Human rights in Britain 

Civil liberties are rights that an individual has; these rights are called Human Rights. The extent
to which civil liberties are recognized varies with in different legal systems, however all
democratic states recognise the following to some degree, freedom of speech this is where the
government cannot control the media, and freedom of belief this is religious freedom also
freedom of assembly this is freedom to meet with others for example political parties and trade
unions. The freedom to protest peacefully and freedom from imprisonment or other punishment
when no law or no just law has been broken.

The traditional view of civil liberties in Britain before the European Convention on Human
Rights were known as residual rights these included residual freedoms patchwork of United
kingdom laws, restricting freedoms where necessary. European Convention on Human Rights
only influences United Kingdom Courts; government had no obligation to alter legislation to
comply with the European Convention on Human Rights also legal action under the European
Convention on Human Rights was only possible through European Court of Human Rights.

The Human Rights Act 1998 incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights in to
domestic law. The aim of this was to strengthen the protection of individual rights by United
Kingdom Courts and also aimed to provide improved remedies where these were violated. The
Human Rights Act also gives people the right to take court proceedings if they think that their
Convention Rights have been breached or are going to be. The Human Rights Act also makes it
clear that when they are interpreting legislation the Courts must do so in a way which does not
lead to people's Convention Rights being breached.

In particular, the Act makes it unlawful for any public body to act in a way which is
incompatible with the Convention, unless the wording of an Act of Parliament means they have
no other choice. It also requires UK judges to take into account decisions of the Strasbourg court,
and to interpret legislation, as far as possible, in a way which is compatible with the Convention.
However, if it is not possible to interpret an Act of Parliament so as to make it compatible with
the Convention, the judges are not allowed to override it. All they can do is to issue a declaration
of incompatibility. This declaration does not affect the validity of the Act of Parliament: in that
way, the Human Rights Act seeks to maintain the principle of Parliamentary sovereignty. 

The courts are now under a duty to develop the common law this is the law which has been
developed through decisions of the courts themselves, in a way that is compatible with
Convention Rights. Section 2 of the human rights act 1998 requires that all judges "at all levels"
must take in to account Judgements of the European Court of Human Rights "based in
Strasbourg section 3 of the Act requires that judges should interpret existing legislation as far as
possible in a way which is compatible with the rights of the ECHR. Section 4 of the Act allows
Judges to declare an Act or parliament is incompatible with the ECHR in a way effectively
recommending that the act in question should be amended or repealed. The Human Rights Act
gives greater effect to Convention Rights in two ways it makes it clear that as far as possible the
Courts in this country should interpret the law in a way that is compatible with Convention
rights. It also places an obligation to public authorities to act with convention rights. This was a
major breakthrough in Human Rights legislation; Civil liberties groups had welcomes the Act,
but there was a number of criticisms raised by them these criticisms were as follows the act can
be repealed by parliament if it chooses, as the Act has not been entrenched into our constitutional
system. Government is not included in the definition of public bodies so they are exempt from
the power of the Act, interest groups such as trade unions or civil liberties groups cannot take
action under the Act. The Human Rights Act 1998 stops short of making the European
convention into a United Kingdom Bill of Rights; however it does enable Judges in the United
Kingdom to look at legislation and the Acts of the public authorities in light of the (ECHR).

One of the important provisions of the Act is section 2 which is, High Courts may make a
declaration of incompatibility with the ECHR. The High Court, the Court of Appeal and the
House of Lords may clearly state that legislation and delegated legislation is seen as in breach of
the ECHR. It is then for parliament to decide whether or not the particular law should be altered.
The Courts cannot strike down an Act but may tell the government and parliament where there
are problems.

The judiciary has a lot of power in determining the impact and success of the Human Rights Act
1998. 

The Convention Rights are very loosely drafted and through their interpretation the Judges could
easily dilute them and render them ineffective. The government acknowledges the central role of
Judges in success or failure of the Act. It spent millions training Judges, Magistrates and
Tribunal Chairpersons ready for implementation of the Act. The Human Rights Act presents an
important advance for civil liberties in the United Kingdom; however there still are limitations
on the impact that the Act will have. This includes legislation which is incompatible with the
convention is still valid. Judges do not have the power to strike down offending statutes as
unconstitutional, thus the principle of parliamentary sovereignty remains intact. When a Higher
Court finds that legislation is incompatible with the Convention, then it can choose to make a
declaration to this effect (Art.4) and a Minister can subsequently amend the offending legislation
by a fast-track procedure which avoids the full parliamentary process.
An example of this was the case of Wilson v First Trust (2003) where the House of Lords
declared that the provision of the consumer credit Act 1974 violated the Convention. The Courts
appear to have accepted that the Convention has limited form of horizontal effect. In Douglas v
Hello! (2001) photographs of the marriage of Hollywood's celebrities Douglas and Catherine
Zeta-Jones had been published without their authority by the popular magazine Hello!, the legal
proceedings were between private parties, however all the Judges treated the Convention as
relevant to the case because of the Human Rights Act 1998. The Douglas's case was an example
of Article 8: Right for Private and Family Life which states that everyone has the right for his
private and family life, his home and his correspondence. The judge in this case did not
recognise and did not create a freestanding right to privacy in English law principally because he
did not have to, the existing laws of confidence, and data protection, served to give the Douglas's
a retort for the intrusion into their privacy. The Douglas's won on the grounds of a breach of
confidence and data protection and received an injunction from future unauthorized
photographs. 

Well known cases illustrating the human rights act 1998 

The first case involving the human rights act was Lee Clegg (2000) in this case excessive media
coverage of the trial threatened to breach the right to a fair trial under Article 6. another case in
which the right to respect of private and family life (Article 8) was the case of Naomi Campbell
and Sara Cox, in this case two celebrities claimed that their Human Rights were being breached
and successfully stopped media coverage about their personal affairs. 

In 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld a previous decision by the High Court ruling that Leeds City
Council could not infringe the right to a home by a Roma family the case also highlighted
freedom from discrimination. In March 2006 the High Court ruled against a hospital's decision to
turn off the ventilator which effectively provided the right to life to Baby MB. In Connors v UK
the European Court of Human Right's decision declared that travellers who had their license to
live on local authority owned land suddenly revoked had been discriminated against compared to
the treatment of mobile-home owners who did not belong to the travelers population and their
Article 14 (protection from discrimination) and Article 8 (right to respect for the home) had been
violated.

Conclusion 
In conclusion before the Human Rights Act civil liberties were not set out in an effective way,
the UK Courts had no obligation to comply with the European Convention of Human Rights and
the ECHR was only influential to decisions of UK courts. Legal action under the ECHR was
only possible thought the European Court of Human Rights and could not be enforced in national
courts. In comparison civil liberties after the act was passed had a major impact on UK law,
residual freedoms still remained however, the European Convention on Human Rights must be
incorporated in to the UK law. Courts must consider the laws and actions of public authorise are
compatible with ECHR. Courts may make declaration of incompatibility but parliament is still
not obliged to make changes to legislation. Legal action for breach of ECHR is now possible in
the UK Courts and Courts might award damages.

When looking at the advantages and disadvantages of the Human Rights Act 1998 a well known
case illustrates some of the problems with such Rights being granted to individuals. In May 2006
the treatment of nine Afghan men caused controversy. These men had hijacked a plane to flee
from the Taliban the courts decision was widely condemned by tabloid newspapers; it was ruled
by an Immigration Tribunal under the Human Rights Act, that the hijackers could remain in the
United Kingdom. Such cases as these go on to question if the human rights act is too lenient.
This case can be seen as a criticism of the act, because the 9 Afghani men committed a
dangerous offence yet still won their right to asylum. The question of whether the passengers on
the hijacked plane had a right to life and the right to travel safely outweighs the defendant's right
to asylum. 

Can other individuals such as these 9 men profit from their crimes in the future. The advantage
of the human rights act is that citizens have rights that are enforceable through national courts.
Individuals can clearly understand their rights and are protected by the Human Rights Act in
many different areas in their lives, from the work environment to the home environment citizens
have reassurance in living in a democratic society.