Analysis of the Human Rights Act, 1998

Analysis of the Human Rights Act, 1998 Human Rights Law ‘Despite the Human Rights Act 1998, the courts have failed appropriately to limit the scope for the exercise of breach of the peace powers.’ The Human Rights Act 1998 received royal assent on November 9, 1998 and came into force on October 2, 2000. The objective of said Act was to harmonize the domestic law of the United Kingdom with the European Convention on Human Rights. To reaffirm the commitment of the UK to human rights and civil liberties, it is now possible under the said Act to file a claim for violation of the ECHR without going to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Says Weinstein: This ability to transcend national law, and to compel revision of such law to comport with rights guaranteed by the European Convention in a broad range of areas, most often within the exclusive purview of national and local courts, is of historic note. Generally, nation states have been the final arbiters of most issues affecting their citizenry and within their borders. By treaty, the signatory nations of Europe have granted the ECHR binding authority to decide cases affecting their citizenry and other persons subject to their authority. In instances where state law is found inconsistent with an ECHR judgment, the nation at issue is obliged to amend its national law to comport with the ECHR decision. These cases illustrate the concept of what is increasingly being referred to as an evolving European supranational identity. The ECHR grants jurisdiction to any individual, non-governmental organization, or group claiming be a victim of a violation of the European Convention by a ECHR signatory nation, and to bring cases before it, as does, in applicable cases, the European Court of Justice (the â€Å"ECJ†), the court of the European Union, based in Luxembourg. Equally important, it prohibits any public body from behaving in a manner that is incompatible with any of the rights guaranteed under the ECHR. The Human Rights Act has gone a long way in limiting arbitrary actions from public bodies, in particular, police officers. It cannot be denied, however, that the laws on â€Å"breach of the peace† grant have historically been so vast in scope that in some occasions, human rights violations arise. The definition of â€Å"breach of the peace† (also known as breach of the Queen’s peace) has been discussed in the Court of Appeal decision of Howell, where it was stated as follows: We are emboldened to say that there is a breach of the peace whenever harm is actually done or is likely to be done to a person or in his presence his property or a person is in fear of being so harmed through an assault, an affray, a riot, unlawful assembly or other disturbance. It used to be that the prospect of violence alone would not be enough to be considered a â€Å"breach of the peace†, as in the comment of Farqhuarson LJ that â€Å"The act which puts someone in fear of violence taking place entitles a police officer†¦to detain the actor but it is not a breach of the peace, for the violence has not yet occurred.† There has been scant support for this view, such that in the present time, â€Å"breach of the peace† also embraces â€Å"behaviour likely to cause a violent reaction†, even if such behaviour is not of itself violent.