Abstract
Abstract This chapter combines trenchant criticism of the UK Human Rights Act 1998 and an innovative suggestion for its radical modification. The critical element concentrates on Sections 3 and 4 of the HRA and the thesis that they make for a dialogue between courts and Parliament. It then goes on to present the Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) as part of the culture of compliance in which legislatures try to predict and pre-empt adverse judicial decisions. The proposals for reform include repealing Section 4 and amending Section 3 to make it clear that interpretation cannot include distorting the meaning of the statutory language. The JCHR could then operate more politically. More radically, the chapter also suggests that there should be provision for courts to adjourn particular cases of apparent injustices arising from legislation and refer them to a new body the ‘High Court of Parliament’ which would combine investigative and judicial methods to determine the matter and, if necessary, introduce an amendment to the offending legislation.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
