4.18 Human Rights

European Court of Human Rights
Sits in Strausbourg  

Too far away - Strausbourg
Too costly
Cases can take years to be heard - Hirst V UK (Prisoners vote) 

Introduced - 1998 

Implemented - 2000

The European Convention of Human Rights

A convention is not law within the UK

MORALLY binding NOT LEGALLY binding

Name a case and explain:

Hirst V UK
Prisoner right to vote
UK said it would change it's law to comply with the ECHR judgements, however, by October 2010 UK still not complied.

• It is an Act and all Act's are LEGALLY BINDING within the UK
• Cases regarding breaches of Human Rights can be heard within the UK
  without
• having to travel all the way to the European Court of Human Rights
• Increased remedies - Under S8 the court can award any remedies as long as it is seen as just and appropriate (Damages)

Basic human rights such as....

Article 2 - Right to a life

Article 6 - Right to a fair trial 

Section 2
states that judges must think with the Jurisperdence of the convention when dealing with a case

Section 3
Judges must interpret all legislation in a way that is compatible with the convention
How do the Judges interpret the legislation - PURPOSIVE APPROACH

Section 4 (Links with Section 3) 
Is judges are unable to interprate the legislation, they must delcare it incompatible 

If it is declared incompatible it is up to Parliament to amend the law and make it compatible

Name a case example and explain:
Roth V SSHD - Concerened fines imposed on lorry drivers - claimed a breach of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial --- Declaration of incompatibility -- Parl changed law

Section 6:
Cases can only be brought against the State, not against an induvidual 

Advnatages:

• Quicker, cheaper and easier to bring a case where there is an alleged breach of Human Rights
• Clarity and accesibility of the Act - Act clearly layed out
• Increased remedies - When they feel it is just to do so

Disadvantages:

• It remains an Act which Parliament could repeal at any time (Not entrenched)
• Only enforceable against the State
• It is up to 50 years old - Outdated
• Looseley drafted - Depends on Statutory interpretation (Purposive Approach)