Human Right Act 1998 Case Analysis

3293 Words14 Pages
The Human Right act (HRA) 1998
Interpreting legislation
The human right act section 3(1) provides that the subordinate and primary legislation must be “read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the convention right”. It can be seen that the provision in section 3(1) of the human right act 1998 can be applied to all primary and subordinated legislation whenever enacted.(Rosemary43)
Court rulings
According to section 2 of the Human Right Act 1998 which provide that the court or tribunal must take into account for the determining the arise a question which is connect with convention right
Act of public authorities
According to section 6 of Human Right Act 1998 a public authority has a duty for acting in a way compatible with the Convention rights. If the action of the public authorities is conflict with the convention right will be unlawful action unless the governing primary legislation leave no
…show more content…
In X v Australia the court consider the proceed of taking blood test under compulsion in paternity and held that ever there was a breach of article 8 but it is justified. In Peter v Netherland the court consider the randomly testing of prisoner’s urine for detection the drug from the urine was breach but it was justified by article 8(2).rosemarry50
Moreover Lee A Bygrave stated that the law and practice which allow the state agencies to carry out secret surveillance of citizens may interfere the right under article 8(1). The applicant need not to prove that he/she is the victim of an interference occasion by surreptitious surveillance measures. In the case the prison rules allow for the opening and perusal of prisoners, the prisoner can claim that he is a victim of the interference his pursuant right to article 8(1). The status of the victim will be recognized if it is absence of the laws and practices permit

More about Human Right Act 1998 Case Analysis

Open Document