The Human Rights Act 1998 is no longer- if indeed it ever was- fit for a modern democratic UK it must be reformed do you agree? 





Human Rights Act 1998 establishes the fundamental rights and freedoms to which all citizens of the United Kingdom are entitled. It incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights into British domestic law. In October of 2000, the UK passed the Human Rights Act. It allows you to defend your rights in UK courts and requires public institutions, like the government, police, and local government, to treat everyone equally, fairly, and respectfully. Every person residing in the United Kingdom, whether a British citizen or a foreign national, a child or an adult, a prisoner or a member of the public,[1] can use the Human Rights Act. Companies and organisations can use it as well. A series of Articles in this Act defines Human Rights.[2] Each article focuses on a particular right.[3] These are all extracted from the European Convention on Human Rights and are referred to as “Convention Rights”. This law's human rights are based on the European Convention Human Rights provisions. The Act “gives further effect” to European Convention rights and freedoms. It means that Judges must interpret and apply other legislation in a way that is consistent with Convention rights and a public authority may not act in a way that violates a Convention right. The European Convention on Human Rights was incorporated into domestic law by the Human rights Act of 1988. It means that the citizens may now take their human rights grievances directly to British Courts, marking a watershed moment in British Human Rights protection.

I do not agree that the Human Right Act 1998 should be reformed for the modern democratic UK because after many years it is still protecting many rights and it allows you to defend your rights in UK courts and requires public institutions, like the government, police, and local governments, to treat everyone equally, fairly and respectfully.

The reasons why I do not agree that the Human rights Act 1998 should be reformed are:

      Firstly, it made the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) enforceable in UK courts under S7, removing the need for UK people to go through the lengthy and costly process of bringing their cases to Strasbourg. S6 also established a regulation prohibiting public authorities from acting in a manner that is inconsistent with the convention. As a result, the European  Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) can be enforced even in civil disputes, such as Thompson and Venables v News Group Newspapers[4] and Douglas and Others v Hello Ltd,[5] because judges refusing a decision against an ECHR infringement would violate their responsibility under section 6.

      The Human Rights Act of 1998 has aided in the Protection of a wide range of rights and freedoms enjoyed by ordinary people.[6] ‘Unlawfully killed’ people and their families, for example. There would have been no second investigation into the 1989 Hillsborough disaster, in which ninety-six men, women, and children were killed during a football event if the Human rights Act of 1998 has not been passed. So through Human Rights Act of 1998 our rights are protected.

     The Human Rights Act of 1998 also provides protections for Judges with additional legislative authority. Domestic legislation must be interpreted “as far as is feasible in a fashion that is compatible with the convention”, according to S3. This necessity a purposeful approach to interpretation, as opposed to the government’s historical inclination for literal interpretation. This may be criticised for eroding Parliamentary sovereignty and allowing unelected Judges to make laws, but all measures are taken in the name of human rights and the best interests of the British people. Lord Steyn[7] asserts that Judges must apply the law in this manner to protect people, even though linguistic interpretation might be difficult. However, he contends that, under S4 of the Human Rights Act, it is best to avoid using a statement of incompatibility. These DIs can be given by the High Court higher, and they send a strong message to Parliament that the law must be changed. Although unlikely, because of the Principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty, which is defined by Professor Blackstone as “ what parliament doth, no authority on earth can undo", Parliament might theoretically ignore a DI, despite S10 establishing the fast-track method for revising incompatible laws.

     The Human Rights Act of 1998 has also proven to be an important weapon for women who want to hold the police accountable for failing to investigate domestic violence, murder, rape, or human trafficking. Banaz Mahmod was raped, murdered, and stuffed into a bag in 2006 because she has a partner whom her family did not like. Her sister filed a civil lawsuit against the Metropolitan Police[8] under the Human Rights Act 1998, alleging that the police failed to prevent her sister’s murder, so violating Article 2 of the Human Rights Act. She filed a lawsuit in the hopes of getting the police to admit their mistake in the lead-up to the tragedy. Mahmod was let down by the police, according to an Independent Police Complaints Commission report.

    This Act has also played a significant role in safeguarding the rights of disabled persons, those with autism and learning difficulties, and demonstrators. No matter who you are, it is probable that you or someone close to you has benefited from the Human Rights Act 1998 in some way.

    The Human Rights Act of 1988 also incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) rights into British domestic law. This means that you can take your case to a British court rather than the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France if your human rights have been violated and you can seek justice in a British court.

    In this Act, government agencies must uphold your rights. It mandates that all public bodies such as courts, police,  municipal governments, hospitals, publicly funded schools and other bodies performing public functions respect and preserve your human rights. So the rights are protected by the Human rights Act of 1988.

   In this Act of Human Rights Act of 1988 new legislation Luis in line with the rights guaranteed by the Convention. This implies that Parliament will almost always ensure that new legislation is compliant with the European Convention on Human Rights ( although ultimately Parliament is sovereign and can pass incompatible laws). Courts will interpret statutes in a way that is consistent with Convention rights, where possible.

To conclude the reason why I do not agree that the Human Right Act 1998 should be reformed for the modern democratic UK is that the Human Rights Act 1998 made the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) enforceable in UK courts under S7, removing the need for UK people to go through the lengthy and costly process of bringing their cases to Strasbourg and has aided in the Protection of a wide range of rights and freedoms enjoyed by ordinary people. It also provides protections for Judges with additional legislative authority. Human Rights Act of 1998 still protect our right and if there are any additional rights introduced by the EU the UK have the validity to get them. The Human Rights Act of 1998 has also proven to be an important weapon for women who want to hold the police accountable for failing to investigate domestic violence, murder, rape, or human trafficking. it has also played a significant role in safeguarding the rights of disabled persons, those with autism and learning difficulties, and demonstrators. A person can also take his case to a British court rather than the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France if human rights have been violated and you can seek justice in a British court. You can take action if you establish that a public authority has violated any of the Convention’s recognised rights by writing to the relevant public authority, reminding them of their legal responsibility under the Human Rights Act and requesting that they correct the problem. The governmental authority’s action or inaction can be also taken to the court, which could be found that it is or would be illegal. It has the power to tell the government to cease interfering with your rights or to take action to safeguard them. The Human Rights Act 1998 is noteworthy because it provided meaningful domestic remedies and the authority for the Judges to adjudicate on the conformity of Acts of Parliament with Convention rights for the first time. So there is no need that the Human Rights Act of 1988  should be reformed for the modern democratic UK because it is already safeguarding and protecting rights there are many rights which are protected under the Human Rights Act of 1998 and it still protects our rights and if there are any additional rights introduced by the EU the UK have validity to get it.


[1] The Human Rights Act, (liberty.net)

<https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/your-rights/the-human-rights-act/> accessed 7 May 2022.

[2] Global Issues Human rights, (Unitednations.net)

<https://www.un.org/en/global-issues/human-rights> accessed 7 May 2022.

[3] Human Rights Act of 1988 (HRA 1988).

[4] Thompson and Venables v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2001] EWHC 32.

[5] Douglas and Others v Hello Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 595.

[6] Reflecting On The Human Rights Act 1998 And ‘Bringing Rights Home', ( Eachother.net,9 Nov 2018)

<https://eachother.org.uk/on-the-human-rights-act-1998-and-bringing-rights-home/> accessed 7 May 2022.

[7] Matthew M., ‘How effective is the Human Rights Act 1998 at protecting our human rights’, (Mytutor.net)

<https://www.mytutor.co.uk/answers/7016/A-Level/Law/How-effective-is-the-Human-Rights-Act-1998-at-protecting-our-human-rights/> accessed 7 May 2022.

[8] Two men convicted of so-called honour killing, (Metropolitanpolice.net, 11 June 2007)

<https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukgwa/20120803065416/http://content.met.police.uk/News/Two-men-convicted-of-socalled-honour-killing/1260267585884/1257246745756> accessed 7 May 2022.