ABSTRACT
It has long been a paradox that the United Kingdom – viewed as a liberal democratic state – should have no comprehensive written Bill of Rights.13 This is especially so given that the United Kingdom has been responsible for restoring independence to many former colonies and dominions and, in so doing, has conferred upon those states both a written constitution and a Bill of Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 marks a significant constitutional change in relation to citizens’ awareness about rights, and their protection by judges in the domestic courts.14 The Act and its implications are considered later in this chapter. Prior to incorporation of Convention rights, the judges used the Convention as an aid to interpretation to assist in resolving ambiguities in domestic law. However, given the supremacy of Parliament, the judges previously had no jurisdictional basis on which they could employ the Convention to protect rights. The Human Rights Act confers this jurisdiction, requiring the courts not only to protect Convention rights, but to make ‘declarations of incompatibility’ wherever domestic law is judicially seen to conflict with Convention rights. By this means, Parliament preserves its supremacy over changes in the law which may be required by judicial evaluation of domestic law against the provisions of the Convention. Before considering the Human Rights Act, however, it is necessary to understand the status and working of the European Convention and the scope and application of the Convention rights which the Act incorporates.
