Transcript
SPEAKER:
The Human Rights Act 1998 forms part of the UK’s constitution. It is designed to ensure that everyone is treated equally, with fairness, dignity and respect. It places duties on public bodies to act in compliance with human rights and enables public bodies to be challenged if they fail to do so.
Whilst there’s a general agreement that human rights are fundamental and that everyone in society should be treated equally, there is disagreement about the human rights act. Some politicians have called for it to be repealed, others for it to be extended. Politicians in the media often highlight human rights cases but it’s rare they do so in a clear, unbiased way. As a result, knowledge about the act and its role has become surrounded by myths and misunderstanding.
So let’s start with the one that ‘human rights laws have been imposed on the UK by Europe’. This is not true, for a number of reasons. The Human Rights Act enables rights from the European Convention on Human Rights to be applied by UK citizens in UK courts. The European convention was largely drafted by British lawyers after the Second World War. The Magna Carta had an influence on the drafting process, and Winston Churchill was very influential in making it happen.
The Convention was created by the Council of Europe in 1950, a body set up to promote democracy, human rights and the rule of law in Europe. The Human Rights Act was passed by the UK parliament in 1998, with support from all the main political parties. It was by choice. The Act also has nothing to do with the UK’s membership of the European Union.
Another myth: that people have a right to anything they want. Again, this is not the case. The Act doesn’t protect an endless list of rights; it protects fifteen fundamental rights and freedoms. These include the right to life, the right to marry and start a family. The Act does not, for example, create a right to live in the UK or to receive benefits. Then there’s the myth the Human Rights Act has cost taxpayers millions. Not so. The Act has cut the cost of taking human rights cases to court. Before it was introduced, people had to go to the Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg to enforce their rights. British courts now hear these cases. This is more efficient and costs less.
The Act also encourages public authorities like schools, councils and hospitals to provide better, fairer services. Its influence means that thousands of people have been able to protect their rights without the expense of going to court.
What about the myth that British courts and bound by the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg? Again, no. The Act is clear that British courts are not required to follow the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights without question. British courts have to take account of them. Judges can, and often do, depart from Strasbourg case law to take account of the United Kingdom’s own laws and traditions.
There’s another myth that the Human Rights Act gives too much power to judges who are unelected. Not so. The Act was voted for by elected politicians. The legislation was debated and passed by the UK parliament. It was not created by judges. The Act gives judges the power to protect citizens rights against abuse by government and other public authorities. Acts of the Scottish parliament have to comply with the Human Rights Act. In relation to the UK parliament, if one of the higher courts finds that UK legislation breaches someone’s human rights, the court cannot overturn it. It is referred to the UK parliament for a decision. It’s also not true that the European Court of Human Rights generally rules against the UK government. Actually, many cases brought against the UK are declared inadmissible – about ninety seven per cent of them. Of all the claims against the UK only about three per cent make it to full hearings. And out of these, only about one per cent succeed.
Between 1999 and 2000 around 11,800 cases against the UK were judicially allocated. Of these, around 8,810 were struck out, and 390 declared admissible for hearing.
Areas where cases have been brought include the right to respect for private and family life; prohibition of discrimination; the right to security and liberty; the right to a fair trial and freedom of expression.
Some people think that human rights are not for ordinary people – they protect wrongdoers. Again, this isn’t do. The Act protects everyone’s human rights. For example, the Act has been used to test boundaries in relation to medical treatment and end-of-life decisions. It has assisted individuals to ensure that full and proper investigations are carried out. For example, it assisted the families of those killed in the Hillsborough disaster, in their quest to expose the truth. The Act requires the police to investigate serious offenses like murder, terrorism and rape. It can also be used to hold the police responsible if they fail to carry out these investigations properly.
And then there’s the myth that human rights laws have resulted in some absurd decisions. The report of absurd decisions in the media often present only part of the story. Human rights exist to protect fundamental rights. Those rights are not unlimited. Debates over the Act and its role will continue but I hope that you’ve found this overview of some of the most common misunderstandings and myths helpful.