Essay on Human Rights: am i straying off? Watch

apcycles
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#1
The question reads

"Despite the fact that the HRA 1998 only provides for a declaration of incompatibility, the judiciary is no longer inferior to Parliament in the matter of Convention rights. Discuss critically."

My main question is, will i be going off topic if i talk about the obligations imposed by s.2 (Strasbourg jurisprudence), s,3 (stat interpretation) in addition to s.4 (incompatibility)? If i just talk about incompatibility, then realistically i won't have much to write about - only the case of A v SOS for Home Secretary comes to mind.

MY approach to this question is that the HRA provides more than just declaring incompatibility. It also does a host of other 'indirect things', though prima facie, s.4 appears its most powerful feature.

What do fellow forummers think? Pls advise. This question has spoilt my day. :mad:
0
reply
Zacho
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 7 years ago
#2
I don't think you would be going off topic as the question mentions "convention rights" so you aren't supposed to talk solely about incompatibility. It is quite an annoying question. Good luck! (don't know if i have helped much, but at the very least i have "bumped" the thread!)
0
reply
Rose.
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#3
Report 7 years ago
#3
You're going off topic by being on TSR.
0
reply
Thomas2
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#4
Report 7 years ago
#4
I don't think so. The question seems to be drawing together parliamentary sovereignty with HR law so you would need to talk about s.3 because obviously the judiciary can go much further than previously in terms of interpreting legislation in a compatible manner - so de facto the courts are much less inferior (but only because of HRA 1998 which comes from P, so a kind of delegated power which could be revoked) even though de jure the courts can only make a declaration of incompatibility (cf: dissapplying an Act if it contravenes EU legislation).
0
reply
apcycles
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#5
My day - though not much of it is left - seems to have become slightly better.

Yes, this question is annoying!
0
reply
Qoph
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 7 years ago
#6
(Original post by apcycles)
The question reads

"Despite the fact that the HRA 1998 only provides for a declaration of incompatibility, the judiciary is no longer inferior to Parliament in the matter of Convention rights. Discuss critically."

My main question is, will i be going off topic if i talk about the obligations imposed by s.2 (Strasbourg jurisprudence), s,3 (stat interpretation) in addition to s.4 (incompatibility)? If i just talk about incompatibility, then realistically i won't have much to write about - only the case of A v SOS for Home Secretary comes to mind.

MY approach to this question is that the HRA provides more than just declaring incompatibility. It also does a host of other 'indirect things', though prima facie, s.4 appears its most powerful feature.

What do fellow forummers think? Pls advise. This question has spoilt my day. :mad:
Hm, just my opinion on your question:
(a) Despite the fact that the HRA 1998 only provides for a declaration of incompatibility,(b) the judiciary is no longer inferior to Parliament in the matter of Convention rights. Discuss critically

(a) The word "only" is impliedly suggesting that a declaration of incompatibility could be somehow not sufficient. What is the effect of a declaration of incompatibility in legal and political terms? True, it does not deprive legislation of its legal effect. Ultimately Parliament has to decide and if it wants it could ignore it. But consider also the political pressure (branding) and that a claimant could still seek redress in Strasbourg. Bogdanor has furthermore argued that there is maybe a convention arising that Parliament would amend incmopatible legislation -> de facto power to strike down legislation

b) How was the situation before the HRA (Lord Hoffmann: "fundamental rights cannot be overridden by ambiguous words". Theory and reality?). I would consider s.3, especially R v A, Re W and B, Ghaidan. I would also refer to the points made under (a)
0
reply
apcycles
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report Thread starter 7 years ago
#7
Hi Qoph

I agree with you on your first (a)!

An analogy will be helpful:

"Despite the fact we only visited Rome, we still had a great time in Italy."

0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Cranfield University
    Cranfield Forensic MSc Programme Open Day Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • University of the Arts London
    Open day: MA Footwear and MA Fashion Artefact Postgraduate
    Thu, 25 Apr '19
  • Cardiff Metropolitan University
    Undergraduate Open Day - Llandaff Campus Undergraduate
    Sat, 27 Apr '19

Have you registered to vote?

Yes! (249)
38.97%
No - but I will (44)
6.89%
No - I don't want to (47)
7.36%
No - I can't vote (<18, not in UK, etc) (299)
46.79%

Watched Threads

View All