Human Rights Act 1998 s 3 s 4 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 3000 words

Human Rights Act 1998 s 3 s 4 - Essay Example Rights Act was geared towards bringing about a â€Å"major constitutional change† within the UK3 in order to ensure that the freedoms and human rights guaranteed to individuals under the European Convention of Human Rights were more effectively incorporated into national law. Klug and Starmer have spelt out the goals of the HRA as follows: (a) ensuring compliances with human rights principles (b) interpreting domestic legislation such that it is compatible with the Act (c) introducing the doctrine of horizontal effect and (d) modifying grounds for judicial review4. In the balance of division of powers within the UK, Parliament emerges supreme and therefore this leads to a centralized form of Government. Parliamentary Sovereignty in the UK has therefore posed the urgent need for Constitutional reform within the country.5 However, Klug and Starmer also point out that five years after the Human Rights Act came into force on 2nd October 2000, conflicting views are offered about its efficacy, with some experts concluding that the only difference is that a wider range of questions may be asked by judicial authorities although the answers remain the same while others contend that UK courts have demonstrated their ability to interpret and apply the principles of the ECHR in national law. The essential conflict with the democratic principles of Parliamentary Sovereignty6 upon which UK law has been based - mandating Parliament’s authority as the supreme law making authority, has also produced resistance to the HRA7. The two major sections of the HRA that are significant are sections 3 and 4. The provisions of Section 3 of the Human Rights Act states that Parliament legislation must be read and given effect to in a way that will be compatible with Convention rights â€Å"so far as it is possible to do so.†8 In the event that domestic legislation is found to be incompatible with individual rights spelt out in the Convention, and statutory interpretation is not possible,