'Sections 3 and 4 of the 1998 Act were carefully crafted to preserve the existing constitutional doctrine.'

Explain and critically analyse this statement concerning the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998. Illustrate your answer with reference to relevant case law.

The introduction should set out the issues. The question is asking if the Human Rights Act (HRA) has preserved the constitutional position of the UK, or has it given too much power to the judiciary to limit the will of Parliament? The introduction should then set out how the essay will approach the question.

Structure the essay so there is a clear argument – for example: (this is not the only way you could do it as long as the argument makes sense)

• Briefly explain the constitutional doctrine in the UK: uncodified constitution – parliamentary supremacy, separation of powers and the rule of law: sources – Dicey, Tomkins etc.
•  S3 and S4 – interpretation and declaration. The essay could use Hansard reports from the parliamentary debates and/or academic sources to demonstrate the intention of the drafters to maintain parliamentary supremacy and maintain the current role of the judiciary which interprets legislation but does not make law – the judiciary should not undermine the intention of parliament
• S3 – cases and outcomes – opinions on these – judiciary going too far (parliamentary supremacy?)? Not enough deference? (separation of powers)
• S4 – cases and outcomes – parliamentary supremacy, last resort etc. – what has happened after a declaration? Does S4 have a political influence (limit) on parliamentary supremacy?
• Judicial deference – should courts defer to parliament in areas ‘outside their competence’ when deciding on whether an act or measure is incompatible with Human Rights?  - Cases and outcomes
• Debate on future of HRA – given the analysis should it be replaced?

The essay should use the arguments of academics, relevant case law and reports (such as Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights Reports)

Conclusion:  This should bring points together – what impact has S3 and S4 had on supremacy/ separation of powers? What is the role of the judiciary in a democracy? Is democratic dialogue improved by the HRA or does it limited sovereignty?