What is the difference between the Human Rights Act and The European Convention of Human Rights?

Question

Which one is more important and why?

Answer 1

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international convention binding the members of an organisation called the Council of Europe which is a larger and more extensive body than the (more famous) European Union (it even includes Russia which is most surprising).

The Convention governs the behaviour of States (Countries if you like) rather than individuals. If you feel that the UK has breached the rights given to you under the ECHR then you can take the UK to the European Court of Human Rights and (perhaps) obtain a ruling in your favour and often just satisfaction (money compensation).

The Convention itself never gave you any rights within the UK or in front of a court in the UK. You could not appeal to the European Court of Human RIghts. UK Courts did sometimes take the ECHR into account when coming to their conclusions but only rarely and generaly only when other factors were equal.

The Human Rights Act 1998 was passed to "bring home" the rights in the ECHR. It gives you a number of options you did not have before:

1. You can now sue any public body for breach of your rights - which is quicker and more efficient than having to go to the European Court of Human Rights in Strassbourg.

2. UK courts must now interpret the law (in so far as they can) so that it is compatible with the ECHR - the only thing that can override the ECHR is a fairly clearly worded statute.

3. If a statute does contradict the ECHR the court might (if it is sufficiently senior - in England and Wales that would be the High Court and above) make what is called a "declaration of incompatibility" which states that the statute is incompatible. This is not as useful as it sounds - a minister can then change the law if they want to but it doesn't change the existing law and all you may end up with is the declaration.

One unintended consequence of the Act is that the UK courts have decided they can interpret the ECHR differently to the European Court of Human Rights. All the Act requires them to do is "have regard" to the decisions of the Court. This means that though the list of rights in the act (for example the right to life, or the right not to be tortured) and in the ECHR are identical, the effect might be different.

Its hard to say which is more important since they operate in different spheres. For a UK citizen the Act is likely to be much more important. Internationally, the Convention is the more significant.

Answer 2

It is the same thing. Our bill of Human Rights is actually The European Convention of Human Rights to give it its correct name.

Answer 3

An "Act" is a law of a specific country. It is binding on the courts of that country, and a citizen can go to court to seek enforcement of it.

A "convention" is an agreement between governments that their laws will comply with the language they've agreed on. It has no 'individual' legal force. If a country that is a signatory to a convention then does not bring it's laws into compliance with the convention, an individual citizen of that country has no recourse.

Richard

Answer 4

Not much, they both make an ar$e of the legal system and takes the victims rights away.

Answer 5

Not much; except several Billion £'s spent with Brussels talking about it.

Answer 6

not much ,, its just theirs superseeds ours.. and is abit more liberal