Studied by 0 people
Rights
Legally protected freedoms (civil liberties)
Absolute, universal, fundamental and inalienable
Guaranteed by the 1998 Human Rights Act
Rights in UK Include
Fair and equal treatment under the law, i.e. fair trials, peaceful possession of property and freedom from arbitrary detention
Freedom of expression
Freedom of conscience (including religion)
Right to vote, stand for election and join a party or pressure group
Right to belong to an association such as a trade union
Freedom of movement
More contentious are ‘social rights’, such as right to education, employment, healthcare and welfare support
Civic Responsibility/ Obligations
Legal obligations such as obeying the law, paying taxes and performing jury service
Complementary to rights
Moral responsibilities such as voting and protecting environment
‘Active citizenship’, i.e. offering voluntary community service
UK - Rights Based Culture
Since HRA 1998, it is often claimed the UK has a ‘rights-based culture’ as all new legislation must be complaint with the act and judges can declare earlier acts of parliament incompatible with it
How are Rights Protected in the UK?
No codified constitution, so rights aren’t protected by an entrenched bill of rights as they are in the US
Instead, protected by:
Parliamentary legislations such as the Equality Act and Human Rights Act
Pressure groups
House of Lords, parties and other groups in parliament
Common Law, e.g. presumption of innocence
Magna Carta (1215)
Usually regarded as the oldest statement of rights in the UK
Original purpose was the limit royal power, due to King John’s tyrannical rule
Is regarded as establishing the right to trial by jury
Bill or Rights (1689)
Parliament further restricted the power of the monarch and increased its own power
European Convention on Human Rights (1950)
Drawn up by the council of Europe, with the UK as one of its signatories
Very similar to UN Declaration of Human Rights drawn up after violations of WW2
European Court of Human Rights set up in Strasbourg to hear cases where people felt their rights had been infringed upon in their own countries
BUT time consuming, expensive, leading to inequality in the protection of rights for different citizens
Human Rights Act (1998)
Passed by New Labour in 1998
Enshrined the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, in effect from 2000, meaning that rights could be defended in UK courts rather than having to go to Strasbourg
Included right to life, right to fair trial, right to privacy and a family life, prohibition of torture
Arguments for HRA
‘Rights-based culture’ - Parliamentary acts address any issues raised by courts and parliament + has a Joint Committee on Human Rights to scrutinise bills and ensure they are compatible
E.g. A v Secretary of State for Home Department, part of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was declared incompatible with HRA and so the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was amended by parliament
Places public authorities under an obligation to treat everyone fairly, equally and with dignity
Educates citizens about their rights and makes them more high profile in the political system
Article 2 of ECHR protected in the HRA (right to life) places a duty on the state to investigate deaths where agents of the state, e.g. police, were involved - was used to obtain new inquest into Hillsborough disaster
Arguments against HRA
Stops terror suspects from being deported and favours undeserving individuals rather than protecting the legitimate freedoms of UK citizens and protecting society as a whole
E.g. Abu Qatada not deported to Jordan where he was wanted for trial (delayed for 8 years) on the grounds he may be tried using evidence obtained through torture, a breach of the HRA
Criticised for giving unelected judges too much power
May be used to check laws, but is not entrenched and could still be repealed by a simple act of parliament
E.g. Illegal Migration Bill introduced by Suella Braverman on 7th March 2023 was incompatible, yet gov proceeded with it (Rwanda Policy)
Gov ignored a ruling by ECHR in 2005 which stated that the blanket ban on prisoner voting was in violation of the right to free elections
Parliamentary sovereignty allows the gov to disregard ECHR rulings without immediate legal consequences
Freedom of Information Act (2000)
Made it easier for opposition MPs, journalists and voters to ask for info about the gov
Members of public also gained right to access any information held about them by public bodies
Equality Act (2010)
Brought together earlier pieces of legislation that had sought to outlaw discrimination and unfair treatment, including 1970 Equal Pay Act and 1976 Race Relations Act
Identified nine ‘protected characteristics’ and made it illegal for public bodies, employers, service providers and other organisations and individuals to discriminate against people on any grounds, in the workplace or wider society
These are age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation
Pressure Groups protecting Rights
Stonewall
Care4Calais
Liberty
Howard League for Penal Reform
Judicial Review
Type of court proceeding where a judge reviews the lawfulness of a decision or action made by a public body
Courts have the power to ensure those in power have not acted beyond the authority given to them by the law - ultra fires cases
E.g. stretching secondary legislation too far or doing something that is against primary legislation
Checks whether a law or action is in line with the HRA
Most applications concern local authorities and not ministers, only a quarter are allowed to go forward and only 10% against the gov manage to win
Arguments for Judicial Review
Defenders argue that judicial review is a vital means of defending citizen’s rights, enabling the legal ist of gov actions to be scrutinised
Pressure groups often fund and instigate legal challenges on behalf of individuals
Arguments against Judicial Review
Places too much power in the hands of the unelected and unaccountable judges, who are able to ‘make the law’
Rwanda Act
Initially found unlawful by Supreme Court in 2023, citing risks of refoulement and inadequacies in Rwanda’s asylum system as major concerns - against HRA and 1951 Refugee Convention, as Rwanda couldn’t be defended as a ‘safe country’
In response, the UK and Rwanda drafter a new treaty, signed Dec 2023, which included more robust guarantees regarding treatment of transferred individuals
To solidify new treaty, the UK gov introduced the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill, which received Royal Assent in April 2024 - states that Rwanda must be considered a safe country for asylum seekers and international law must be put aside to allow for the deportation of asylum seekers to Rwanda
Rather than changing the policy, changed the law to make their policy consistent with domestic law, stating that international law should not be implemented in this case - Limits of judicial review
Judicial Review - Privacy laws
Judge-made laws concerning privacy through the way they have interpreted the HRA, often giving supremacy to right to privacy over right to freedom of expression
Occurred without specific legislation passed by parliament and without being explicitly covered by common law
Often seemed to only benefit wealthy individuals who could afford legal action, e.g. Max Mosley (previous head of F1) who gained substantial damages after News of the World published a story about his sex life
How Parliament/ Government defend Rights
Through introducing legislation that protects/ furthers the rights of citizens
2010 Equality Act was introduced by Gordon Brown’s gov
David Cameron’s gov legalised same sex marriage in 2013
UK gov also legalised same sex marriage in NI in 2020 under a period of direct rule, when the NI gov was suspended due to disagreements
Parliament can also prevent the gov from encroaching on human rights by voting down bills. The HoL in particular has often been crucial in the protection of HR
On the other hand, parliament and the gov can be argued to often contravene human rights in UK, especially recent govs which have strong stances on law and order, as well as anti-terrorism
The Policing, Crime, Sentencing and Court Act 2022
Gices greater powers to police and criminal justice system to impose restrictions on ‘unacceptable protests’, among other things
It gives the Home Secretary significant powers to decide the type of protest deemed unacceptable and acceptable by the state. The Act gives power to limit protests on the basis of them being in the buffer zone of parliament, too loud, etc.
It can be seen in part in response to direct action campaigns by pressure groups and social movements in the UK, including Extinction Rebellion and BLM movement
It is an extremely controversial law that was widely criticised by human rights groups, politicians and journalists who argued it significantly impeded freedom of speech and the right to protest in the UK
The Public Order Act 2023
Received Royal Assent in 2022
Enacted in response to the UK government’s concerns over highly disruptive protest tactics employed by groups like Extinction Rebellion and Just Stop Oil
Introduced new offences like ‘locking-on’ and interfering with national infrastructure
Designed to limit effectiveness of pressure groups that use disruptive tactics to draw attention to their cause
Can be seen as threatening individual rights by limiting right to protest in the UK
Voter ID door Elections
Tory gov introduced voter ID laws starting with May 2023 local elections in England. They require voters to present specific forms of photo identification at polling stations before they could vote
This move was purportedly a means to combat election fraud, but this explanation has been highly criticised given the extremely low instances of such fraud in the UK historically
Critics argue that these new requirements disproportionately affect younger voters and minority groups who are less likely to have the specified forms of ID
Older and disabled individuals can use bus and travel passes as IDs, which are not permitted for younger people’s equivalents
Has led to concerns about voter suppression and the undermining of democracy rights in the UK, especially since these demographic groups are statistically less likely to vote for the Conservative Party
Proposed Changes to HRA by Tortes
At various points, the Tory Party has backed pulling out of the ECoHR and replacing the HRA with a British Bill of Rights, which has been criticised by numerous human rights groups for seeking to remove rights in the UK
The proposed Bill of Rights would make it easier to deport foreign criminals by elevating public safety over right to family life. It would also increase freedom of the press by elevating the right to freedom of expression over the right to privacy
Would make the UK Supreme Court the final court of appeal, rather than the European Court of Human Rights
Would weaken the protection of rights in the UK, as the British Bill of Rights would be a simple Act of Parliament, whilst the European Convention of Human Rights is an international treaty
Collective vs Individual Rights
Can be seen to conflict, especially in relation to public safety and security, where the protection of the population is often used to justify the encroachment of the rights of individuals, e.g. when tackling terrorism
Conflicts in Terrorism
High profile terrorist attacks of the 2000s led to gov measures that limited civil liberties in the interest of protecting the wider community
Ministers argued they had the right to detain terror suspects without trial on the grounds that a national emergency existed
In December 2004, the law lords ruled that indefinite detention of foreign nationals on suspicion of terrorist charges was discriminatory
Gov introduced a system that enabled suspects to be closely monitored, e.g. electronic tagging, requirement to report to police and the removal of phones + internet access
Control orders were kept in place until 2011, when the coalition gov replaced them with a modified version known as ‘Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures’
CASE STUDY: Covid
Pandemic showed how Parliament can remove the rights of the population very quickly in response to emergencies, with freedom of movement and organisation being seriously restricted during lockdowns in order to prevent the spread of the virus
There are fears that lockdown set a precedent of the erosion of rights that could be repeated
