Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    From what I understand, the HRA brings the ECHR into UK law. However, what I don't quite get is my revision guide states it is not binding on Parliament. If this is the case then doesn't this render the HRA completely useless as the Parliament can simply do what it wishes, including ignoring Judicial reviews which claim a parliamentary statute or common law is incompatible with the ECHR?

    I'm really confused about what exactly the ECHR can do in UK law as Parliamentary can just ignore it as it is sovereign..?

    Any help distinguishing between what the HRA does actually do and what it cannot do would be great thanks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't get this either.... If someone who does could answer that would be nice...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The ECHR is irrelevant to the UK. However, Labour, as part if their post-1997 reforms introduced the HRA which is essentially the ECHR. The HRA is binding on all UK bodies except Parliament. Parliament can thus act beside it and can even remove it.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    the above poster is correct, however to clarify the reason the HRA is not binding on Parliament is because this would undermine the principle of parliamentary sovereignty, and would effectively create something of a codified bill of rights.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    So why can Abu Qatada not be deported on the grounds of his rights would breached in Jordan?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by VAST)
    So why can Abu Qatada not be deported on the grounds of his rights would breached in Jordan?
    www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/sn04151.pdf‎

    Maybe this will clear things up. The question is not over the Human Rights Act 1998, but rather a question of pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN - international law states that people cannot be deported to a country that is likely to torture the individual. Abu Qatada is an interesting case indeed!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This is where I'm confused. I thought the HRA brought the ECHR into UK law. Therefore if the HRA is not binding on Parliament then why can they not deport Abu Qatada.

    You say we have to pull out of the ECHR but why if it's not binding on the UK?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Henry.Lister)
    This is where I'm confused. I thought the HRA brought the ECHR into UK law. Therefore if the HRA is not binding on Parliament then why can they not deport Abu Qatada.

    You say we have to pull out of the ECHR but why if it's not binding on the UK?
    I believe it is because the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that Abu Qatada cannot be deported as he will be tortured. I would presume that although the HRA is not binding on Parliament due to parliamentary sovereignty, however while ECHR law isn't technically "binding" when the Court makes a decision we are bound by convention to follow it. Since the issue at hand is torture (and not, votes for prisoners, for example), its decisions are more important and not following them would make the UK look bad. The document I attached said this:

    6.4 Can Abu Qatada be deported despite the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights?

    It has been suggested by some critics of the current judgment that it is possible to ignore the decision of the European Court of Human Rights and deport Abu Qatada91, since the UK’s highest domestic court had previously ruled in favour of deportation. Former Security Minister, Baroness Neville Jones, has been reported as having said that the Government shouldn’t rule out such an approach in the “long term” if current negotiations were not successful.92

    This would not be legal under international law (founded on the UK's treaty obligations). Most legal experts confirm that while the UK remains a member of the Council of Europe and a State Party to the European Convention on Human Rights, it must fulfil the human rights obligations stemming from Court judgments. A short article by Douglas Murray in the Spectator notes the actions of the Italian Government in the case of Essid Sami Ben Khemais (who was deported to Tunisia despite an interim measures ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that he remain in Italy). The Strasbourg court ruled that the Italian Government had breached Articles 3 and 39 of the European Convention on Human Rights by deporting Khemais. It awarded the applicant 10,000 Euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and 5,000 Euros for costs and expenses under Article 41 of the Convention.93
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: May 21, 2013
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.