The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Constitutional Law

When people say Article 8 of the HRA, that means reference to the Human Right Act and the right of privacy etc. But why do some say Article 8 of ECHR? Is that another way of referring? It makes me believe it is a separate thing all together tbh.
Article 8 of the ECHR is the correct way to say it.
The ECHR has 14 articles laying out what are called the Convention rights. Some are unqualified such as the right not to be tortured (article 3) and some can be infringed in pursuit of a 'legitimate aim' (like the right to private life - article 8).
The HRA, like any other UK statute, is set out in sections. It incorporated these Convention rights in to domestic law (s1) and laid out how the courts should interpret law with respect to them (s3) and how public bodies should act in accordance with them (s6).
Hope that helps


Posted from TSR Mobile
You have been a massive help! Thank you so much.
Sorry to be a pain but for my Constitutional exam, a question could come up upon HRA and some people have mentioned to talk about incompatibility and the cases relevant to it but it doesn't ring a bell to me at all! Could you please explain that small area to me plz?


Original post by georgieooooo
Article 8 of the ECHR is the correct way to say it.
The ECHR has 14 articles laying out what are called the Convention rights. Some are unqualified such as the right not to be tortured (article 3) and some can be infringed in pursuit of a 'legitimate aim' (like the right to private life - article 8).
The HRA, like any other UK statute, is set out in sections. It incorporated these Convention rights in to domestic law (s1) and laid out how the courts should interpret law with respect to them (s3) and how public bodies should act in accordance with them (s6).
Hope that helps


Posted from TSR Mobile
I thought the point was the ECHR is an international treaty from the early 1950's to which we are a signatory. The problem is that to enforce rights you had to go through a long process with the European Court on Human Rights.

The Human Rights Act 1998 was part of a Labour pledge that they would incoporporate the act into UK law bia statute. The Act contains the ECHR andas pointed out above public bodies cant act in contracention and the courts have to interpet existing statutes in a way that is consistent with the the ECHR. The other difference is that a UK citizen can now approach uK courts for a claim under the ECHR rathern than having to file a compliant in Strasbourg.

So yes they are separate treaty v UK statute, but the latter contains and could not exist without the former. A simple read of the statute makes this clear.
^ precisely.
It is SECTION 1 of the HRA that incorporates the 14 ARTICLES of the ECHR in to domestic law i.e. A claimant can litigate against their infringement in uk courts.
Crucially when referring to the rights, however, you should refer to the articles of the ECHR as that is where they originate. They are not even repeated in HRA it directly refers the reader to the ECHR in section 1 of the Act.


Posted from TSR Mobile
And yes, on the related point when discussing the impact of the HRA this domestic enforcement is an advantage of the Act as before a claimant had to exhaust all domestic avenues of appeal (I.e take their case to the House of Lords) and then go to the ECHR which is incredibly costly and time consuming. The decisions of the ECHR in human rights cases bought by claimants in other jurisdictions are persuasive precedent for UK law, however, as following HRA the U.K. Courts must 'take in to account' ECHR jurisprudence - s2. It is a matter of judicial opinion how onerous this is on judges. Following HRA's enactment it appeared to be considered rather binding - where the ECHR had laid done 'clear and consistent' jurisprudence it was said only in 'special circumstance' would the UK court deter from it - Ullah (2004). However in more recent cases it has been said there is 'room for disagreement' between the uk and Strasbourg courts - Moohan (2014)


Posted from TSR Mobile
You both have been a massive help! Thank you so much!
Sometimes you know more than u think and reassurance from others helps me so thanks! x

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you