ABSTRACT
The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) has at the time of writing been in force for seven years (it came into force in 2000), so it is possible to make an interim but fairly tentative assessment as to its efficacy in protecting human rights and freedoms in the UK. It affords further effect to a number of the rights protected under the European Convention on Human Rights. It remains a controversial piece of legislation; for example, in 2006 parts of the media blamed it for weakening the UK in its ‘war’ against terrorism, and for the early release of criminals. The criticism was misleading, since even if the HRA was repealed, the UK would remain bound at international level to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights. The Conservative Party has stated that its policy is to repeal the Act if a Conservative Government is elected at the next general election, and to replace it with a ‘modern British Bill of Rights’. Assuming that a Conservative Government is elected and carries out this pledge, such a Bill of Rights could be in place by 2009/2010; it would presumably protect the Convention rights that are currently protected under the HRA, so the respect in which it would sharply differ from the HRA is unclear. In this forensic climate it is important to examine the background to the Act and to look carefully at what it can and cannot do. Its effects in fields ranging well beyond the criminal justice or terrorism ones must also be considered.
