Human rights in the United Kingdom are set out in common law, with the strongest roots being in the English Bill of Rights 1689 and the Scottish Claims Rights Act 1689, as well as European law legislation: the European Union and the Court of Human Rights Europe. At the same time, it has been alleged that Britain also has a history of de jure discrimination and de facto, and, in history, sometimes human rights violations, national security crisis, or on the rights of migrants, unemployed, and disabled persons. However, in recent years, British human rights law has been criticized by some for what they perceive as an overemphasis on the human rights of the perpetrators at the expense of the victims; high-profile cases, such as the case of Learco Chindamo and the 2006 Afghan hijackers, have invited controversy, sparking calls for a review of the Human Rights Act 1998 and other laws. David Cameron at the ministry both announced plans to replace the Human Rights Act with British "Bill of Rights".
Video Human rights in the United Kingdom
Approach to rights and freedom
History
Magna Carta, issued in 1215, explicitly protected certain rights from the subject of the King and restricted the power of the King of England. It implicitly supports what habeas corpus warrants, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment with the right to appeal. After the first representation of the British parliament in 1265, the emergence of the petition in the 13th century is some of the earliest evidence of parliament used as a forum to address common complaints of ordinary people.
The idea of ​​a free debate over political representation occurred during Putney Debates in 1647. Beginning in the late 17th century, philosophers began to think about rights not as privileges granted by government or law, but as a fundamental part of what it means to be someone. John Locke (1632-1704), one of the most influential thinkers of the Enlightenment, argues that property - which for him includes life, liberty, and possession - is an inalienable human right, that is, which can not be taken. He articulates that everyone is created equal and free but, in return for the benefit of living in an organized society, one may need to give up some of this freedom.
Bill of Rights 1689, authorized in the United Kingdom (which at that time included Wales), strengthened the Right Petition (1628) and the Habaes Corpus Act (1679) by codifying certain rights and freedoms. It sets a ban on cruel and unusual punishment and limits the king's power. A separate but similar document, the Claim of Rights Act 1689, enacted in the Kingdom of Scotland; not applicable in Northern Ireland. The rule of law begins to be a principle in the way the state is governed.
Domestic traditions
In place of the concept of popular sovereignty found in other democratic countries, the British developed the concept of parliamentary sovereignty in which individual freedom is an implication derived from two principles. First, the "remaining freedom" to act as desired during such activity is not limited by law. Secondly, the public authorities and The Crown can only do things that are legally enforceable, and in particular should not interfere with individual freedom without legal authority. In this perspective, the vision of individual rights is felt more in terms of the "undifferentiated mass of freedom" rather than a separate set of independent freedoms and freedoms that determine the relationship between citizens and the state. Since the Parliament is sovereign, freedom can be changed freely under the supervision of elected representatives of citizens who ensure that every encroachment is controlled and authorized for democratic purposes.
Moves toward change
During the twentieth century, there emerged the belief that some extra protection over human rights above and beyond parliamentary oversight was necessary. Doubts grow about parliament's control capacity, partly because of skepticism about Parliament's will to control emerging executives and control by their parliamentary political parties that allow weak governments to avoid effective challenges. This skeptical attitude goes hand in hand with the criticism of the British political system and whether it adequately represents the various opinions in this country. Doubts escalated with experience with terrorism in the 1970s and accession to the European Community in 1973 where Britain was exposed to another legal system that lacked the same concept of parliamentary sovereignty and which provided stronger protection of human rights. In particular, European entries led to the idea that the Royal Parliament of Britain could be subject to the decision of a higher legal order in the form of a European Court. This is highlighted in the Factortame litigation in which the House of Lords is required to 'disillusion' the provisions of the Parliament Act against the laws of the European Community, effectively mastering it unlawfully. Moreover, increasingly affected by international human rights law, comparative constitutional law and European law, British courts are becoming more sympathetic to the concept of popular sovereignty and fundamental rights and freedoms.
Maps Human rights in the United Kingdom
Legislation
European Convention on Human Rights
UK role
Britain played an important role in the drafting of the Convention, with figures like Arthur Goodhart, John Foster and Hersch Lauterpacht based in Britain giving an impetus to the formation of the European Council in 1949 as a means to guard against the rise of the new dictatorship and to provide Soviet occupied citizens with a glimmer of hope.
The initiative in producing a legally binding human rights treaty has been adopted by the International Council of the European Movement, an organization whose cause has been championed by Winston Churchill and Harold Macmillan, and whose international juridical sections (counting Lauterpacht and Maxwell Fyfe among members) have resulted in a draft convention.
Led by Maxwell Fyfe and former French Resistance leader Pierre-Henri Teitgen, the Legal Committee of the Council of European Consultative Assembly proposed that the Council of Ministers Committee establish a convention that would take and ensure the effective enjoyment of the right proclaimed in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights on December 10, 1948 , as well as the establishment of the European Court and the Commission on Human Rights. The Committee agreed and the text of what became the European Convention on Human Rights was the main one compiled by Sir Oscar Dowson, a retired senior legal counsel to the Central Office.
Ratification
There is a reluctant support for the Convention back in England where the Attlee Labor government came to power. Lord Chancellor Jowitt, Colonial Secretary Griffiths and Chancellor Sir Stafford Cripps disapprove of ratification on the basis of the loss of sovereignty to be generated. Jowitt also sees threats to the domestic legal system and the risk of allowing decisions to be made by unknown foreign courts. He believes that ratification is necessary from a political standpoint because his refusal, in his view, is difficult to justify at home and abroad. In addition to political pressure, the government's overall view is that the Convention only aims to prevent totalitarian takeovers rather than human rights issues in a functioning democracy. In essence, there is the assumption that Britain has not lost much of its ratification but its refusal could risk losing face in Europe. The convention enjoyed more support among conservative party politicians, especially Winston Churchill who believed that it could help unify Europe under the rule of law.
Britain became the first country to hold an instrument of ratification of the Convention on 8 March 1951, with the Convention coming into force on 3 September 1953 after the tenth ratification was deposited. No law was introduced and no steps were taken to enforce the Convention's right in domestic law until the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998.
Petition rights
Two aspects of the Convention provide United Kingdom representatives to the Council of Europe for concern: the establishment of the European Court of Human Rights and the right to petition individuals to the Court. It is thought that the possibility to file a complaint is open to abuse and can be used for political purposes, especially by members of the Communist Party, not for genuine complaints. In addition, it is feared that the consequences of accepting individual petitions will cause instability in the British colony as British authorities can be underestimated. The British attempt to exclude the provisions relating to these two issues was unsuccessful but managed to ensure that they were optional.
The Conservative Government elected in 1951 ratified the First Protocol to the ECHR in 1953 relating to the right to property, education and free elections, but denied the rights of the petition on the grounds that common law would be observed by an international tribunal. The election of the Labor Party in 1964 led to a review of this issue and this time the only senior voice who disagreed was the voice of the Minister of the Interior, Frank Soskice. While willing to accept the petition, he objected to the mandatory jurisdiction of the Court on the grounds that it would remove the United Kingdom from a degree of flexibility in handling petitions and could cause political embarrassment. Nevertheless, in 1965 the majority of government ministers believed that the Court would not pose a significantly greater threat to national sovereignty or political survival than the Commission on Human Rights that was subjected to Britain. Further pressures for acceptance came from the British judge and President of the Court, Arnold McNair, 1st Baron McNair, Secretary General of the European Council Peter Smithers, Terence Higgins MP and various non-governmental organizations.
Like the ratification in 1950, the Labor government concluded in 1965 that there was little to lose from succumbing to pressure to recognize the Court and the right of petition. In December 1965, Wilson told the House of Commons that the petition would be recognized for an initial period of three years. At a time when the government was concerned that the Burmah Oil Company would take advantage of the new right to oppose the legality of the 1965 War Damage Act that deprived the company of the right to compensation for damages caused during World War II as recognized by the House of the Decision Lords, its acceptance of the time to fall beyond the six-month deadline for challenges to the Law and the acceptance of the UK also explicitly states that it applies only to claims arising after the effective date. The declaration of acceptance was deposited by Robert Boothby MP with the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 14 January 1966.
Campaign for incorporation
The first public call to the incorporation of the Convention into national law was made in 1968 by Anthony Lester who published a pamphlet titled Democracy and Individual Rights. Then in 1974 Lord Scarman called for a rooted instrument to challenge Parliamentary sovereignty and protect human rights. The following year the Human Rights Charter was inaugurated by the National Executive Committee of the Labor Party, although this was deemed insufficient by certain Conservative politicians including Leon Brittan, Geoffrey Howe and Roy Jenkins who saw the Bill on Root Rights as more effective in preventing infringement by the executive rights of individuals in 1976, the Bill of Rights draft was transferred to House of Lords by Lord Wade and in 1978 the House of Lords Select Committee published a report recommending a mooted merger in Lords leading to a transfer amendment. which asked the government to introduce laws on this issue. Lord Wade managed to secure the Lords' approval for the bill but made no progress at the Commons where Alan Beith's attempt failed to secure a second reading attended. There was concern at the time about judges deciding cases involving human rights that could lead them from their traditionally impartial role towards political issues. In 1986 Lord Broxbourne secured Lords approval for the merger bill, but was unsuccessful in Commons , although both reads have been obtained. The 1989 bill Edward Gardner to enter the Convention also failed on the second reading. At that time, the official Conservative party policy favored maintaining existing constitutional arrangements which were seen as a guarantee of high standards of protection of individual rights.
In 1991 the momentum for merging has grown, garnering support from organizations such as the Charter88, Liberty and Public Policy Research Institute - the latter two have published proposals for the British Bill of Rights that combine rights. The establishment is also supported by senior court members, both past and present, including Lord Gardiner, Lord Hailsham, Lord Taylor and Lord Bingham, by the Law Society and Bar Council.
Bringing Home Rights
After John Smith's election as Labor leader in 1992, the Labor Party's policy on the Convention - which had opposed it before and during the 1992 election - began to change for the sake of merging. Smith gave a speech on March 1, 1993 titled "A Citizen's Democracy" in which he called for "the completion of a new constitution, a new agreement between the people and the state that puts the center stage of citizens". This was followed by the Labor Conference in October 1993 which approved a two-stage policy in which the Convention would be incorporated into law followed by the enactment of the Rights Act. His plan to fight for the rights of the Convention by means of "unequal clauses" is similar to those in Part Three of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which would lead to the applicable Convention to the law passed by Parliament unless otherwise noted. Human rights commissions will also be established to monitor and promote human rights.
In November 1994, Lord Lester introduced the Bill on Lords based on the New Zealand Human Rights Act which would provide the same status in British law as provided to European Community law by allowing courts for a disappointing future and the Law The existing Parliamentary Act which does not comply with it, imposes a duty on the public authorities to comply with and make provision for effective remedies including damages for offenses. Introduced during a period of concern over the impact of European Community law on Parliamentary sovereignty, the bill did not receive support from the Conservative government and failed at the Commons due to lack of time.
On December 18, 1996, the Shadow Minister of Housing, Jack Straw and Paul Boateng published a Consultation Paper entitled "Bringing Human Rights" which sets the Labor plan to incorporate the Convention if it wins the next election. This paper focuses on the first phase of Labor's human rights policy and how the Convention should be included, especially with regard to its ability to override applicable laws. On March 5, 1997, a Democratic and Liberal Democratic Consultative Committee on Constitutional Reform headed by Robin Cook and Robert Maclennan published a report calling for the establishment of a "Human Rights Commissioner" to oversee the operation of the law and to bring cases on behalf of they. seek protection for their rights.
Part of bill through Parliament
The Labor Party election in May 1997 led to the publication of a white paper on the bill - "The Right to be Taken Home: The Bill on Human Rights".
The bill was introduced by Lord Irvine to the House of Lords on November 3, 1997. In response to Lord Simon's question, Lord Irvine insisted that the bill does not actually incorporate the Convention, but rather gave "further effects in the UK for the right of convention". Lord Irvine also rejected the amendment proposed by the Conservative Lord Kingsland that would have the effect of requiring domestic courts to apply the European Court's Court of Human Rights law, which states that the obligation to account for it is sufficient. The Liberal Democrats backed the bill, as did several crossbenchers including Lord Bingham, Lord Scarman, Lord Wilberforce, Lord Ackner, Lord Cooke and Lord Donaldson. The bill was opposed by the Conservatives, although some backbencher rebelled against the party line, notably Lord Renton and Lord Windlesham.
The second reading at the House of Commons took place on 16 February 1998 in which the bill was introduced by Jack Straw stating that it was "the first big bill of human rights for over 300 years". In addition to the incorporation of the Convention in domestic law, Jack Straw points out that the bill is intended to have two other significant effects: the modernization and democratization of the political system by bringing about "a better balance between rights and responsibilities, between state power and individual freedom" and cultural introduction awareness of human rights by public authorities. The rejected amendments include giving the court a greater degree of flexibility in relation to Strasbourg law law and referring to the award margin awarded to the state by the Court, as well as limiting the obligation to interpret laws that accord with the rights of the Convention only when it is 'natural' to do so. An amendment submitted by backbencher worker Kevin McNamara having the effect of incorporating into Article 1 and 2 of the Protocol 6 of the Convention abolished the death penalty in peacetime.
The bill succeeded in negotiating the Commons and the Lords and entered into force on October 2, 2000 as the Law of Human Rights 1998.
Human Rights Act 1998
Main conditions
This law aims to give immediate effect to the European Convention on Human Rights in domestic law by allowing prosecutors to file action in national courts rather than having to bring their case to the European Court of Human Rights, as it had previously been. The law makes it unlawful for public authorities to act in a manner contrary to certain rights prescribed by the Convention and allows the British courts to provide remedies in case of a violation. In principle, this Act has a vertical effect in which it operates only vis-ÃÆ'-vis public bodies and not private parties. However there are certain situations where the Act may be indirectly called upon to private persons.
Section 3 of the Act requires primary and secondary legislation to be given effect in a manner compatible with the Convention so far as possible. If the law can not be interpreted in a compatible manner, this does not affect its validity, resume operations or enforce it. In such situations, section 4 of the Act allows the court to make a declaration of non-conformity that has no direct effect on the law or the practical consequences for the case in which it was made; it allows Parliament to take remedial action without having to do so.
Criticism
Since its entry into force, the Human Rights Act of 1998 has been the focus of intense criticism. It is blamed for decisions that are seen as the privilege of criminals and terrorists. In particular, cases where the deportation of criminals have been prevented on the basis of the risks posed to their human rights in the country they were sent have led to calls by politicians to "rebalance" the laws that support national security.. In July 2006, the Central Office issued a report calling for the right of law-abiding citizens to take precedence over the criminals. Senior politicians and the British media have criticized this aspect and the soft treatment of criminals who are said to be encouraging. The law is also considered to inhibit effective counter-terrorism acts. The 2006 Afghan pirate case in which a group of Afghan men who hijacked a plane to enter Britain were given leave to remain in Britain were criticized in the British media and by both opposition and government politicians. British Prime Minister Tony Blair himself challenged the value of the Convention and the Law after news that a large number of foreign prisoners were released without being considered for deportation.
The law has been criticized by judges on the basis that it does not include all rights in the Convention into domestic law. Legal commentators have also shown that the Convention is not a modern human rights instrument and was drafted in 1940 in response to certain historical circumstances. Embreviated values ​​are said to be different generations and eliminate the rights especially children, information rights and socio-economic rights. The senior judge called for a more critical approach.
Submission submitted by Bill of Rights
After Learco Chindamo, an Italian citizen convicted of 1996 head murder Philip Lawrence could not be deported to Italy after his release from prison in 2007, Conservative opposition leader David Cameron called for the revocation of the Act and his successor by "British Bill of Rights". In July 2007, Prime Minister Gordon Brown published a green paper exploring the possibility of Bill of Rights as part of a constitutional reform program. In March 2009, the consultation process was launched with the Ministry of Justice's green paper publishing establishing an initial proposal for "Bill of Rights and Responsibilities". Consultation not completed before the 2010 election.
After the 2010 elections, the Conservative-Liberal Democratic coalition agreement provides for the establishment of a Commission to investigate the making of the Bill of Rights. The Commission was formed in March 2011. The nine-member commissions report back in December 2012 that they can not reach consensus, with Lord Faulks and Jonathan Fisher, two Conservative members, supporting the withdrawal of the Convention, while Philippe Sands, Liberal Democrat adviser, and Baroness Kennedy , a colleague, opposed the ratification of the bill on the grounds that it could be used to remove the United Kingdom from the European Court of Human Rights. However the Commission agreed that no action should be taken until after the Scottish independence referendum, at which time a constitutional convention should be held.
In a speech to the 2013 Conservative Party conference, Interior Minister Theresa May said the Conservative Party would, if re-elected in the 2015 election, withdraw from the Court and repeal the Human Rights Act if necessary to "fix" British human rights law. It follows a similar promise by Justice Minister Chris Grayling in March 2013.
Scotland Act 1998
Human rights in Scotland are given legal effect through Scottish Act 1998. Article 57 (2) of the Law states: "A member of the Scottish Executive has no power to enact subordinate legislation, or to take any other action, law or action does not conform to any of the rights of the Convention... "
Conventions rights in domestic law
Right to life
The general law guarantees the protection of the right to life and no one loses his life intentionally. This is achieved primarily through criminal law and crime of murder and murder. Some protection is also offered by civil law in which, for example, the Fatal Accident Act 1976 allows their relatives who are killed by others' mistakes to recover damages. The death penalty in 1998 has been eliminated in relation to all offenses. Under the Coroner Act 1988 there was a duty in certain circumstances for death to be investigated by the coroner.
The law also emphasizes the importance of conserving life: helping and conspiring to commit suicide is a crime under the Suicide Act of 1961 and euthanasia is illegal (see Bland case). In addition, there is a duty on medical professionals to keep patients alive unless to do so would be contrary to the best interests of patients based on professional medical opinion (Bolam Test), taking into account their quality of life in terms of continued treatment. The 1967 Abortion Act allows for the termination of pregnancy under certain conditions and the 1990 Human Fertilization and Embryology Act requires the storage of embryos to be licensed.
There is also a duty on the state to prevent poverty and neglect by providing assistance to those who may be starving.
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
The general law requires penalties for "false opinions about ceremonies or worship" which should be provided in law before they can be applied. There are a number of such laws in the 17th and 18th centuries, including the 1661 Corporate Law requiring civilian civic office holders to become members of the Church of England and Test Act 1673 which requires the holder of a military or civilian function to take oath of supremacy and loyalty and subscribe to the declaration of transubstantiation. Both Stories were revoked by the Roman Catholic Relief Act of 1829 which recognized Catholics into the legal profession and allowed Catholic schools and places of worship. Jews were allowed into Parliament under the Jewish Assistance Act 1858. Succession at the Crown Act of 2013 amends the Settlement Act 1701 to remove exceptions from the line of succession of those married to Catholics. Nevertheless, it remains the case that the Sovereign should become a member of the Church of England.
Unlike the Church of Scotland and Church in Wales, the Church of England is a church established in England and enjoys privileges and certain rights in law. However, the promotion of anti-Christian views is no longer illegal and the law does not place formal restrictions on freedom of worship. There is no formal legal definition of religion and the courts are generally unwilling to decide on religious doctrine issues. Violations of the common law of religious blasphemy and religious blasphemy are wiped out by the Criminal Justice and Immigration Law 2008. The new violent incitement to religious hatred was created by the Race and Race Dislikes Act 2006 and discrimination on the basis of religion is regulated by Manpower. Rule of Equality (Religion or Believe) 2003.
The 1916 Military Service Act and the National Service (Armed Forces) Act of 1939 both provide the possibility of exclusion from military service on the basis of consideration of conscience, even though the House of Lords has stated that there will be no human rights violations if a possibility is not provided for.
Freedom of expression
Regarded as one of the most important human rights, the court has declared that there is no distinction between the protection offered by common law, and which is guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. The right to freedom of expression is traditionally regarded as a residual character but certain types of languages ​​are protected positively. This is a case of debate in Parliament that is protected by parliamentary privileges, media reports on the parliamentary process are covered by absolute privileges, while reports on litigation are protected by quality privileges as long as they are fair, accurate and not publicized with crime.
The right to freedom of expression may be restricted if justified in the public interest, as well as defamation laws, violations of court humiliation, obscenity and indecency laws, mass media arrangements and protection of national security.. Violations of trust can be made before the court to obtain orders that prevent the disclosure of confidential information.
Freedom of assembly and association
The right to free assembly is considered an aspect of the right to freedom of expression. Quite simply by Lord Denning, "it is the right of everyone to meet and gather with colleagues to discuss their affairs and to promote their views." Traditionally, this is considered a residual right that is free to use by individuals as long as the law does not prevent them from doing so. According to Dicey, "there has never been in the UK a proclamation of the right to freedom of thought or free speech, [...] it can hardly be said that our constitution knows such a thing as a special right, a public meeting." There is no general legal right to hold meetings on public land or in public buildings and owners of semi-public spaces such as shopping centers can exclude community members. Peaceful encounters can be held on the highways as long as they do not restrict access by other road users.
The exercise of the right to free assembly is limited by general law and legislation. There is a general legal obligation to protect the peace of the Queen and the power to detain those who commit the breach of peace. The Public Order Act 1986 regulates violations of riots, violence, treason, and causes of harassment, alarm or distress, all of which can be done by participants in an assembly. In addition, the 1936 Public Order Act prohibits the use of political uniforms at public meetings when they suggest an association with political objects. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act of 1994 gives police force in conjunction with an intruder on private land. There is now a requirement under the Serious Crimes and Police Act of 2005 to notify the Metropolis Police Commissioner of the intention to demonstrate in Parliament Square and the Commissioners may enforce the terms they wish, including the place, time and number of participants.
Like the right to freedom of assembly, there has traditionally been no positive protection of the right to freedom of association. General legislation has recognized the autonomy of organizations in deciding membership and their laws do not place general control on the exercise of the right of association. This right is generally reflected in the principle of contractual freedom and the relative ease with which firms and beliefs can be established. Rights are the most regulated in the field of employment relations including the right to join a union that achieves legal recognition in the 1971 Industrial Relations Act, the right not to be dismissed or refused work on a non-membership basis under the Labor and Labor Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 and the right to claim unfair dismissals on the basis of union activity. However, there is no obligation for employers to recognize collective bargaining agreements except in very limited circumstances and their role has decreased significantly. The right to strike was recognized for the first time in March 2011 by the Court of Appeals. The right not to be unfairly excluded from the conduct of trade or profession has been recognized by the court, in the case brought by female horse trainer Florence Nagle against the refusal of the Jockey Club to grant her a license of training on the basis of her sex.
The right to freedom of association may be limited on the basis of public order and national security; The 1936 Public Order Act prohibits the control or management of semi-military associations and the Terrorism Act of 2000 makes it an offense to become a member of a banned organization.
Right to respect privacy and home
There is no general right to privacy in English law. Attempts to establish such rights in Kaye v Robertson and Wainwright v Home Office are rejected on the basis that it can only be done by Parliament. The creation of privacy violation tort has been recommended by Sir David Calcutt in his book Review of Self-Regulation Press published in 1993, but no action was taken. Instead, patches of different torts merge to protect certain aspects of privacy, such as breach of trust and misuse of personal information. At Campbell v Mirror Group Newspapers Ltd, the House of Lords affirms that a person will be subject to the confidence obligation if they receive information in circumstances where there is reasonable privacy expectations and where there is no justification for disruption of those rights. personal. This is followed by Douglas v Hello! Ltd. where a magazine was prosecuted for publishing unauthorized celebrity wedding photos.
The Data Protection Act 1998 protects certain personal data that must be processed in accordance with a number of principles and gives people the right to access to data that concerns them. Legal privileges protect communications with lawyers for the purpose of providing or obtaining legal advice and in the context of actual or planned litigation.
The right to be free from interference with private property is a well-recognized principle that is reflected in the proverbial "home of the Englishman as his palace." At Entick v Carrington, Lord Camden famously asserted that confiscation and property retention would be unlawful unless justified by law. It is a violation to use force to gain unauthorized access to property under the 1977 Criminal Code and Protection from the Evictions Act 1977. Applications for search warrants must be in accordance with procedures in the Police and Criminal Proof Act 1984 and closed police surveillance in the Investigatory Powers Act Act 2000. Supervision by security and intelligence services is provided in the 1989 Security Service Act and the 1994 Intelligence Service Act.
The right to respect the home is only related to the house of an existing person and there is no right to get home.
Right to marry and family life
There is no general right to marry. The formalities required in the 1949 Marriage Act must be obeyed if the marriage is to take effect and parties under the age of 18 must obtain consent under the 1989 Children's Act. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 introduces the concept of civil partnership and Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013 provides same-sex marriage. The right to obtain a divorce is contained in the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973. The Gender Recognition Act 2004 allows transsexuals to change their legal sex.
The right to respect family life, where there is no general right in general law, is eligible by the broad principle that child welfare is paramount and the rights of the parent should occupy the second position. In Gillick v of the Western Norfolk District Health Authority, Lord Scarman stated that "parental rights stem from parent duties and exist only as long as necessary to protect the child's person and property," while Lord Fraser says that "the parent's right to control the child nothing for the benefit of parents ". The impact of this is to allow state intervention in family life where justified in the child's interest in question, and the Children's Act of 1989 provides this effect by providing the basis for which decisions relating to the welfare of the child are made. Part 1 of the Act provides that courts should, when making decisions about a child, consider the wishes and feelings of the child. Adoption is governed by the Adoption and Children Act 2002.
Local governments have an obligation to act by facilitating the right to family life, for example in providing travel arrangements for the elderly under the Health Service and Public Health Act 1968. The right to education is guaranteed by the Education Act of 1944, and the right to housing enshrined in the Housing Act of 1985. The enactment of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 imposes a minimum wage and Social Security Contributions and the 1992 Benefit Act provide access to social security benefits. There is no positive right to health care; The 1977 National Health Service Act imposes an assignment on the Secretary of State to provide "adequate" health services but the court has not so far been willing to enforce this obligation.
Prohibition of torture or inhuman or degrading treatment
The common law recognizes that the body of every person is "inviolable". Interference will be a violation of common attacks and battery interruptions. Under criminal law, one can not agree on the actual physical dangers and the House of Lords held at Rv Brown that the sado-masochism actions committed privately between consenting adults do not give the author a valid defense hazard in relation to the action. The Children Act 2004 removes the defense of reasonable dismissal in respect of acts committed against children and physical punishment in schools is prohibited under the 1996 Education Act.
The Criminal Justice Act of 1988 prohibits torture committed by public officials in the performance of their duties and evidence obtained with torture is excluded by general law. The Bill of Rights 1689 prohibits cruel and unusual punishment and provides that acts for damages may be brought by the victim.
Police and Criminal Procedure Act 1984 allows police to conduct "intimate search" of suspects in custody without the person's consent.
Right to enjoy stuff
Protection against arbitrary property acquisitions is recognized in the Magna Carta and is an important key in general law. Protection of the right to own and enjoy property is found in violation of theft, by intellectual property law and by the principle that there shall be no tax unless authorized by Parliament. Property rights are qualified by mandatory purchasing law.
In civil cases, a judge can give an order to Anton Piller authorizing a search for a place and seizing evidence without prior warning. The aim is to prevent the destruction of incriminating evidence, especially in cases of alleged intellectual property infringement.
Freedom from slavery and forced labor
Slavery was abolished in most of the United Kingdom by the Slavery Slavery Act 1833 but since 1706 the common law has admitted that as soon as a slave came to England, he became free. The court does not recognize a contract equivalent to slavery or slavery.
Courts are reluctant to force individuals to work and refuse to enforce service contracts. Forced labor is however allowed under certain limited circumstances: The crown theoretically can force people to perform naval services and prisoners may be forced to work while serving their sentences.
The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom considers the prohibition of forced labor in Caitlin Reilly and Jamieson Wilson v Secretary of State for Employment and Pensions, where it decides that the Ministry of Employment and wage policy in which the unemployed work in return for their profit payments are not forced labor but nonetheless law of disability.
Right to freedom
As arranged in the Magna Carta, "no free person shall be taken away, imprisoned [...] except by the legitimate judgment of his associates and by the law of the state." Rights are protected in three ways: the habeas corpus warrant requires a person who is held to be brought before a judge or to a court, a fake imprisonment tort and a kidnapping abuser. When an individual is legally arrested on the basis of an arrest warrant, the length of his detention is determined by law; the rights of detainees and police power during the period of detention are also regulated under the Police and Criminal Procedure Act 1984. The police have no general power to detain a person for interrogation without making arrests unless this is for the purpose of training other police forces such as the use of search warrants. Unlawful arrest is possible if the person commits or will commit the offense and the arresting officer has reasonable grounds for believing that the arrest is necessary to confirm the details of the person, to prevent them from causing further injury, damage or violation, to protect the child or vulnerable person, to enable prompt and effective investigations of the offense or behavior of that person or to prevent an investigation from being blocked by the loss of that person.
Police have also stopped and searched for the power they can use if they have reasonable reasons to believe that they will find stolen or banned articles or supervised drugs. Under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, a senior police officer may authorize police officers in an area to stop and look for pedestrians or vehicles where officers have reason to believe that the person is carrying offensive weapons or dangerous instruments. In 1998 the law was extended to allow officers to ask the person to remove the clothes worn for the purpose of concealing his identity, and confiscating the clothing article. The expanded special strength also applies in the case of terrorist suspects. A person may be detained at no charge for up to 24 hours, which may be extended for more than 12 hours by a senior officer in a case of a violation that can be detained and extended further by a judge's court for a total of 60 hours in honor of an alleged offense. Alleged terrorists may be detained for up to 48 hours at no cost and immigrants and asylum seekers may be detained for immigration inspection for an unlimited period of time.
Some other categories of people may also be detained, such as persons in need of care and attention under the National Aid Act 1948, children in the care of local authorities in safe accommodation, those suffering from infectious diseases under the Public Health (Disease Control) Act 1984 and those detained by the British Armed Forces abroad.
Courts have the power to prosecute offenders and deprive them of their liberty, as well as detain mental patients under the provisions of the Mental Health Act of 1983. They may also order compensation payments to persons who have been illegally detained and the Minister of Home Affairs may pay the award to the victim miscarriage of justice.
Fair justice
Although the general law does not provide explicit statements about rights in the legal process, some principles combine to guarantee an individual a certain level of protection by law. This is often known as the rule of natural justice and consists of the principle of nemo iudex in causa sua and audi alteram partem. Fair hearings imply that each party has an opportunity to file their own case to an impartial court. Courts generally have to sit in public and decisions can be challenged on the basis of real or real bias. Although judges are under the common law's obligation to justify their decision, there is no such rule for non-judicial decision-makers.
Certain privileges apply in criminal cases. Persons in custody have the right to consult with lawyers under the 1984 Police and Criminal Justice Act and the Access to Justice Act of 1999 allow an individual to seek confidential and free legal advice. The prosecutor is under a common law obligation to disclose all relevant evidence including those that may assist the accused. The accused also benefited from the limited right to silence and the privilege of self-abuse. Confessions may be accepted as evidence under certain conditions established in the Police and Criminal Procedure Act 1984. The defendant also benefits from the presumption of innocence. In relieving the burden of proof, responsibility lies with the prosecution as defined in Woolmington v DPP. For example, in Rv Wang it was held that it was never permitted for the judge to direct the jury to find the defendant guilty. There is also a right to a jury trial, the defendant must be able to follow the process and they have the right to be present during the process. The application of dual hazard rules is limited by the 2003 Criminal Justice Act.
The court has jurisdiction to prevent abuse of proceedings if it is unfair to prosecute a defendant or a fair trial will not be possible.
Freedom from discrimination
Public law has not traditionally provided effective protection against discrimination, refusing to find that slavery in the colony contradicts public policy and does not interpret the word "person" to include women. Due to the inadequacy of common law in this area, the Parliament enacted the 1965 Race Relations Act and the 1968 Race Relations Act. The 1975 Sex Discrimination Act is the first law to protect against discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status, while dismissal for reasons related pregnancies qualify as unfair dismissal automatically under the 1996 Labor Rights Act. The same payment principle has been incorporated under the Equal Payment Act 1970. Racial discrimination is prohibited by the 1976 Race Relations Act and disability discrimination by Disability Discrimination Act 1995. Discrimination on the grounds of religion and belief in the workplace and higher education is first governed by the Work Equalities (Religion or Faith) Regulations 2003, discrimination of sexual orientation at work by Work Equal Option (Sexual Orientation) Regulation 2003 and age discrimination in employment with Regulator an Equalization of Work (Age) 2006.
Most of these laws are consolidated into the 2010 Equity Act, most of which came into effect in October 2010, which also introduced "equal obligations" which require public bodies to pay attention to the need to eliminate discrimination, to promote equal opportunity. and to foster good relationships between people. It also imposes assignments on public bodies to publish information about compliance with equality and to set equality objectives. In addition, the Law clarifies existing laws and simplifies the definition of direct discrimination, expands the definition of discrimination and indirect harassment, regulates confidentiality clauses in employment contracts and the use of health questionnaires by employers. It also gives the labor courts a new power to make recommendations to employers.
Selection rights
People's Representations Act 1983 and 2000 confer franchises on British subjects and Commonwealth and Irish citizens living in the UK. In addition, citizens of other Member States of the European Union have the right to vote in local elections and elections to the European Parliament. The right to vote also includes the right to secret ballot and the right to stand as a candidate in the election. Certain people are excluded from participation including peers, aliens, babies, insane persons, judicial office holders, civil servants, regular armed forces or police personnel, non-Commonwealth legislators, members of various commissions, councils and courts , people imprisoned for more than a year, bankrupts and people convicted of corrupt or illegal election practices. Restrictions on the participation of clerics have been removed by the House of Commons (Abolition of the Disqualified Clokual) Act 2001.
The Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000 deals with the registration of political parties, while the election limit is determined by the four Boundary Committees established under the 1986 Constitution of the Parliamentary Constitution. Electoral election and publicity campaigns, including expenditure rules per candidate, are governed by Political Parties, Elections, and Referendum Act 2000.
Rights granted by EU law
Basic rights form an integral part of EU law. Thus, the principle of the virtue of EU law requires that any action taken by its member states must comply with EU law requirements regarding the protection of fundamental rights. In addition, the EU Fundamental Rights Charter, which has a legal effect equivalent to the Treaty after the entry into force of the Lisbon Treaty, applies to Member States when "they apply Union law". The Charter covers a number of rights not provided in the Convention including the right to access to health care, the right to collective bargaining and action, the right to freedom of art and science, the right to education and the right to access to a free placement service.
The United Kingdom seeks to derive some of the application of the Charter with the addition of Protocol 30 which affirms that the European Court has no jurisdiction to declare violations of the Charter by national laws, regulations or administrations of its provisions, practices or measures, and that it does not exist in Title IV of the Charter employment rights that create "acceptable rights" applicable to the United Kingdom unless such rights are already in force. However, the Court of Justice held in December 2011 that Protocol 30 does not operate to free the United Kingdom from ensuring compliance with the provisions of the Charter or preventing the national courts from doing so. The extent to which the Member States are bound by the Charter is highlighted in the judgment of the European Court of February 2013 stating that compliance is required whereby national laws are within the scope of EU legislation.
Other rights granted to British citizens as EU citizens, in particular the right not to be discriminated on grounds of nationality in an area within the scope of EU law, the right to move and stay within the European Union, the right to vote and run in elections at Europe and the city, the right to diplomatic protection, the right to petition to the European Parliament and the right to apply to the European Ombudsman. For these rights one can add "four freedoms" from a single European market that includes the right of free movement between Member States, the right to provide services in other Member States, the right to transfer capital between States and the right to remove goods between States without limitation. The right to equal pay and equal treatment at work and with regard to social security are also recognized.
Rights granted by international law
The United Kingdom is a party to a number of international treaties and agreements that guarantee fundamental human rights and freedoms. However, since Britain is a dualist state, treaties and treaties ratified by the government have no effect until and unless incorporated into domestic law. The provisions of an unrelated agreement may affect domestic law in certain situations including the interpretation of legislation, public policy considerations and the assessment of the legality of the implementation of administrative policy. In particular, there is a presumption that Parliament does not intend to legislate in a manner contrary to international treaties that have been ratified by the United Kingdom but not incorporated into domestic law. This assumption is capable of arguing with reference to Hansard in accordance with the principle set forth in Pepper v Hart.
Custom issues
Security law
Northern Ireland
During the 1970s and 1980s, the British government focused much effort on measures to combat the activities of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Ireland (PIRA) and loyalist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland and Britain. In Northern Ireland, the government restricts the civil liberties of all that, disproportionately from the Catholic nationalist minority (as requested by the British government, Stevens Inquiries, concludes: "This includes the examination and analysis of RUC records to determine whether both sides of the community are handled in the same measure, they are not. "), who are interned without trial, and violate the human rights of some people. During Operation Demetrius, for example, a total of 1,981 people were interned without trial, of which only 107 were loyalists, and no faithful were arrested until 1973, two years after the introduction of internees. The Ministry of Defense declared "moderate physical pressure" applied to men. The Republic of Ireland lodged a complaint against the British government over the alleged treatment of detainees held in Northern Ireland (ECHR Ireland v UK 1978). The European Court of Human Rights initially ruled that torture had been used, but at the time of the appeal changed the decision to state that the techniques used, including sleep deprivation, hooded, stress posture, subject to "white noise" and the deprivation of food and drink, Cruel and inhuman treatment ", but less than torture, in the case of the landmark of 1978. However, on December 2, 2014, in response to petitions from organizations including Amnesty International and Pat Finucane Center after the RTÃÆ'â € â„¢ s broadcast a documentary entitled The Torture Files - which includes evidence that the British government at that time had deliberately misled the European Court by withholding information, and that the decision to use five techniques had been taken at the level of the British cabinet - Charles Flanagan TD, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade, the Irish government has formally petitioned the EUCHR for -men eliti case. Until January 2016, this case persists before EUCHR. There are also allegations of conspiracy between faithful paramilitaries and British security forces, as in 1989 the murder of human rights lawyer Pat Finucane by UVF members, allegedly colluding with MI5. In 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron admitted that members of the British security services were involved in the killings.
War on Terror
Since 2001, the "War on Terror" has caused new human rights problems.
The latest criticism related to the Prevention of Terrorism Action 2005, a response to the increased threat of terrorism. This action permits the detention of terrorism suspects where there is insufficient evidence to bring them to justice, which involves contempt (opt out) of human rights law, through the imposition of a control order. This aspect of the Terrorism Prevention Act was introduced because the unlawful detention of nine foreigners at HM Prison Belmarsh under Part IV of the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act is considered unlawful under human rights law, by Council Lords, in A and Other v. Secretary of State for Ministry of Home Affairs (2004).
Both stories above have been criticized for lack of parliamentary discussions; The 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act starts from an introduction to the Royal Assent in 32 days, Prevention of Terrorism Action 2005 in 17.
The Civil Contingencies Act 2004 has also been criticized for giving the government ample powers in emergencies.
On 2 February 2005, the Joint Committee of Parliament for Human Rights also suggested that the ID Card Act 2006 may be contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention (the right to respect personal life) and Article 14 (right to non-discrimination).
In 2015, Home Affairs Minister Theresa May introduced the Anti-Terrorism and Security Act, which was criticized by civil liberties and human rights groups Liberty for 'Unfortunately, the bill ignores reforms that could increase the effectiveness of investigations and prosecutions and continue the trend discredited. unnecessary and unfair power checks that potentially undermine long-term security '.
Internment
After the September 11, 2001, 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act was passed.
Section 4 of the Act provided for the indefinite detention of foreigners certified by the Minister of the Interior as an "international terrorist suspect" in which such persons can not be deported on the ground that they face the real risk of torture, inhuman treatment or demeaning if transferred to the country of origin.
Section 4 did not create a new detention force - according to the Immigration Act of 1971, the Minister of the Interior has the power to withhold pending foreign deportations. Instead, Section 4 removes restrictions on the detention forces imposed by the requirements of Article 5 (1) (f) of the European Convention on Human Rights (which provides, inter alia, that a person may only be detained for a short time before deportation). This was achieved by the disdainful British government of the ECHR on the basis that the threat to Britain amounted to 'public emergency that threatens the life of the nation' in the sense of Article 15.
However, the use of immigration detention powers means that, although the British government can not force them, the detainees are technically free to return (despite the real risk of torture). However, 2 prisoners did go - one to France and one to Morocco.
In 2002, the Immigration Special Immigration Commission stated that unrestricted detention under Section 4 is inconsistent with the right not to discriminate under Article 14 of the ECHR, on the basis that only terrorist suspects are foreign nationals subjected to detention, while suspects who are citizens British citizens remain free. However, SIAC's statement of incompatibility of Part 4 with Article 14 was dropped by the High Court of England and Wales.
In December 2004, the House of Lords held 8-1 that Section 4 is inconsistent with Section 5 and Article 14 of the ECHR on the grounds that unrestricted detention is a disproportionate act despite the seriousness of the terrorist threat, as well as discrimination.
After the assessment, the government moves to introduce control orders as an alternative (highly controversial) measure. The use of control and revocation orders Section 4 of 2001 is guaranteed by the passage of the 2005 Terrorism Prevention Act.
Human trafficking
There has been a growing awareness of trafficking as a human rights issue in Britain, particularly trafficking of women and minors to Britain for forced prostitution. Certain high profile cases resulted in the conviction of five Albanians who traded a 16-year-old Lithuanian girl and forced her into prostitution. According to Home Office figures, there are more than 1,000 trade cases annually. Under pressure from organizations such as Amnesty International, the British government recently signed the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Human Trafficking.
United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Investigation
In January 2014, Britain became the first country in its history to be investigated under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for "systematic and serious violations" of human rights of persons with disabilities, in large part in response to cuts by the Ministry of Employment and Pensions and provision of social services since 2011, disproportionately affecting the disabled, as well as work programs and "bedroom taxes". The final report is expected in 2017.
Cases involving the UK before the European Court of Human Rights
At the end of 2010, the European Court of Human Rights, in 271 cases, found violations of the European Convention on Human Rights by the United Kingdom. [4]. These assessments cover a wide range of areas, ranging from the rights of detainees to trade union activities. Decisions also have a great influence and influence on the approach adopted by the UK for the regulation of activities that potentially involve the rights of the Convention. As one writer has noted, "[t] here almost no state regulations are untouchable o
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments