Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Human Rights Act 1998

We are humble agitators and our readers are way smarter than us which is how it should be. Here is a comprehensive comment from "anon" about the Human Rights Act 1998. We said it was EU generated, which is sort of true, but not according to anon who has put us right (reproduced without his/her permission because we don't know who they are):

"Anonymous said...

'the EU generated Human Rights Act 1998': you're clearly not a political or legal correspondent then. The HRA has nothing to do with the EU. It simply incorporates into UK law the European Convention on Human Rights which was produced in 1950 (a full 7 years before the EEC's existence) and which was largely written by British lawyers and civil servants. It applies to the Council of Europe, a totally different body to the EU. Britain has always been subject to the ECHR; the only difference is that cases can now be heard in UK courts.

It's also worth knowing that the Act was only intended to cover public authorities (government, police, etc). The reason why judges can hear 'horizontal' (fnar!) cases between private citizens/corporations is a result of the application by the Times to allow this in the Act's very first case i.e. newspapers themselves argued that judges should be allowed to use the Act to rule on disputes between the press and private individuals."

The HRA98 is pivotal to what is going on in the Courts re privacy and injunctions. As we said in a previous post, Ken Clarke needs to get rid of this act and replace it with a proper constitution.

Human Rights Act May Be Amended (bbc)

Alex Ferguson takes out oral injunction on journalist (bbc video)

1 comment:

  1. Saying the Human Rights Act - and for that matter the European Convention on Human Rights - is "EU generated" is not "sort of true", it's completely wrong.

    Anon is completely correct in what s/he says about its origins.