Human rights

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) was introduced to give domestic effect to the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), making the Convention rights enforceable in domestic law.

The ECHR is an international treaty reflecting the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948. The UK ratified the ECHR in 1951, but it only became binding in UK law with the introduction of HRA 1998.

Convention rights

The ECHR sets out the rights and freedoms which the parties are required to respect:

  1. Article 2—right to life

  2. Article 3—prohibition of torture

  3. Article 4—prohibition of slavery and forced labour

  4. Article 5—right to liberty and security

  5. Article 6—right to a fair trial

  6. Article 7—no punishment without law

  7. Article 8—right to respect for private and family life

  8. Article 9—freedom of thought, conscience and religion

  9. Article 10—freedom of expression

  10. Article 11—freedom of association

  11. Article 12—right to marry

  12. Article 14—prohibition from discrimination

  13. Article 16—restriction on political activities of aliens

  14. Article 17—prohibition of abuse of rights

  15. Article 18—limitation on use of restrictions on rights

  16. First Protocol: Article 1—protection of property

  17. First

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Public Law News

Actions for unlawful police detention and QOCS protection in mixed claims (ALK and another v The Chief Constable of Surrey Police)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: In an appeal heard by Mr Justice Bourne, the High Court held that the arrests of a married couple, both of whom were serving Metropolitan Police officers, by Surrey Police were unlawful. The court found that the arresting officers had not given appropriate consideration to voluntary attendance for interview as a less intrusive alternative under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE 1984) and Code G. The court stressed that the ‘necessity’ limb in PACE 1984, s 24 is an important constitutional safeguard, following a line of authority that stresses strict adherence to PACE 1984—an officer who gives no real consideration to alternatives runs the ‘plain risk’ of being found to have had no reasonable grounds to believe arrest was necessary. The court therefore allowed the liability appeal. This decision is an important reaffirmation of the strict operational limits on arrest powers. On costs, the court provided useful guidance as to the starting point in mixed personal injury claims, confirming that properly supported PI claims should attract QOCS protection. Bourne J concluded that the claimants’ pleaded and evidenced psychiatric injury claims meant the proceedings could properly be regarded as a personal injury action ‘in the round’ for QOCS purposes, and that the trial judge’s enforcement order permitting 70% of the defendant’s costs should not have been made, under the mixed-claim discretion in CPR 44.16. Written by Connor Wright, barrister, St Philips Chambers.

View Public Law by content type :

Popular documents