Chapter 3 Key facts checklists

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA)

The HRA 1998 was introduced to allow individuals to argue cases involving rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) directly before a UK court.
Before the HRA came into force in 2000, individuals could not rely directly on Convention rights before a UK court. Judges could only use the Convention to aid interpretation in cases where the law was ambiguous.
The HRA allows any person within the UK to bring a case against a public body including the courts for breach of a Convention right.
In theory, the HRA has not changed the constitutional arrangements in the UK (Chapter 1, ‘Constitutional settlement and rights’, p 14). Judges cannot overturn a law that is in breach of the ECHR. They can reinterpret legislation to make it compatible or, if this is not possible, they can make a declaration of incompatibility. It is then for Parliament to decide whether to change or repeal legislation. Parliamentary supremacy remains intact. (See ‘Section 3: interpretation clause’, p 45, below for further debate on this issue.)
The HRA has been controversial. It has been criticized for having the effect in practice of undermining parliamentary supremacy. There is also an ongoing debate about whether the Act should be retained or replaced with a ‘British Bill of Rights’.