Sections 4 and 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998

Last updated

Sections 4 and 10 of the Human Rights Act 1998 are provisions that enable the Human Rights Act 1998 to take effect in the United Kingdom. Section 4 allows courts to issue a declaration of incompatibility where it is impossible to use section 3 to interpret primary or subordinate legislation so that their provisions are compatible with the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, which are also part of the Human Rights Act. In these cases, interpretation to comply may conflict with legislative intent. It is considered a measure of last resort. A range of superior courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility.

Contents

A declaration of incompatibility is not binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made, nor can a declaration invalidate legislation. Section 4 therefore achieves its aim through political rather than legal means, including through Section 10 which allows the government to amend legislation without full legislative approval. A remedial order can only be made after a declaration of incompatibility or a similar finding of a European court with all appeals must have been complete or expressly renounced. Parliament has used Section 10 to make small adjustments where possible to bring legislation into line with Convention rights although entirely new pieces of legislation are sometimes necessary.

Context

Human rights are rights taken to be universal, of considerable importance, and relate to the individual and not collectively; [1] among other things, they can grant freedoms, claims, immunities and powers. [1] The European Convention on Human Rights was drawn up in the wake of the Second World War to uphold such rights. [2] The United Kingdom ratified the European Convention on Human Rights in 1951, and accepted the right of individual petition to the European Court of Human Rights, Strasbourg, in 1966. [2] The Human Rights Act 1998 made most Convention rights directly enforceable in a British court for the first time. [3] Excluded are Articles 1 and 13, which the government argued were fulfilled by the Act itself, and therefore were not relevant to rights enforced under it. [4] The Human Rights Act has had a considerable effect on British law, and remains an Act of "fundamental constitutional importance". [2]

Provisions

Section 4 allows a court to make a "declaration of incompatibility" if it is "satisfied that the provision is incompatible with a Convention right". [5] Section 3 requires that courts interpret legislation as compatible with Convention rights wherever possible. [6] Lord Steyn has described a declaration of incompatibility was a "measure of last resort". [7] However, In re S[ clarification needed ] established that there may be cases where interpretation can go too far; that the court can assume an administrative power it would not ordinarily have, with practical consequences that it is not best placed to consider: "a meaning which departs substantially from a fundamental feature of an Act of Parliament is likely to have crossed the boundary between interpretation and amendment." [8] The "thrust" of a statute is important; going against the "thrust" requires legislative power that the courts do not have. [9] As in R (Anderson) v Home Secretary, a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Act may be the only appropriate remedy. [10]

The United Kingdom recognises parliamentary sovereignty. [11] The legislature is above the courts, and the courts cannot therefore declare legislation invalid. Section 4 reflects this, and states that courts must continue to apply legislation, even if incompatible with Convention rights. [12] Section 4(6)(a) notes that a declaration of incompatibility "does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it is given", [5] which is similar to Section 3(2)(b). [6] R v Lyons confirmed that evidence could be used, even where incompatible with Convention rights, if it was expressly allowed under statute. [13] A declaration of incompatibility is merely a flag that alerts Parliament that people's human rights are being infringed. [12] Accordingly, it has no more legal effect than the fact of incompatible. [14]

Section 4(4) allows the court to issue a declaration of incompatibility if altering secondary legislation is impossible because it would necessarily conflict with a statute. Following amendment by the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Armed Forces Act 2006 and the Mental Capacity Act 2005, courts which are entitled to issue a declaration of incompatibility are the Supreme Court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, the Courts Martial Appeal Court, the High Court and Court of Appeal (England and Wales and Northern Ireland), and the High Court of Justiciary (Scotland) and Court of Protection in particular roles. [5]

Application and section 10

In A v Home Secretary, the detention of foreign nationals under the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was ruled to be in contravention of Article 14 of the convention. They could be detained in circumstances British nationals could not, discriminating on the grounds of nationality. This discrimination was explicit and could not be interpreted to follow the Convention using Section 3. Accordingly, a declaration of incompatibility was made. [12] [15] In Bellinger v Bellinger, the court followed a European case, Goodwin v United Kingdom, in deciding that the failure to allow persons who had undergone gender reassignment to marry under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 was incompatible with Article 8 of the convention. Altering this would involve a "fundamental change in the traditional concept of marriage", which was the domain of the legislature and not the courts; accordingly, a declaration of incompatibility was issued. [14] [16] In R (Anderson) v Home Secretary, the court found that assigning the decision over the tariff of a mandatory life sentence to the Home Secretary was in breach of Article 6 of the Convention – however, he was explicitly given it under the statute, and it could not be removed merely by interpretation. [10] [14]

Under Section 4(6)(b), a declaration of incompatibility is not even "binding on the parties to the proceedings in which it is made". [5] Since a declaration cannot invalidate or disapply legislation, it achieves its aim through political rather than legal means – it is for Parliament to correct the law, or continue to be in contravention of the convention. [14] Section 10 provides one route for correction: "If a Minister of the Crown considers that there are compelling reasons for proceeding under this section, he may by order make such amendments to the legislation as he considers necessary to remove the incompatibility" (section 10(2)). [17] It is designed to be a quick method; although it must be put before parliament, a remedial order does not require full legislative approval. This summary process was controversial, as it ignored the possibility for debate. However, the time required for this could not be provided in reality. [14] In any case, approval is still required before the order comes into force, or, in the case of urgent legislation, within 120 days of it coming into force. [18] [19] A remedial order can only be made after a declaration of incompatibility or a similar finding of a European court, which will have been justified and discussed before being made. Under Section 10(1), all appeals must have been complete or expressly renounced. [20]

Parliament has used Section 10 to make small adjustments where possible to bring legislation into line with Convention rights. In the Anderson and Bellinger cases, entirely new pieces of legislation were drafted and passed in the normal process, since they changed the law more considerably than the Section 10 process would allow. [20]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bill of Rights 1689</span> English civil rights legislation

The Bill of Rights 1689 is an Act of the Parliament of England that set out certain basic civil rights and clarified who would be next to inherit the Crown. It remains a crucial statute in English constitutional law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">English law</span> Legal system of England and Wales

English law is the common law legal system of England and Wales, comprising mainly criminal law and civil law, each branch having its own courts and procedures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Scotland Act 1998</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Scotland Act 1998 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which legislated for the establishment of the devolved Scottish Parliament with tax varying powers and the Scottish Government. It was one of the most significant constitutional pieces of legislation to be passed by the UK Parliament between the passing of the European Communities Act in 1972 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act in 2018 and is the most significant piece of legislation to affect Scotland since the Acts of Union in 1707 which ratified the Treaty of Union and led to the disbandment of the Parliament of Scotland.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human Rights Act 1998</span> Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom

The Human Rights Act 1998 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom which received royal assent on 9 November 1998, and came into force on 2 October 2000. Its aim was to incorporate into UK law the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights. The Act makes a remedy for breach of a Convention right available in UK courts, without the need to go to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom, formally introduced into Parliament on 19 November 2001, two months after the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September. It received royal assent and came into force on 14 December 2001. Many of its measures are not specifically related to terrorism, and a Parliamentary committee was critical of the swift timetable for such a long bill including non-emergency measures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, intended to deal with the Law Lords' ruling of 16 December 2004 that the detention without trial of eight foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was unlawful, being incompatible with European human rights laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Human rights in the United Kingdom</span> Overview of the observance of human rights in the United Kingdom

Human rights in the United Kingdom concern the fundamental rights in law of every person in the United Kingdom. An integral part of the UK constitution, human rights derive from common law, from statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Human Rights Act 1998, from membership of the Council of Europe, and from international law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Supreme Court of the United Kingdom</span> Final court of appeal in the United Kingdom

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is the final court of appeal in the United Kingdom for all civil cases, and for criminal cases originating in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. As the United Kingdom’s highest appellate court for these matters, it hears cases of the greatest public or constitutional importance affecting the whole population.

<i>A v Secretary of State for the Home Department</i> UK human rights case

A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department[2004] UKHL 56 is a UK human rights case heard before the House of Lords. It held that the indefinite detention of foreign prisoners in Belmarsh without trial under section 23 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.

The European Convention of Human Rights Act 2003 is an act of the Irish parliament, the Oireachtas, which gave further effect to the European Convention on Human Rights in Irish law. It is substantially similar to the UK's Human Rights Act 1998.

A declaration of incompatibility in UK constitutional law is a declaration issued by a United Kingdom judge that a statute is incompatible with the European Convention of Human Rights under the Human Rights Act 1998 section 4. This is a central part of UK constitutional law. Very few declarations of incompatibility have been issued, in comparison to the number of challenges.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom administrative law</span>

United Kingdom administrative law is part of UK constitutional law that is designed through judicial review to hold executive power and public bodies accountable under the law. A person can apply to the High Court to challenge a public body's decision if they have a "sufficient interest", within three months of the grounds of the cause of action becoming known. By contrast, claims against public bodies in tort or contract are usually limited by the Limitation Act 1980 to a period of 6 years.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that enables the Church of England to submit primary legislation called Measures, for passage by Parliament. Measures have the same force and effect as Acts of Parliament. The power to pass measures was originally granted to the Church Assembly, which was replaced by the General Synod of the Church of England in 1970 by the Synodical Government Measure 1969.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United Kingdom constitutional law</span> Law that constitutes the body politic of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom constitutional law concerns the governance of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. With the oldest continuous political system on Earth, the British constitution is not contained in a single code but principles have emerged over centuries from common law statute, case law, political conventions and social consensus. In 1215, Magna Carta required the King to call "common counsel" or Parliament, hold courts in a fixed place, guarantee fair trials, guarantee free movement of people, free the church from the state, and it enshrined the rights of "common" people to use the land. After the English Civil War and the Glorious Revolution 1688, Parliament won supremacy over the monarch, the church and the courts, and the Bill of Rights 1689 recorded that the "election of members of Parliament ought to be free". The Act of Union 1707 unified England, Wales and Scotland, while Ireland was joined in 1800, but the Republic of Ireland formally separated between 1916 and 1921 through bitter armed conflict. By the Representation of the People Act 1928, almost every adult man and woman was finally entitled to vote for Parliament. The UK was a founding member of the International Labour Organization (ILO), the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Council of Europe, and the World Trade Organization (WTO).

Civil liberties in the United Kingdom are part of UK constitutional law and have a long and formative history. This is usually considered to have begun with Magna Carta of 1215, a landmark document in British constitutional history. Development of civil liberties advanced in common law and statute law in the 17th and 18th centuries, notably with the Bill of Rights 1689. During the 19th century, working-class people struggled to win the right to vote and join trade unions. Parliament responded with new legislation beginning with the Reform Act 1832. Attitudes towards suffrage and liberties progressed further in the aftermath of the first and second world wars. Since then, the United Kingdom's relationship to civil liberties has been mediated through its membership of the European Convention on Human Rights. The United Kingdom, through Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe, led the drafting of the Convention, which expresses a traditional civil libertarian theory. It became directly applicable in UK law with the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Constitution of the United Kingdom</span>

The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.

Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 is a provision of the United Kingdom's Human Rights Act 1998 that requires courts to interpret both primary and subordinate legislation so that their provisions are compatible with the articles of the European Convention of Human Rights, which are also part of the Human Rights Act 1998. This interpretation goes far beyond normal statutory interpretation, and includes past and future legislation, therefore preventing the Human Rights Act from being impliedly repealed by subsequent contradictory legislation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Jobseekers (Back to Work Schemes) Act 2013</span>

The Jobseekers Act 2013 is an emergency Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom introduced to the House of Commons in March 2013. It retrospectively changed the law to make past actions of the government which the courts had found unlawful to be lawful. As of July 2014, the Act has been found to contravene Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

<i>R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms</i> UK constitutional law case concerning parliamentary sovereignty

R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Simms [1999] UKHL 33 is a UK constitutional law case, concerning parliamentary sovereignty.

<i>R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions</i>

R (Carson) v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2005] UKHL 37 was heard by the Lords of Appeal in the House of Lords on 26 May 2005 before Lord Nicholls, Lord Hoffmann, Lord Rodger, Lord Walker, and Lord Carswell.

References

Citations

  1. 1 2 Hoffman, Rowe (2006). P. 10.
  2. 1 2 3 Lester, Beattie in Jowell, Oliver (eds. [ clarification needed ]) (2007). P. 59.
  3. ↑ Bradley, Ewing (2007). P. 432.
  4. ↑ Bradley, Ewing (2007). Pp. 433–434.
  5. 1 2 3 4 "Human Rights Act 1998: Section 4". www.legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 11 January 2011.
  6. 1 2 "Human Rights Act 1998: Section 3". www.legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 11 January 2011.
  7. ↑ Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30. Available at the UK Parliament Web site. Accessed 11 January 2012.
  8. ↑ In re S (Minors) (Care Order: Implementation of Care Plan) [2002] UKHL 10. Available at the UK Parliament Web site. Accessed 11 January 2012.
  9. ↑ Hoffman, Rowe (2006). P. 60.
  10. 1 2 R (Anderson) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] 1 A.C. 837. Available at the UK Parliament Web site. Accessed 11 January 2012.
  11. ↑ Hoffman, Rowe (2006). P. 42.
  12. 1 2 3 Hoffman, Rowe (2006). P. 64.
  13. ↑ R v Lyons (and others) [2002] UKHL 44. Available at the UK Parliament Web site. Accessed 12 January 2012.
  14. 1 2 3 4 5 Hoffman, Rowe (2006). P. 65.
  15. ↑ A (and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2004] UKHL 56. Available at the UK Parliament Web site. Accessed 12 January 2012.
  16. ↑ Bellinger v Bellinger [2003] UKHL 21. Available at the UK Parliament Web site. Accessed 12 January 2012.
  17. ↑ "Human Rights Act 1998: Section 10". www.legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 12 January 2011.
  18. ↑ "Human Rights Act 1998: Schedule 2". www.legislation.gov.uk. Retrieved 12 January 2011.
  19. ↑ Hoffman, Rowe (2006). Pp. 65–66.
  20. 1 2 Hoffman, Rowe (2006). P. 66.

Bibliography

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.