by Chris Cannon

Created on: August 31, 2011   Last Updated: September 01, 2011

Human rights are important in every aspect of our lives, such as a right to life and freedom of choice. The 1998 UK Human Rights Act follows the basic principles of the EU Human Rights law, put in force to protect its citizens in 1953, long before the union itself was formed in 1958, which sets the thirteen fundamental rights that are in place for citizens across the world by public and regulatory bodies. 

The act contains the codes that are expected to be followed, which are largely based on UK government ministers and European Court of Human Rights rulings, and the interpretation of these, including the Crown's right to intervene in possible breaches and the penalties for these procedures not being correctly followed, which has led to some high profile cases, leading the Justice Secretary, Kenneth Clarke, to state that the European Court has been "rather too ready to substitute its own judgment for that of national courts" in national press, which in turn may cause the United Kingdom to repeal the legislation altogether. Yes, a national court is important; however, it cannot always be completely independent, especially in matters of national security.

It is also important to realise that the legislation only applies to public authorities, rather than private individuals and organisations, which has resulted in many local schemes taking to 'police involvement', rather than 'police control'. This includes many Neighbourhood Watch and 'Pubwatch' schemes, effectively a version of the former, but for the licensed trades. This may mean that individuals do not have sufficient training to make a citizen's arrest, which in turn may, if the scheme in question was under police control, be a significant breach in itself.

There are also strict limits on which proceedings can be brought, which is limited to one year, instead of the usual six for legal breaches and stricter limits on who can bring proceedings in the first place, which is limited to a person that was directly affected by the unlawful breach, rather than a bystander or a family member on the family's behalf. These restrictions are noted in Section 7 of the act.

The Human Rights Act has also been criticised for failing to stop one of the most highly controversial laws in recent history in the United Kingdom from being brought into force, the Terrorism Act of 2007. Section 44 was defined as unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights; however, it has not been repealed to date. This has included the designation of much of London as a 'stop and search' zone almost constantly, and has also reportedly targeted those from ethnic minorities and those with disabilities, breaching the right to privacy and the right to freedom, by allowing the stopping and searching of anyone without reasonable cause, due to lax policing by government.

Learn more about this author, Chris Cannon.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.