No Cover Image

Journal article 616 views 210 downloads

Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act

Chris Rowe Orcid Logo

Public Law, Issue: 2, Pages: 293 - 315

Swansea University Author: Chris Rowe Orcid Logo

  • 65920.pdf

    PDF | Accepted Manuscript

    Author accepted manuscript document released under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY licence using the Swansea University Research Publications Policy.

    Download (629.35KB)

Check full text

Abstract

This article critically analyses a line of case law in which the courts have held that for legislation to be incompatible with a Convention right on proportionality grounds, it must produce incompatible outcomes in “all or nearly all cases”. The effect of the test is to immunise legislative measures...

Full description

Published in: Public Law
ISSN: 0033-3565
Published: Sweet & Maxwell 2024
Online Access: Check full text

URI: https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa65920
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
first_indexed 2024-03-27T11:19:41Z
last_indexed 2024-03-27T11:19:41Z
id cronfa65920
recordtype SURis
fullrecord <?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rfc1807 xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"><bib-version>v2</bib-version><id>65920</id><entry>2024-03-27</entry><title>Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act</title><swanseaauthors><author><sid>8d3ce3ec594158d0cf904d8b481cf70b</sid><ORCID>0000-0001-5979-2784</ORCID><firstname>Chris</firstname><surname>Rowe</surname><name>Chris Rowe</name><active>true</active><ethesisStudent>false</ethesisStudent></author></swanseaauthors><date>2024-03-27</date><deptcode>HRCL</deptcode><abstract>This article critically analyses a line of case law in which the courts have held that for legislation to be incompatible with a Convention right on proportionality grounds, it must produce incompatible outcomes in “all or nearly all cases”. The effect of the test is to immunise legislative measures from certain forms of challenge, which in some circumstances can render Convention rights nugatory. The test’s spread from its emergence in challenges to the immigration rules to cases involving both primary and secondary legislation is traced, along with different formulations of the test employed by the judiciary. It is shown that whilst the test significantly undermines human rights protection, it is only in the immigration context that the courts have been consistently willing to employ the test. It is argued that the test should have no place in human rights law, with other much more appropriate tools available to the judiciary to give effect to any overreach concerns.</abstract><type>Journal Article</type><journal>Public Law</journal><volume/><journalNumber>2</journalNumber><paginationStart>293</paginationStart><paginationEnd>315</paginationEnd><publisher>Sweet &amp; Maxwell</publisher><placeOfPublication/><isbnPrint/><isbnElectronic/><issnPrint/><issnElectronic>0033-3565</issnElectronic><keywords>Declarations of incompatibility; Human rights; Immigration; Proportionality</keywords><publishedDay>1</publishedDay><publishedMonth>4</publishedMonth><publishedYear>2024</publishedYear><publishedDate>2024-04-01</publishedDate><doi/><url/><notes/><college>COLLEGE NANME</college><department>Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School</department><CollegeCode>COLLEGE CODE</CollegeCode><DepartmentCode>HRCL</DepartmentCode><institution>Swansea University</institution><apcterm>Not Required</apcterm><funders/><projectreference/><lastEdited>2024-10-02T15:47:30.1574335</lastEdited><Created>2024-03-27T11:07:57.3286649</Created><path><level id="1">Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences</level><level id="2">Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law</level></path><authors><author><firstname>Chris</firstname><surname>Rowe</surname><orcid>0000-0001-5979-2784</orcid><order>1</order></author></authors><documents><document><filename>65920__29866__cf62a75f0a6243cca3038d59a33ab058.pdf</filename><originalFilename>65920.pdf</originalFilename><uploaded>2024-03-27T16:23:27.8091303</uploaded><type>Output</type><contentLength>644454</contentLength><contentType>application/pdf</contentType><version>Accepted Manuscript</version><cronfaStatus>true</cronfaStatus><documentNotes>Author accepted manuscript document released under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY licence using the Swansea University Research Publications Policy.</documentNotes><copyrightCorrect>true</copyrightCorrect><language>eng</language><licence>https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</licence></document></documents><OutputDurs/></rfc1807>
spelling v2 65920 2024-03-27 Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act 8d3ce3ec594158d0cf904d8b481cf70b 0000-0001-5979-2784 Chris Rowe Chris Rowe true false 2024-03-27 HRCL This article critically analyses a line of case law in which the courts have held that for legislation to be incompatible with a Convention right on proportionality grounds, it must produce incompatible outcomes in “all or nearly all cases”. The effect of the test is to immunise legislative measures from certain forms of challenge, which in some circumstances can render Convention rights nugatory. The test’s spread from its emergence in challenges to the immigration rules to cases involving both primary and secondary legislation is traced, along with different formulations of the test employed by the judiciary. It is shown that whilst the test significantly undermines human rights protection, it is only in the immigration context that the courts have been consistently willing to employ the test. It is argued that the test should have no place in human rights law, with other much more appropriate tools available to the judiciary to give effect to any overreach concerns. Journal Article Public Law 2 293 315 Sweet & Maxwell 0033-3565 Declarations of incompatibility; Human rights; Immigration; Proportionality 1 4 2024 2024-04-01 COLLEGE NANME Hillary Rodham Clinton Law School COLLEGE CODE HRCL Swansea University Not Required 2024-10-02T15:47:30.1574335 2024-03-27T11:07:57.3286649 Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law Chris Rowe 0000-0001-5979-2784 1 65920__29866__cf62a75f0a6243cca3038d59a33ab058.pdf 65920.pdf 2024-03-27T16:23:27.8091303 Output 644454 application/pdf Accepted Manuscript true Author accepted manuscript document released under the terms of a Creative Commons CC-BY licence using the Swansea University Research Publications Policy. true eng https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
title Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act
spellingShingle Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act
Chris Rowe
title_short Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act
title_full Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act
title_fullStr Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act
title_full_unstemmed Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act
title_sort Challenges to Legislation under the Human Rights Act
author_id_str_mv 8d3ce3ec594158d0cf904d8b481cf70b
author_id_fullname_str_mv 8d3ce3ec594158d0cf904d8b481cf70b_***_Chris Rowe
author Chris Rowe
author2 Chris Rowe
format Journal article
container_title Public Law
container_issue 2
container_start_page 293
publishDate 2024
institution Swansea University
issn 0033-3565
publisher Sweet & Maxwell
college_str Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchytype
hierarchy_top_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_top_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id facultyofhumanitiesandsocialsciences
hierarchy_parent_title Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences
department_str Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law{{{_:::_}}}Faculty of Humanities and Social Sciences{{{_:::_}}}Hilary Rodham Clinton School of Law
document_store_str 1
active_str 0
description This article critically analyses a line of case law in which the courts have held that for legislation to be incompatible with a Convention right on proportionality grounds, it must produce incompatible outcomes in “all or nearly all cases”. The effect of the test is to immunise legislative measures from certain forms of challenge, which in some circumstances can render Convention rights nugatory. The test’s spread from its emergence in challenges to the immigration rules to cases involving both primary and secondary legislation is traced, along with different formulations of the test employed by the judiciary. It is shown that whilst the test significantly undermines human rights protection, it is only in the immigration context that the courts have been consistently willing to employ the test. It is argued that the test should have no place in human rights law, with other much more appropriate tools available to the judiciary to give effect to any overreach concerns.
published_date 2024-04-01T15:47:28Z
_version_ 1811813969012195328
score 11.037603

Similar Items