did not intend to legislate contrary to the ECHR. Therefore, if during the course of statutory interpretation there were two possible interpretations, one in conformity with the Convention and one not in conformity with the Convention, the interpretation in conformity with the Convention should be preferred. The House of Lords, however, was careful to stress that it should not be assumed that such an interpretation must be applied. Judicial discretion remained. 5.4.3.2 Human Rights Act 1998 The relationship between the UK and the ECHR was changed in 1998 with the incorporation of the majority of the rights in the ECHR into English law. The enforcement procedures and processes in the Convention were not incorporatedonly the majority of rights and this is potentially a problem. For example, Article 13 of the ECHR places a duty on every Member State to provide an effective remedy in national courts for infringement of the Convention. This has not been incorporated. The HRA 1998 was enacted with an ‘in force’ date for the majority of its sections of October 2000. UK citizens can now bring actions under the ECHR in English courts under domestic law. The Act sets out the Convention rights incorporated into the English legal system in Schedule 1. Consider the text of s 1, set out in Figure 5.8, below, and note the process used to lay out what is and what is not included in the Act. The long title of the Act gives an indication of the purpose of the Act. The two rights not referred to relate to Article 2: Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law… and to Article 13 which requires every State to ensure that there are appropriate and effective remedies in the national courts. At the level of the ECtHR, the procedure for bringing an action is generally as follows.

DOI link for did not intend to legislate contrary to the ECHR. Therefore, if during the course of statutory interpretation there were two possible interpretations, one in conformity with the Convention and one not in conformity with the Convention, the interpretation in conformity with the Convention should be preferred. The House of Lords, however, was careful to stress that it should not be assumed that such an interpretation must be applied. Judicial discretion remained. 5.4.3.2 Human Rights Act 1998 The relationship between the UK and the ECHR was changed in 1998 with the incorporation of the majority of the rights in the ECHR into English law. The enforcement procedures and processes in the Convention were not incorporatedonly the majority of rights and this is potentially a problem. For example, Article 13 of the ECHR places a duty on every Member State to provide an effective remedy in national courts for infringement of the Convention. This has not been incorporated. The HRA 1998 was enacted with an ‘in force’ date for the majority of its sections of October 2000. UK citizens can now bring actions under the ECHR in English courts under domestic law. The Act sets out the Convention rights incorporated into the English legal system in Schedule 1. Consider the text of s 1, set out in Figure 5.8, below, and note the process used to lay out what is and what is not included in the Act. The long title of the Act gives an indication of the purpose of the Act. The two rights not referred to relate to Article 2: Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law… and to Article 13 which requires every State to ensure that there are appropriate and effective remedies in the national courts. At the level of the ECtHR, the procedure for bringing an action is generally as follows.

did not intend to legislate contrary to the ECHR. Therefore, if during the course of statutory interpretation there were two possible interpretations, one in conformity with the Convention and one not in conformity with the Convention, the interpretation in conformity with the Convention should be preferred. The House of Lords, however, was careful to stress that it should not be assumed that such an interpretation must be applied. Judicial discretion remained. 5.4.3.2 Human Rights Act 1998 The relationship between the UK and the ECHR was changed in 1998 with the incorporation of the majority of the rights in the ECHR into English law. The enforcement procedures and processes in the Convention were not incorporatedonly the majority of rights and this is potentially a problem. For example, Article 13 of the ECHR places a duty on every Member State to provide an effective remedy in national courts for infringement of the Convention. This has not been incorporated. The HRA 1998 was enacted with an ‘in force’ date for the majority of its sections of October 2000. UK citizens can now bring actions under the ECHR in English courts under domestic law. The Act sets out the Convention rights incorporated into the English legal system in Schedule 1. Consider the text of s 1, set out in Figure 5.8, below, and note the process used to lay out what is and what is not included in the Act. The long title of the Act gives an indication of the purpose of the Act. The two rights not referred to relate to Article 2: Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law… and to Article 13 which requires every State to ensure that there are appropriate and effective remedies in the national courts. At the level of the ECtHR, the procedure for bringing an action is generally as follows.