I posted this before but still confused is this right or?
Still unsure about ECHR/HRA 1998 and its relationship to judges/how they use it/it increases there power... so as I understand it judges can: Issue a comment of non-compliance if a law goes against the ECHR law e.g bel marsh case 2005? and then parliament decides what must be done? If a government body acts against the ECHR victims can take the body to court e.g Abu Qatada 2009? If the ECHR brings in a new law and the UK does not have a law against it but has by convention done different they must pass primary legislation before they can repeal the law set by the ECHR? PLEASE CORRECT cos Im very confused