one of the most important international human rights documents for
European countries.

Before the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), fundamental rights in the UK were mainly protected
through common law and Parliament, often referred to as "civil liberties." The HRA 1998 incorporated
most rights from the ECHR into UK law, changing the way rights are protected and affecting the role of
domestic courts. This shift has caused some challenges in the relationship between different branches of
government, leading to debates about who should have the final say on human rights issues. The issue
has become more complicated due to concerns over terrorism.

In recent years, there has been debate over whether the HRA 1998 should be replaced with a new law,
possibly a "British Bill of Rights." Understanding how human rights are protected in the UK requires
looking at both the historical approach and the changes brought by the HRA 1998. The topic also
connects with other legal areas, such as parliamentary supremacy and judicial review, which have been
discussed in previous chapters.

Defining Human Rights:

According to the Equality and Human Rights Commission:

Human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world, from birth until
death. They apply regardless of where you are from, what you believe or how you choose to live your
life…These basic rights are based on values like dignity, fairness, equality, respect and independence.

Categories of rights:

Rights are generally classified into two main categories: civil and political rights, and social and
economic rights.

Civil and political rights are also known as "first-generation rights" and include fundamental freedoms
such as the right to life and freedom of speech.

Social and economic rights, known as "second-generation rights," cover matters like the right to work
and the right to education.

Civil and political rights are traditionally seen as limits on government power, preventing the state from
interfering in individual freedoms. In contrast, social and economic rights often require governments to
take action and allocate financial resources to ensure their fulfillment.

There is also a third category called "third-generation rights" or "collective rights," which apply to
groups rather than individuals. According to Costigan and Stone, these include rights such as self-
determination, which focus on collective interests rather than personal freedoms.
The International Dimension:

The end of the Second World War led to the creation of new international and European agreements to
protect human rights. This was driven by a desire for unity, peace, and the prevention of past atrocities
from happening again. European nations recognized the importance of protecting human rights and
agreed that these issues should not be limited to national concerns but addressed at an international
level.

United Nations and International Bill of Human Rights:

The United Nations was created and introduced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).
Today, the International Bill of Human Rights includes the UDHR, the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
(ICCPR), and its two Optional Protocols.

Difference between Article 2 of the ICCPR and Article 2 of the ICESCR.

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) Article 2 and International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) Article 2

One key difference between Article 2(1) of the ICCPR and Article 2(1) of the ICESCR is the nature of the
obligations imposed on states.

The ICCPR requires states to respect and ensure civil and political rights immediately to all individuals
within their jurisdiction, without discrimination. This means states must take direct action to protect
these rights and provide effective remedies if they are violated. The focus is on immediate
implementation and enforcement.

In contrast, the ICESCR takes a more gradual approach, requiring states to take steps progressively
towards the full realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. It acknowledges that these rights
depend on available resources and may require international cooperation. This means that while states
are expected to work towards these rights, they are not required to implement them immediately but
rather to make continuous progress.

The difference reflects the nature of the rights protected—civil and political rights require immediate
protection, whereas economic, social, and cultural rights often require long-term development and
resource allocation.

Council of Europe and ECHR

The Council of Europe was established in 1949 through the Statute of the Council of Europe, also known
as the Treaty of London. Its members drafted the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) in
1950, which came into force in September 1953. Initially, the Council of Europe consisted of 10
European states working together to protect human rights, but it has now expanded to 47 Member
States, all of whom have signed the Convention. The ECHR was inspired by the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights (UDHR), but it is narrower in scope and less ambitious in its coverage.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was primarily drafted by the member states of the
Council of Europe, an organization established in 1949 to promote human rights, democracy, and the
rule of law in Europe. The ECHR protects the human rights of individuals within the jurisdictions of its
member states, ensuring fundamental freedoms and rights are upheld across Europe.

The Council of Europe and the European Union are two separate organizations with different roles,
memberships, and legal frameworks. The Council of Europe, which created the European Convention
on Human Rights (ECHR), operates through traditional international law and focuses on human rights
protection. Its judicial body, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg, ensures
compliance with the ECHR.

On the other hand, the European Union (EU) is a political and economic union with its own legal system.
Its main judicial institution is the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg, which
interprets and enforces EU law among its member states.

There is often public and media confusion between these two institutions, but they are distinct. The
ECtHR deals with human rights cases under the ECHR, while the CJEU focuses on matters of EU law, such
as trade, competition, and free movement within the EU.

The institutions of the ECHR

Over time, institutional reforms have been introduced to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of the
European human rights system. In 1998, Protocol 11 to the ECHR established the current structure,
consisting of two main institutions: the Committee of Ministers and the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR). The Committee of Ministers is made up of the Foreign Affairs ministers of the Member
States and oversees the implementation of ECtHR judgments.

The ECtHR has 47 judges, one from each member state, organized into four sections. These judges are
elected for a non-renewable nine-year term by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.
Each member state nominates three candidates, from which one judge is selected. Once elected, judges
act independently and do not represent their home country when deciding cases.

Enforcement in the European Court of Human Rights

Individual petition – Article 34 ECHR

(ECtHR) if they believe their rights under the Convention have been violated by a state party. To bring a
case, the applicant must be a "victim" of the alleged violation. This means they must have been directly
affected by the state's actions or policies.

The UK accepted the right of individual petition in 1966, allowing its citizens to bring cases against the
UK government before the ECtHR. This mechanism provides individuals with an international avenue for
seeking justice if they believe their rights have not been upheld by national courts.

Interstate- Applications- Article 33 ECHR

Under Article 33 of the ECHR, a state can bring a case against another state for alleged violations of the
Convention. This is known as an inter-state application. Any member state (referred to as a High
Contracting Party) can refer a case to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) if they believe
another state has breached the Convention.

However, inter-state cases are rare, as most human rights cases are brought by individuals under Article
34. As of January 2020, only 24 inter-state cases had been filed since the ECHR came into force in 1953.
Many of these cases involve disputes between the same states over ongoing conflicts or human rights
violations.

Once the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decides that a case is admissible, it investigates the
application and tries to reach a friendly settlement between the parties. If a settlement is not possible,
the court issues a judgment.

If the ECtHR finds that a state’s laws violate the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the
state is obliged to remedy the situation, often by changing its laws or policies. The Committee of
Ministers of the Council of Europe is responsible for overseeing the implementation of ECtHR
judgments.

However, enforcing compliance in international law can be challenging. Pressure from other states and
international bodies plays a key role in ensuring that states follow ECtHR rulings. In extreme cases, a
state that persistently refuses to comply could face expulsion from the Council of Europe.

The ‘margin of appreciation’

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) follows the principle that the protection of human rights
under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is primarily the responsibility of national
legal systems. This means that national courts and authorities are given the first opportunity to uphold
and enforce rights.

The doctrine of the "margin of appreciation" allows states some flexibility in how they balance
individual rights and societal interests. Since national governments are more familiar with their own
legal, social, and cultural contexts, the ECtHR takes a restrained approach in reviewing national
decisions.

However, the ECtHR still has the final say in determining whether a state’s actions comply with the
ECHR. If a state goes beyond acceptable limits, Strasbourg will intervene and rule on whether the
national measures align with human rights protections.

Handyside v UK [1976] ECHR 5 can be used as example for further explanation.

Absolute and qualified rights

Most rights under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are not absolute and can be
limited or restricted in certain situations. Even fundamental rights, such as the right to life, can have
exceptions.
For example, state authorities may use lethal force if it is strictly necessary, such as in cases of self-
defense, preventing a crime, or quelling a riot. Similarly, rights like freedom of expression or freedom
of assembly can be restricted to protect national security, public order, or the rights of others.

These limitations must always be proportionate and justified, meaning that the state cannot go beyond
what is necessary to achieve a legitimate aim. If a restriction is excessive, the European Court of Human
Rights (ECtHR) can rule against the state.

- Absolute Rights:

Absolute rights are rights that cannot be restricted, limited, or derogated from under any
circumstances, even in times of war or national emergency. The best examples under the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are:

 Article 3 – Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment

 Article 4(1) – Prohibition of slavery and forced labor

One key case regarding Article 3 is Ireland v United Kingdom (1978), an inter-state case where the
ECtHR examined whether interrogation techniques used by the UK amounted to torture.

Another important case is Chahal v United Kingdom (1996), where the court ruled that the UK could
not deport Mr. Chahal to India because he faced a real risk of torture or inhuman treatment there. This
ruling established that a state can breach Article 3 if it deports someone to a country where they might
face such treatment.

This absolute prohibition on deportation in certain cases has created challenges for the UK
government, particularly when dealing with suspected terrorists who are foreign nationals but cannot
be deported due to the risk of mistreatment in their home countries. This has led to controversial
policies, such as detention without trial.

- Qualified Rights:

Most Convention rights are not absolute and can be restricted in certain circumstances. These are
divided into limited and qualified rights.

 Limited rights have specific exceptions outlined in the ECHR itself. For example, Article 5 (right
to liberty) allows restrictions if a person is lawfully imprisoned after a criminal conviction.
 Qualified rights can also be restricted, but only for specific reasons stated in the ECHR. These
include:
o Article 8 (right to privacy)
o Article 9 (freedom of thought, conscience, and religion)
o Article 10 (freedom of expression)
o Article 11 (freedom of assembly and association)

Restrictions on qualified rights must meet three key tests:

1. Legality – The restriction must be prescribed by law.

 2. Legitimate Aim – The restriction must serve a valid purpose, such as protecting national security
or public order.
3. Proportionality – The restriction must not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its aim.

Traditional protection of civil liberties in English law:

Before the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998), fundamental rights in English law were mostly
protected through common law and Parliamentary legislation. The courts played a key role in
safeguarding individual freedoms, as seen in Entick v Carrington (1765), where the courts ruled against
unauthorized state action. This aligned with Dicey's view of the rule of law.

The traditional system provided a ‘negative’ or ‘residual’ protection of rights, meaning individuals could
do anything not explicitly prohibited by law. However, this approach had two criticisms:

1. Parliament could easily limit rights through new legislation, sometimes without much scrutiny.
2. No positive statement of rights, making it harder for people to be aware of their rights.

Despite the HRA 1998, courts still protect rights through common law. For example, in R (UNISON) v
Lord Chancellor (2017), the Supreme Court struck down employment tribunal fees, ruling that they
restricted access to justice.

THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT 1998

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) was a landmark piece of legislation that incorporated the
European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into UK domestic law. It was designed to make ECHR
rights more accessible and enforceable within the UK legal system, reducing the need for individuals to
seek redress at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg.

Origins and Development of the HRA 1998

1. Labour Party Commitment and Legislative Process:

o The Labour Party included a commitment in its 1997 General Election manifesto to
introduce legislation incorporating the ECHR into UK law.
o After Labour’s electoral victory in 1997, the Queen’s Speech formally announced the
introduction of a Human Rights Bill.
o The government published a White Paper titled “Bringing Rights Home”, outlining the
key justifications and objectives of the proposed legislation.
2. Previous Attempts to Incorporate the ECHR:
o Before the HRA 1998, there were efforts by individual MPs and peers to introduce
similar legislation:
 1987: Sir Edward Gardner QC, a Conservative MP, introduced a Private
Member’s Bill in the House of Commons, aiming to incorporate the ECHR into
UK law. However, the Bill was unsuccessful.
  1994 & 1996: Lord Lester of Herne Hill QC, a Liberal Democrat peer, introduced
two separate Bills in the House of Lords to achieve the same objective, but
neither became law.

Objectives of the HRA 1998

The 1997 White Paper explained the purpose and necessity of the HRA 1998:

 To allow individuals to enforce their rights under the ECHR in UK courts, rather than requiring
them to take cases to Strasbourg.
 To reduce the cost and delay associated with bringing human rights cases before the ECtHR.
 To enhance awareness of human rights within UK society and institutions.

Key Features of the HRA 1998

1. Came into Force:

o The HRA 1998 was passed by Parliament in 1998 and came into force on 2 October
2000.
2. Making Convention Rights Enforceable in UK Courts:
o The Act allows individuals to rely on ECHR rights in UK courts, making human rights
litigation more accessible.
o Previously, individuals had to exhaust domestic remedies and then apply to the ECtHR,
often facing significant delays and expenses.
3. Obligations on UK Courts:
o Section 2: UK courts must "take into account" decisions of the ECtHR when interpreting
Convention rights. However, ECtHR rulings are not binding on UK courts.
o Section 3: UK courts must interpret domestic legislation “so far as it is possible to do
so” in a way that is compatible with the ECHR.
o Section 4: If a law is incompatible with the ECHR, courts can issue a “declaration of
incompatibility”, signaling the need for Parliament to amend the law (but not striking it
down, as Parliament remains sovereign).
4. Remedies for Human Rights Breaches:
o Under Section 6, public authorities (including the government, police, and local
councils) must act in accordance with the ECHR.
o If a public body breaches a Convention right, individuals can bring a case against it in
UK courts.

Parliamentary Sovereignty and the HRA 1998

 The HRA 1998 was passed as an ordinary statute of Parliament, meaning it does not have
special protection against repeal or amendment.
 Unlike in some other legal systems (e.g., the U.S. or Germany), the HRA does not override
parliamentary sovereignty.
 In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council (2002), Laws LJ described the HRA as a “constitutional
statute”, meaning it cannot be repealed by implication—it must be expressly repealed by
Parliament.
  However, despite being a constitutional statute, the HRA is not entrenched and can be
amended or repealed by a simple Act of Parliament.

Section 2 HRA 1998 – Taking Account of Strasbourg Jurisprudence

Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) requires UK courts to "take into account" decisions
of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) when interpreting Convention rights. However, this
does not mean that UK courts are bound to follow Strasbourg jurisprudence in the way they were
obliged to follow decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) under EU law.

Text of Section 2(1) HRA 1998

Section 2(1) states:

A court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with a Convention right must
take into account any—
(a) judgment, decision, declaration or advisory opinion of the European Court of Human Rights…

Key Features of Section 2

1. “Take into account” but not binding

o Unlike EU law (where CJEU rulings were binding), UK courts only need to consider
ECtHR decisions.
o This means UK courts may follow Strasbourg jurisprudence but are not obligated to do
so.
2. Encouragement to Align with ECtHR Precedent
o When combined with Section 6 (which classifies courts as public authorities required to
act compatibly with the ECHR), Section 2 encourages UK courts to align domestic law
with ECtHR rulings.
o The ECtHR’s case law influences domestic common law development, but UK courts
retain discretion.

The Mirror Principle and its Evolution

The "mirror principle" was established in:

 R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the
Regions [2003] 2 AC 295
 R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26

In Ullah, Lord Bingham stated that UK courts should not "outpace" Strasbourg by developing
Convention rights beyond what the ECtHR has decided, means they should not give more protection
than ECtHR. Instead, UK courts should mirror (similar approach) the ECtHR’s "clear and constant
jurisprudence" unless there are special circumstances.
However, the strict mirror approach has weakened over time.

UK Courts Deviating from Strasbourg Jurisprudence

1. R v Horncastle [2010] 2 AC 373

o A unanimous Supreme Court declined to follow an ECtHR decision on the admissibility
of hearsay evidence in criminal trials.
o Lord Phillips emphasized the importance of a “constructive dialogue” between UK
courts and the ECtHR rather than automatic deference.
2. Manchester City Council v Pinnock [2010] UKSC 45
o Lord Neuberger stated that the Supreme Court is not bound to follow every ECtHR
decision.
o He warned that strict adherence would be “impractical” and “inappropriate”,
preventing UK courts from engaging in legal dialogue with Strasbourg.
3. R (Hallam) v Secretary of State for Justice [2019] UKSC 2
o A five-to-two majority of the Supreme Court followed its own precedent (R (Adams) v
Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18), ignoring a later ECtHR ruling (Allen v
United Kingdom (2013)).

Crux and Key words of Section 2.

 Section 2 HRA 1998 does not impose a binding duty to follow ECtHR rulings, only an obligation
to consider them.
 Initially, the mirror principle led UK courts to closely align with Strasbourg jurisprudence.
 Over time, UK courts have asserted more independence, questioning and sometimes rejecting
ECtHR decisions to maintain flexibility in domestic human rights law.

Section 3 HRA 1998 – The ‘Interpretative Obligation’

What does Section 3 say?

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) says that UK courts must interpret all laws (both primary
and secondary legislation) as far as possible in a way that respects human rights.

This means that even if a law does not directly mention human rights, judges should read it in a way
that aligns with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)—but only if that interpretation is
possible.
Key Points About Section 3

1. UK courts must try to make laws "fit" with human rights

o If a law can be interpreted in a way that respects human rights, the courts must choose
that interpretation.
2. Courts cannot override Parliament
o Unlike countries like the USA, France, or Germany, where courts can strike down laws
that violate human rights, UK courts cannot invalidate laws.
o This is because of parliamentary sovereignty—only Parliament can change laws.
3. Courts can use a "creative" approach
o If a law’s wording is unclear, courts can reinterpret it to align with human rights, even if
that means slightly changing its meaning.
4. Limits on interpretation
o Courts cannot change the fundamental purpose of a law.
o If a law is completely incompatible with human rights, courts cannot rewrite it—they
can only issue a declaration of incompatibility (under Section 4 HRA).

Examples of Courts Using Section 3

1. R v A (No.2) [2001]
o The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 banned using evidence of a victim’s
past sexual history in court.
o However, the House of Lords decided that in some cases, a defendant might need to
introduce such evidence to have a fair trial (protected under Article 6 ECHR).
o The judges "read in" new wording to allow this evidence if necessary for fairness.
o Lord Steyn said judges must be flexible when interpreting laws under Section 3.
2. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004]
o The Rent Act 1977 said only a "spouse" (a husband or wife) could inherit a deceased
partner’s tenancy.
o The House of Lords interpreted this to include same-sex couples, ensuring equality
under Article 8 (right to family life) and Article 14 (non-discrimination).
o Lord Steyn said courts must avoid a literal approach and instead focus on protecting
fundamental rights.
o This case overturned a previous ruling (Fitzpatrick v Sterling Housing Association
[2001]), showing how the HRA changed UK law.

Crux and Key words of Section 3.

 Section 3 forces courts to interpret laws in a way that protects human rights, whenever
possible.
  Courts can be flexible and even slightly "rewrite" laws, but they cannot change the law’s core
purpose.
 If a law cannot be reinterpreted to align with human rights, courts cannot strike it down—they
must refer the issue to Parliament (using Section 4).
 This balance between judicial creativity and parliamentary sovereignty makes Section 3 a key
part of UK human rights law.

Section 4 HRA 1998 – Declaration of Incompatibility

What does Section 4 say?

When UK courts cannot interpret a law in a way that respects human rights (under Section 3), they can
issue a declaration of incompatibility under Section 4.

However, this declaration does not:

 Change the law

 Force Parliament to act
 Affect the validity or enforcement of the law

Instead, it signals to Parliament that a law conflicts with the European Convention on Human Rights
(ECHR) and should be changed.

Key Points About Section 4

1. Only Senior Courts Can Issue a Declaration

o High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court (and equivalent courts in Scotland &
Northern Ireland) can make this declaration.
2. Parliament is Not Forced to Change the Law
o The declaration is just a recommendation, but it creates political pressure to fix the
law.
3. Government Can Use a ‘Fast-Track’ Procedure (Section 10 HRA)
o If there are urgent reasons, ministers can quickly change the law using a remedial
order.
o This is known as a Henry VIII clause because it allows the government to amend primary
legislation without full parliamentary debate.
4. Applicants Do Not Automatically Get a Remedy
o Even if a law is found to be incompatible, the individual does not automatically get
justice.
o They must exhaust all UK legal options before taking their case to the European Court
of Human Rights (ECtHR).
5. Courts Can Choose Not to Issue a Declaration
o Sometimes, courts find a law incompatible but decide not to issue a declaration, usually
because they believe Parliament should handle the issue.
Examples of Declarations of Incompatibility

1. Bellinger v Bellinger [2003]

o The Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 only allowed marriage between a biological male
and female.
o Mrs. Bellinger, a transgender woman, argued this violated Article 8 (private life) and
Article 12 (right to marry).
o The House of Lords issued a declaration of incompatibility.
o This led to Parliament passing the Gender Recognition Act 2004, allowing transgender
people to legally marry.
2. Prisoner Voting Cases
o The Representation of the People Act 1983 banned prisoners from voting.
o The ECtHR ruled this was incompatible with human rights.
o In Smith v Scott [2007], a Scottish court issued a declaration of incompatibility.
o However, in Chester & McGeoch [2013], the UK Supreme Court refused to issue a
declaration, saying Parliament should decide.
3. Assisted Suicide – R (Nicklinson) v Ministry of Justice [2014]
o A case about whether the ban on assisted suicide was compatible with human rights.
o The Supreme Court was divided—some judges wanted a declaration of incompatibility,
others said it was a Parliamentary issue.

Crux and Key words of Section 4:

 Section 4 allows courts to highlight human rights issues in UK law but does not change the law
itself.
 Parliament is not forced to act, but declarations create political pressure for reform.
 Applicants must still take their case to the ECtHR if they want a remedy.
 Courts sometimes choose not to issue a declaration, especially for politically sensitive issues.

Section 6 HRA 1998 – Public Authorities

What does Section 6 say?

 Public authorities (including courts) must not act in a way that violates human rights, unless a
law specifically requires them to do so.
 This reflects the UK’s duty under Article 1 ECHR to protect human rights for everyone under its
jurisdiction.

Who is a Public Authority?

1. Core Public Authorities – These are obviously public bodies, such as:
o Government departments (e.g., Home Office, NHS)
o Police
 o Local councils
o Courts and tribunals
2. Hybrid Public Authorities – Private organisations can be considered public authorities if they
perform public functions (e.g., providing healthcare or social services on behalf of the
government).
o Case Example: YL v Birmingham City Council [2007]
 A private care home was providing services to publicly funded residents.
 The House of Lords ruled (3-2) that it was not a public authority, meaning it
was not bound by the Human Rights Act.
 This decision was controversial because it allowed privately run care homes to
avoid human rights obligations.
 Parliament responded by passing the Health and Social Care Act 2008, which
made private care homes public authorities when they provide care on behalf
of the state.

Parliament’s Exemption from Section 6

 Parliament itself is NOT a public authority under the HRA.

 This means Parliament can pass laws that infringe human rights if it chooses to do so.
 Courts cannot strike down such laws; instead, they can:
1. Interpret laws in a human-rights-friendly way (Section 3 HRA).
2. Issue a Declaration of Incompatibility (Section 4 HRA), which does not force Parliament
to act but puts political pressure on it.

Crux of Section 6.

 Public authorities (including courts) must respect human rights.

 Private organisations can be public authorities if they provide public services (as clarified by
the Health and Social Care Act 2008).
 Parliament remains sovereign and can pass laws that conflict with human rights, but courts can
highlight these conflicts through interpretation or declarations of incompatibility.

Section 7 HRA 1998 – Who Can Bring a Claim?

To bring a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998, a person must have "standing", meaning they have
a sufficient interest in the case.

Who Can Bring a Claim?

 Only a "victim" can bring a claim under Section 7.

 A "victim" is defined according to Article 34 ECHR, which means:
 o An individual who has suffered a violation of their Convention rights.
o A non-governmental organisation (NGO) or group of individuals that has been directly
affected.

Important Limitations:

 Pressure groups and representative associations cannot bring a claim unless they themselves
are victims or potential victims of a rights violation.
 Public authorities (e.g., government bodies) cannot be victims and cannot bring claims under
the HRA.

Key Case Law Example

 Pressure groups & NGOs cannot act on behalf of others unless they are directly affected.
 Example: A human rights organisation cannot challenge a law on behalf of others unless it is
itself a victim.

Crux of Section 7:

 Only "victims" can bring claims under the HRA—this prevents general challenges from pressure
groups.
 This rule follows the ECHR’s "victim" requirement, ensuring that only those personally affected
can take legal action.

Section 19 HRA 1998 – Statements of Compatibility

Before the Second Reading of any government Bill in Parliament, the responsible Minister must make a
statement under Section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) about whether the Bill is compatible
with Convention rights.

What Does Section 19 Require?

The Minister must choose one of two statements:

1. Statement of Compatibility – Declaring that the Bill is compatible with Convention rights.
2. Proceeding Despite Incompatibility – Acknowledging that the Bill may be incompatible but
stating that the government wishes to proceed anyway.

Example:
  The Communications Bill (later the Communications Act 2003) was introduced with a
statement that it might be incompatible, but Parliament passed it regardless.

Purpose of Section 19

 Ensures Parliament considers human rights implications of new laws.

 Adds an extra layer of scrutiny before legislation is passed.
 Does not guarantee compatibility—A Bill can still be challenged in court even if a statement of
compatibility was made.

Is Section 19 Effective?

 Some argue it raises awareness of human rights in law-making.

 However, it does not prevent incompatible laws from being passed.
 Example:
o The Terrorism Act 2000 had a statement of compatibility, but later some provisions
were found to be incompatible.
o The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was also found to have incompatible
provisions, despite its statement of compatibility.

Crux of Section 19:

 Section 19 does not prevent Parliament from passing incompatible laws but ensures that
ministers at least consider human rights issues before doing so.
 Ultimately, courts can still review and challenge laws that violate Convention rights, regardless
of the Minister’s statement.