How secure are the rights of UK citizens?
PARA 1 - SECURE:
The rst argument that suggests that the rights of UK citizens are secure, is the Human
Rights Act (1998), sets out rights clearly and in detail, and UK courts can issue a
'declaration of incompatibility' if legislation does not comply with these rights, putting
pressure on the government to back down.
For example, in 2010, F and Angus Thompson v Secretary of State for the Home
Department, looked at teenagers who had been convicted of sexual o ences and were
on the register for the rest of their lives. They argued that inclusion on register for so long,
with no chance of being reviewed was against their Hrs. The S.C made a 'declaration of
incompatibility' and parliament changed it so that sex o enders could be reviewed and
potentially taken o the register after a certain point.
This demonstrates that, through judicial review, our fundamental human rights are
protected and upheld in a variety of circumstances.
PARA 1 - NOT SECURE:
On the other hand, it could be argued that as only a declaration of incompatibility is
made, and there are no legal changes are enforced, our human rights are not actually
as secure as they may seem.
For example, in June 2018, the UK Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility
under the Human Rights Act 1998, nding that the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 was
incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, while the
government accepted that the law was indeed discriminatory, they argued that they
should be allowed more time to consider how to deal with and eliminate the
discrimination, and no changes were forced upon them.
This demonstrates that actually, the ultimate power lies with the government and the fact
that they decide the necessary changes to implement, suggests that judicial review does
not always su ciently secure our rights.
PARA 2 - SECURE:
Another way in which it is arguable that our rights are secured, is through the Freedom of
Information Act (2000), which gives citizens the right to access information and les held
about themselves by from public bodies, and also the 'right to know' about certain forms
of political misconduct.
Examples of facts that have been brought to light by the Act include a bailout of troubled
academy schools, details of MPs’ expenses claims, possible crimes committed by foreign
diplomats, the criminal records of policy o cers, and implants made available to girls as
young as 13 to try to cut teenage pregnancies.
This demonstrates the way in which this Act helps to protect and secure our rights by
creating a more open and transparent political system, where the electorate are informed
about any necessary events or policies.
PARA 2 - NOT SECURE:
However, it could be argued that the Freedom of Information Act has not taken su cient
measures to ensure that our rights are protected, as it is not entrenched, and certain
exemptions can be made.
For example, this Act gives the government the right to veto the release of certain
information. So far this veto has been used on 5 occasions, most recently in blocking the
release of letters written by Prince Charles, to government ministers, and the release of
risk registers produced by civil servants on the potential dangers of the planned NHS
reforms.
fi ffi ff fi ffi ff ff fiffi
PARA 1 - SECURE:
The rst argument that suggests that the rights of UK citizens are secure, is the Human
Rights Act (1998), sets out rights clearly and in detail, and UK courts can issue a
'declaration of incompatibility' if legislation does not comply with these rights, putting
pressure on the government to back down.
For example, in 2010, F and Angus Thompson v Secretary of State for the Home
Department, looked at teenagers who had been convicted of sexual o ences and were
on the register for the rest of their lives. They argued that inclusion on register for so long,
with no chance of being reviewed was against their Hrs. The S.C made a 'declaration of
incompatibility' and parliament changed it so that sex o enders could be reviewed and
potentially taken o the register after a certain point.
This demonstrates that, through judicial review, our fundamental human rights are
protected and upheld in a variety of circumstances.
PARA 1 - NOT SECURE:
On the other hand, it could be argued that as only a declaration of incompatibility is
made, and there are no legal changes are enforced, our human rights are not actually
as secure as they may seem.
For example, in June 2018, the UK Supreme Court made a declaration of incompatibility
under the Human Rights Act 1998, nding that the Civil Partnerships Act 2004 was
incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. However, while the
government accepted that the law was indeed discriminatory, they argued that they
should be allowed more time to consider how to deal with and eliminate the
discrimination, and no changes were forced upon them.
This demonstrates that actually, the ultimate power lies with the government and the fact
that they decide the necessary changes to implement, suggests that judicial review does
not always su ciently secure our rights.
PARA 2 - SECURE:
Another way in which it is arguable that our rights are secured, is through the Freedom of
Information Act (2000), which gives citizens the right to access information and les held
about themselves by from public bodies, and also the 'right to know' about certain forms
of political misconduct.
Examples of facts that have been brought to light by the Act include a bailout of troubled
academy schools, details of MPs’ expenses claims, possible crimes committed by foreign
diplomats, the criminal records of policy o cers, and implants made available to girls as
young as 13 to try to cut teenage pregnancies.
This demonstrates the way in which this Act helps to protect and secure our rights by
creating a more open and transparent political system, where the electorate are informed
about any necessary events or policies.
PARA 2 - NOT SECURE:
However, it could be argued that the Freedom of Information Act has not taken su cient
measures to ensure that our rights are protected, as it is not entrenched, and certain
exemptions can be made.
For example, this Act gives the government the right to veto the release of certain
information. So far this veto has been used on 5 occasions, most recently in blocking the
release of letters written by Prince Charles, to government ministers, and the release of
risk registers produced by civil servants on the potential dangers of the planned NHS
reforms.
fi ffi ff fi ffi ff ff fiffi
