2025-02-20
We may all have an opinion on the operation of "Human Rights" laws in our country, but as most of us are not lawyers, we may be unsure exactly why we hold such an opinion.
Quite possibly it was because at some time in the past we read a newspaper report about some case or other and wondered how on earth the judgement that was handed down could be justified. We remember our reaction, but forget the detailed reasoning that underpinned it.
After a number of such reports crossing our cognitive threshold, the conclusion remains but the details have probably fallen through our memory hole. Unless of course we are a lawyer with a professional interest.
Dr David McGrogan writing for the Daily Sceptic does us a favour by explaining the primary characteristics that make laws good law, and how some of those primary characteristics were defeated by the introduction of the Human Rights Act of 1998 which enshrined foreign legislation - the European Convention on Human Rights - into UK Law.
At a stroke this meant that judges would have to decide between two possibly conflicted bodies of "law", with consequences that might have been foreseen but which we must lawfully assume (innocent until proven guilty!) were not foreseen.
This has led to numerous cases where the outcome appears to be perverse, not only to the man in the street, but also to eminent politicians ... which has the inevitable effect of undermining the standing of judiciary and politicians alike in the public eye.
Worth reading, particularly the bit about being "reasonably constant and not in flux" and "must be comprehensible".
I would challenge anybody to read any Act of Parliament of recent vintage and agree that
- they are readily comprehensible
- the Parliamentary practice of permitting changes to the substantive wording by statutory regulation (not requiring a vote in Parliament) complies with both of these principles.
