This story here http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wear/8351405.stm
Says that they are challenging a certain order, on the ground that it infringes Art 8 of the Human Rights Act.
My friend who is doing a masters in Human Rights Law. Has said that he hopes their appeal doesn't succeed on Art 8 of the Human Rights Act.
Am I therefore stupid to then point out that the Human Rights Act 1998, doesn't have an article 8? And is only merely referring to the European Convention on Human Rights?? I was referred to schedule 1 of the Act which merely lists the European Convention rights...
Have I lost the plot over a very small piece of law? I'm still almost absolutely certain that the HRA doesn't have articles!
3 comments:
Your not stupid - the Human Rights Act doesn't have an article 8 but it does incorporate the ECHR into UK law which does have an Article 8 - the right to respect and privacy of family life, which you'll find is what the case is dealing with.
Your friend studying HR probably should have explained that to you!
Yes I knew that,
however others have also noticed that it has become a recent trend for writers to say that it is Article 8 HRA. In every judgment I have read it has always been Article 8 Of the Convention.
It is a tricky one to answer. Statutes don't generally have articles - they belong in international treaties. However, Part I of Schedule 1 clearly has the words "Article 8" contained within it. Although I suspect that this has just been a "copy and paste" job from the ECHR. I suppose you could say either, but it would be more correct to say Art. 8 of the ECHR rather than the HRA (and would probably be expected of anyone with a legal education).
Post a Comment