The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of british subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. The WritePass Journal

The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of british subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. Introduction The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of british subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. Introduction‘Nonsense upon stilts’ – Bentham Human rights violation that went to the StrasbourgIncorporation of the HRACritic of the HRASolutions of HRAConclusionBibliographyRelated Introduction In this essay I have examined the overall impact of the introduction of the Human Rights Act 1998 (â€Å"HRA†), after its long campaign to infiltrate UK law. First this paper will begin by discussing the traditional British approach to protecting human rights before the HRA. Second this paper will examine the UK case law on human rights violation that went to the Strasbourg. Third this paper will examine what impact the HRA has had on human rights protection. Fourth this study will examine the problem with the current system of protection such as no horizontal protection between private persons and lack of entrenchment. Fourth this paper will advocate better protection can be achieved through a Bill of Rights. Lastly this paper will conclude its findings. ‘Nonsense upon stilts’ – Bentham Professor A V Dicey (1835-1922), a constitutional theorist argued that individual liberties were more effectively protected by parliamentary sovereignty, an unwritten constitution and common law, than by a continental system with their constitutional codes and catalogue of rights[1].   His argument was that because rights were not written down, but endorsed by judicial rulings, it would be more difficult for government to take away liberties of people.   On the contrary, many of the rights, which have been included in the written constitution of other countries, such as the USA, were rights, which, at common law, existed in the UK through the form of freedoms.   Jeremy Bentham referred to the ideology of human rights as being sheer nonsensical. With no law there are no rights, you are on your own. If we want to have rights we need to create them. Rights are created by law and are manmade and synthetic. Bentham stated: â€Å"Natural rights is simple nonsense: natural and impres criptible rights, rhetorical nonsense - nonsense upon stilts.† Human rights violation that went to the Strasbourg Several eminent peers, Lord Wade (in 1976), Lord Scarman, the former Law Lord (in 1988), and Lord Lester(in 1995) have attempted to introduce a Bill of Rights.   Each attempt was based on the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 (â€Å"ECHR†), an international agreement to which the UK has been a signatory for over 60 years.   Many cases were brought against the United Kingdom for breach of its obligations in regards to the convention, resulting in UK law sometimes having to be changed by Parliament so as to comply with our human rights obligations, a case was brought by prisoners in 2005 who were denied the right to vote. Although it is acknowledged that a ‘margin of appreciation’ is allowed to individual member states when applying constitutional requirements, to keep within their individual traditions, on this occasion the margin was too wide and therefore ‘disproportionate’. This kind of de facto Bill of Rights offered through European courts has proved to be a lengthy, inaccessible, expensive and unreliable form of remedy. It was not good for the UK’s image abroad to be frequently found in error by a ‘foreign’ court, as it has been many times this is also supposed by Lord Irvin of Lairg The Lord Chancellor in a key role addresses to the conference on a bill of rights for the United Kingdom 4th July 1992. â€Å"This Government’s position is that we should be leading in the development of human rights in Europe, not grudgly driven to swallow the medicine prescribed for us by the court in Strasbourg, when we are found in breach of the convention†. An example of this is Malone v Metropolitan Police Commissioner.   Mr Malone’s telephone had been tapped, there was no law forbidding them to do so as English law gives no general right to privacy. Other cases that elaborate the point of mishandling of power by the state are in Abdulazizi v UK (1985).   The case alleged that British immigration rules discriminated against women, because men settled in the U.K were allowed to bring their wives and fiancà ©s to live with them here, but women in the same position could not bring their husbands and fiancà ©s into the country.   Instead of amending the mistake of allowing husbands to live in the U.K they restricted both men and women bringing partners from abroad, ending the sexual discrimination but breaching human rights. Moreover, in Jordon v UK it was found Article 2 ECHR (right to life) had been breached, the investigation was flawed in the circumstances surrounding the death of the claimant’s son who had been k illed by police. Such decisions have led to changes in UK law to prevent further infringement of Convention rights and amendments to legal procedures. For example the issuing of new prison rules in 1999, updating their management from the rules of 1964. Incorporation of the HRA The Human Rights Act 1998 received Royal Assent on 9 November 1998, and coming into force November 2000. This Act has incorporated the ECHR into UK law. The ECHR is based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was drafted after World War II, to prohibit further atrocities associated with war, and is a statement of values and standards of rights and responsibilities. The act only covers civil and political rights and freedoms such as the right to a fair trial (s6) and the right to respect for privacy and family life (s8). Arguably a Bill of Rights would be more comprehensive. It would in addition cover social and economic rights, things such as housing or employment. Despite this, the HRA is regarded by many as a good first step towards a Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 has adopted this ‘affirmative resolution procedure’ Lord Irvine talks about and it is exercised when human rights are infringed by incomplete British legislation, or even the absence of legislation. These kinds of cases have been restricted to the higher courts. A citizen whom has had their Human Rights breached can now get redress from domestic courts; the aim of the HRA as quoted by Lord Irvine is to‘Bring the rights home’   avoiding the lengthy road to Strasbourg.   The incorporation of ECHR is to weave human rights into the existing fabric of legislative, executive and judicial responsibility. The establishment of a Human rights commission in October 2007 has helped to scrutinise legislation and bring individual test cases to court, they have produced papers and undertaken an educational role. Critic of the HRA Critic’s say the HRA has been exploited by lawyers promoting a ‘compensation culture’ with ‘no win, no fee’ promises. Citizens are more prepared to fight for their rights since the Access to Justice Act 1999 was introduced making it easier for them to take action to court. Jack Straw, the then Secretary of State for Justice Lord Chancellor, has called these lawyers ‘unscrupulous ambulance chasers’. Travellers and squatters use the HRA when faced with expulsion, you could say demanding privileged treatment at the expense of others. The same is the case when you look at criminals and prisoners demanding their rights ahead of the victims. Although the UK legislator has every right to amend the HRA it seems from this that it would most definitely cause much legal protests. This has now allowed the European Convention on Human Rights and fundamental Freedoms (â€Å"ECHR†) 1950 to be enforced in the UK. In particular I will discuss whether the HRA has had a satisfactory impact on protecting human rights and whether it is vulnerable to repeal. HRA and ECHR only deal with political and civil rights of a person or public body, such as freedom of expression, with no governmental expenditure unlike social/economical rights, which include welfare and social security and education at a cost to the state. Has the Human Rights Act bettered the condition of liberty in Britain? Before the Human Rights Act, liberty was described by Dworkin as â€Å"ill in Britain†. The GCHQ case is a good example of where the government wrongly infringed individual rights even though it believed that such an infringement would protect security of the nation. The Government had banned the civil servants from being members of trade unions. Following this decision senior judges supported the incorporation of the ECHR into UK law in the belief that minorities groups would gain protection from the â€Å"tyranny† of elected majorities by better protecting civil liberties. Although having the power of Judicial Review, courts largely looked the other way rather than trying to balance liberty against security. The paradox here is that while in theory the principle of the rule of law protects individual rights, in practice these rights are vulnerable to erosion by the judiciary, executive and legislature. ‘Liberty is ill in Britain’ YET this is the land of the free. Judges are being given more power YET they failed to use their existing powers to stop the decay of liberty. The HRA is said to be a weak sedative to a terminal condition. Although the act exists, the courts are limiting its application in a number of ways. Courts can interpret legislation with effect to the convention rights (s3) but they are using this interpretative obligation too narrowly. They have the power to make declarations of incompatibility (s4)but they are reluctant to use this power. Although these judicial failures are acknowledged, they are not addressed. Despite the incorporation of convention rights, the domestic courts continue to follow their previous approach in times of crisis. As a result Convention rights cannot stop the unstoppable state powers, including police stop and search warrants. In times of emergency the courts do not and will not protect the individual from the state. It will take more than the incorporation of convention rights to change the judicial role Solutions of HRA The HRA is a piece of legislation and not entrenched like the Bill of Rights (â€Å"BOR†) in USA therefore, as with any act of Parliament, could be repealed. Although in reality ramification could be an issue as rights under the signed Convention have now been greatly highlighted to citizens. After nearly two hundred years of debate over the UK having an ‘entrenched’ BOR the HRA was introduced, in lieu of Labour’s ‘second stage BOR commitment’ receding.   The then Home Secretary, Jack Straw, described it as â€Å"the first BOR this country has seen for three centuries†. The New York Times heralded the Act’s arrival with the headline â€Å"Britain Quietly Says it’s Time to Adopt a Bill of Rights† commenting that, finally, â€Å"ordinary Britons† will have a set of fundamental rights â€Å"similar to those guaranteed by the [US] Bill of Rights†. Conservative belief was that an entrenched BOR would be lethal for the doctrine of ‘parliamentary sovereignty’ as one Parliament will be able to bind its successor, traditionally not practiced. Contradictorily, the original English BOR of 1689 established the concept of parliamentary sovereignty by curbing the powers of the Crown. However, David Cameron, also conservative, has for many years been campaigning for the introduction of a British BOR. It had been brushed under the carpet for 18yrs until the Labour Party came into power. Labour were in favour of constitutional reform resulting in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. The late Labour leader, John Smith, had committed his Party to support a British BOR in February 1993 as part of proposals to â€Å"restore democracy to our people – for what we have in this country at the moment is not real democracy; it is elective dictatorship†. Smith stated that â€Å"the quickest and simplest way† of introducing â€Å"a substantial package of human rights† would be to pass a Human Rights Act â€Å"incorporating into British law the European Convention on Human Rights,†. Our government, but not our courts, were bound by the ECHR since the post-war Atlee government ratified the ECHR in 1951. In 2008 Cameron spoke out saying that the HRA has become a ‘villains charter’ and should be scraped as criminals and terror suspects were using it as a shield, claiming   their rights were being violated whilst in custody. The Police also showed reluctance to publish pictures of wanted criminals for fear of breaching right of privacy. This notion was backed by the then Justice Secretary Jack Straw, a key architect in the creation of the HRA during the height of Labours Constitutional reform period. Both have criticised ‘nervous’ judges for failing to interpret the HRA adequately, for example not deporting terror suspects despite having the backing of ministers saying it was of national interest to do so. Home Secretary at the time Jacqui Smith also reinforced the notion that the HRA had made it difficult for their removal. Cameron’s call for a British BOR envisaged judges to ‘operate on principles of proportionality’.   Straw wants to keep the HRA but wants a rebalance of the rights set out, citizens to ‘obey law and be loyal to the country’. Cameron’s viewpoint was that an entrenched BOR, giving citizens broad outlines to entitlements and values, would insure that citizen’s rights would be guarded and not be subjected to repealed or changed with ease, as is the case with any act of Parliament. He believed it would also restore supremacy of Westminster over laws that seemed to have been imposed by Europe. Conclusion In reality Dicey’s view, which promotes the common laws central role in protecting ‘liberties’, and Parliament Acts both run parallel in the protection of human rights. In conclusion the Human Rights Act 1998 is a definite good first step towards a Bill of Rights, a possible second step in adopting a Bill of Rights would be to partly entrench ECHR so that it can be treated in the same way as EU law is today. Bibliography The Politics of the Common Law Perspectives, Rights, Processes, Institutions Adam Geary, Wayne Morrison and Robert Jago. Routledge-Cavendish ISBN 13: 978-0-415-48153-3 (pbk) Learning Legal Rules Sixth Edition James Holland and Julian Webb Oxford University Press ISBN 978-0-19-928250-0 Daily Mail 8 December 2008 Cameron will scrap Human Rights Act in campaign for UK Bill of Right dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1092716 Daily Mail 17 April 2011 Cameron was right: We need a Bill of Right By Geoffrey Robertson dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1377729 Civil Liberties Law: The Human Rights Act Era. Noel Whitty, Therese Murphy and Stephen Livingstone. Butterworths ISBN 0-406-55511-7 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF THE †¨LAW OF THE CONSTITUTION Eight Edition A. V. Dicey Oxford, 1914 constitution.org/cmt/avd/law_con.htm Westlaw UK THE STUDY OF PARLIAMENT GROUP Paper No. 1 Alexander Horne Home Affairs Research Section, House of Commons The Changing Constitution: A Case for Judicial Confirmation Hearings? With a foreword by Sir Ross Cranston FBA spg.org.uk/spg-paper-1.pdf Lexis Library UK Research and Library Services Northern Ireland Assembly Research Paper 05/02 Revised February 2002 NORTHERN IRELAND BILL OF RIGHTS CONSULTATION: BACKGROUND AND COMPARATIVE INFORMATION niassembly.gov.uk/io/research/0502.pdf Civil Liberties and Human Rights Third Edition Helen Fenwick ISBN 1-85941-493-1 House of Lords House of Commons. Joint Committee on Human Rights. A Bill of Rights for the UK? Twenty–ninth Report of Session 2007–08 Published on 10 August 2008 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/165/165i.pdf Constitutional Administrative Law Seventh Edition Hilary Barnet Routledge-Cavendish ISBN10: 0-415-47312-8 (pbk) House of Commons Library. European Court of Human Rights rulings: are there options for governments? Standard Note: Last updated: Author: Section SN/IA/5941 18 April 2011 Vaughne Miller International Affairs and Defence Section parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05941.pdf THE LAW COMMISSION (LAW COM No 323) ANNUAL REPORT 2009–10 The Forty-Fourth Annual Report of the Law Commission Laid before Parliament pursuant to section 3(3) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 29 June 2010 official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1011/hc01/0127/0127.pdf Human Rights Act 1998 ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/sitecontent/documents/policyandlaw/nationalityinstructions/nisec2gensec/humanrights?view=Binary United Nations website un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml The Equality and Human Rights Commission 2009 ISBN 978-1-84206-223-4. A Bill of Rights: Do we need one or do we already have one? Professorial Research Fellow Francesca Klug 2 March 2007 Irvine Human Rights Lecture 2007, University of Durham, Human Rights Centre (To be published in Public Law, Winter 2007) www2.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/articlesAndTranscripts/Durham07_Klug.pdf ALBA SUMMER CONFERENCE 2010 THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY Richard Clayton QC adminlaw.org.uk/docs/SC%202010%20by%20Richard%20Clayton.pdf The Guardian Newspaper Liberty’s response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights: â€Å"A British Bill of Rights† August 2007 liberty-human-rights.org.uk/pdfs/policy07/response-to-jchr-re-british-bill-of-rights.pdf Telegraph, â€Å"David Cameron: Scrap the Human Rights Act†, 24th August 2007 Human Rights Bill [H.L.] HL Deb 25 January 1995 vol 560 cc1136-74 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1995/jan/25/human-rights-bill-hl The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of British subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. Introduction The HRA 1998 has had little impact upon protecting the basic liberties of British subjects and could be repealed without any consequence. IntroductionBibliography:Related Introduction The protection of rights and freedom of citizens and others within their jurisdiction is a basic duty of the state. In a majority of democratic states, fundamental rights are defined and protected through a written constitution. Under the United Kingdom’s, uncodified constitution, rights and freedoms have traditionally been protected either by Acts of Parliament often passed to meet particular needs or propagated by sudden needs of society or by the judges in developing the common law. One response to the ravages of the Second World War was the formation of the Council of Europe.Europe was one of the principal theatres of the Second World War, following which there was felt to be a great need for European political, social and economic unity. These objectives were perceived to be promoted, in part, by the adoption of a uniform convention designed to protect human rights and fundamental freedom. In 1949, the Council of Europe was established and the convention on human rights ratified by signatory states in 1951, coming in to force in 1953. Despite having been instrumental in the drafting of the text of the convention, the British government had strong reservation about the Convention and its impact on British constitutional law. As a result of this reservation, the British government remained reluctant, until 1997, to make the Convention rights directly enforceable before the domestic courts. Accordingly, until the Human Rights Act 1998, the Convention rights could only be enforced before the court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. It came into effect in England and Wales in 2000 but Convention rights were enforceable in Scotland from 1998 under the Scotland Act 1998 and in Northern Ireland under the Northern Ireland Act 1998 The incorporation of Convention rights into domestic law under the 1998 Act put an end, finally to the debate of transposition of these rights which had endured for decades. That long running debate focused on 3 principal concerns, namely the criticism that the convention is outdated and not tailored specifically to British conditions, that the Judiciary was ill equipped to assume the mantle of guardian of the Individual rights in the face of Executive power and the concept of Parliamentary Sovereignty and concerns over manner in which incorporation would effect the conventional balance of power between judges and Parliament. There was also the argument that the House of Commons, the democratically elected representative body of the people, was best equipped to respond to the better protection of rights. The effect of the Act is such that three avenues for challenging public bodies arise; first, a failure to comply with Convention rights now forms the basis for legal action. Secondly, a new ground for judicial review has been introduced namely the alleged breach of human rights. Third, convention rights may in some circumstances be used as a defence to actions brought by public bodies. The Act provides a charter of rights now enforceable before the domestic courts. theist effectiveness however rests on the course of action on which the judiciary embarks upon.   The judges have to have a willingness to defend Convention rights to protect individuals preventing the government’s encroachment to the greatest extent possible. Moreover the judges need to ensure compliance with declarations of compatibility with Convention rights   to ensure compliance with declarations of compatibility with Convention rights and the energy with which individual citizens are prepared to assert their rights in courts of Law. The Act, in the government’s view, was intended to provide a new basis for judicial interpretation of all legislation; not a basis for striking down any part of it. However, notwithstanding the careful drafting of the HRA in order to preserve sovereignty the judges appear to be developing the concept of the constitutional statute; one constitutional statute, one consequence of which is that the doctrine of implied repeal does not operate and only express intention to amend or repeal the Act will have effect. Section 2 of the HRA requires that the domestic courts to take into the account, interalia judgments of the court of Human Rights. This does not however mean that the courts are bound to follow slavishly such judgments. The issue was central to the case of Kay v Lambeth. The primary focus of the convention rights is on public authorities. HRA 1998, S.6 (1) states: â€Å"It is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a convention right.† S.6 (3) states: â€Å"Any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature.† The definition of the public body was considered by the Court of Appeal in R v Leonard   Cheshire Foundation (2002). Although some bodies are clearly public authorities such as government departments, local authorities, the police, the Inland Revenue and others who have no private function, the Act does not define ‘public authority’ The restrictive approach of the Courts, illustrated most starkly by the Leonard Cheshire case and the YL case has been subjected to strong criticism by the Joint Committee on HR in the meaning of Public Authority under the HRA. The Committee highlights the implications of the narrow interpretation of public bodies for a range of particularly vulnerable people in society. The Committee endorsed the view that the key test for whether a body exercised a public function should be whether the relevant function is one for which the government has assumed responsibility in the public interest. It should not depend on whether the body is acting under statutory authority or under contract. The Committee considered that the current position is unsatisfactory and unfair and continues to frustrate the intention of Parliament. S.3 HRA requires the courts to interpret primary and subordinate legislation in a way which is compatible with the Convention, so far as it is possible to do so. The House of Lords in R v A 2002 laid down the basis for the reinterpretation of a statutory provision to make it compatible with convention rights which was followed in Ghaidan v Godin Mendoza   2004. Declarations of incompatibility are regulated by s.4, which provides that if a court is satisfied that a provision of primary or subordinate legislation is incompatible with one or more convention rights, it may make a declaration of incompatibility and s.5 of HRA 1998 confers on a minister the right to be heard. The purpose of s.5(2) is to ensure that the appropriate minister has an opportunity to address the court on the objects and purposes of the legislature in question and any other matters which might be relevant. Article 13 of the Convention which provides that everyone shall have an effective remedy before a national authority has deliberately not been incorporated. Instead, s.8 provides that, where a court finds that a public authority has acted unlawfully, it may grant â€Å"such relief or remedy, or make such order within its jurisdiction as it considers just and appropriate. Accordingly, courts and tribunals may only award as remedy which is within their statutory powers. Damages may only be awarded by a court which has power to award damages or to order the payment of compensation in civil proceedings and no award of damages is to be made unless, taking in to account all the circumstances of the case and any other relief or remedy available, the court is satisfied that the award is necessary to afford just satisfaction to the complainant. The HRA introduced a disturbance or a perturbation in the judicial practice of precedent is testified by the case of R v Lambert and R v Kansal .   However this dilemma was put to rest in these cases when it was suggested that the interpretative powers given to the judiciary should not be exercised retrospectively. Lately an escalating debate has been witnessed against the HRA. These controversies provide an important backdrop to the legal developments in this field. The Prime Minister has frequently challenged the value of the European Court of Human Rights and the HRA criticizing the Act. Deportation of terrorists and the threat they pose to national security has been a prevalent practice which has been a flagrant breach of the rights granted under the Convention. The Conservative Party in the UK has even proposed to scrape off the Act and replace it with a complete UK Act which shall preserve public interest and national security policies more than any regional or international pacts. In July 2006 the Department of Constitutional Affairs (DCA) published its review of the Implementation of the HRA. It considered the development of substantive law and decided that HRA had no significant impact on criminal law and that the HRA’s impact on counter terrorism legislation arose from the decision of the ECtHR rather than the HRA itself. The review opined that in other areas the HRA had had a beneficial impact and had not significantly altered the conational balance between Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary. The Review also concluded that the HRA had not affected the outcome of the cases largely as the Convention rights might not be directly related to the facts of the case or interference with the Convention rights might be justified or a similar right might already be recognized by common law. The Review canvassed various options for the future. The Government had ruled out with drawing from the European Convention on Human Rights or repealing the HRA. It would be possible, however, to amend the HRA using the margin of appreciation to require the courts to give particular respect to public safety in a similar way to ss.12 and 13 in relation to freedom of expression and freedom of thought. The Government also proposed to take a more proactive, strategic and coordinated approach to HRA litigation. By studying HRA, all law subjects are now open to a human rights analysis and the next few years will see the application of those principles tested to the fullest. Many cases to date have received widely spread publicity, not surprisingly given that many of the big human rights case raise issues that are politically or morally contentious and often emotionally charged: for example the Art 8 rights to privacy of Venables and Thompson, the convicted murders of toddler Jamie Bulger. The Art 5 rights of those alleged to be supporters of terrorism. A and others v Secretary of State for Home Department and the rights and wrongs of assisted suicide in cases of terminal illness or life threatening disability, R v DPP, exparte pretty 2001. the rages of cases is ever increasing as these new principles are tested. After the non binding Universal Declaration of the HRA, many global and regional human rights treaties have been concluded. Critics argue that these are unlikely to have made any actual difference in reality. Others contend that international regimes can improve respect for HR in state parties, particularly in more democratic countries or countries with a strong civil society devoted to Human Rights and with transnational links. The finding suggest that rarely does treaty ratification have unconditional efforts on HR. instead, improvement in human rights is typically more likely the more democratic the country or the more international nongovernmental organizations its citizens particular in. Conversely, in very autocratic regimes with weak civil society, ratification can be expected to have no effect and is sometimes even associated with more rights violation. Bibliography: A. Barnett, H., M. Diamantides, Public law (Guide), (London: University of London Press, 2007) A. Edward, Richard, Judicial Defence under the Human Rights Act, The Modern Law Review, Vol. 65. No. 6, (Blackwell Publishing, 2000). Barnett, Hilaire, Constitutional Administrative Law,(London: Routledge. Cavenish taylor Francis Group, 2009). Clayton, Richard, Eurpion Human Right Law Review (2007). De Beats, Antoon, The impact of the Universal Declaration of the Human Right on the study of History, History and theory, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Blackwell Publishing, 2009). Gearey, Adam, Wayne and Robert Jago, the Politics of the Common Law,(London:   Routledge. Cavenish Taylor Francis Group, 2009) Holland, James, Julian Webb,Learning Legal Rules, Sixth Edition, (London: Oxford University Press, 2006). Kavanagh, Aileen, The Role of Parliament Intention in Adjudication under the Human Right Act 1998, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 26, No. 1,(London: Oxford University Press, 2006).