Does the protection of rights in the UK now depend more on the courts than on Parliament?
Format. Each stem opens an analytical sentence. Finish it in one or two short sentences that commit to the line of argument. Type your completion in the box, then reveal the model answer.
Stem 1
The Human Rights Act 1998 looks like court-based rights protection but in fact depends on Parliament because...
Model: ...it can be amended or repealed by ordinary Act of Parliament. The HRA gives the courts only what Parliament has chosen to lend them.
Stem 2
A declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the HRA is weaker than it appears because...
Model: ...it does not invalidate the statute in question. The legislation remains valid and in force. Parliament can choose to amend or to ignore the declaration.
Stem 3
The Safety of Rwanda Act 2024 is the decisive evidence for the parliamentary supremacy view because...
Model: ...Parliament responded directly to the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling by declaring Rwanda safe by statute. The Court accepted the result without resistance.
Stem 4
The Equality Act 2010 supports a parliamentary view of rights because...
Model: ...it is a parliamentary statute that created broad anti-discrimination protections from scratch. The most important UK rights framework is judge-supervised but parliament-built.
Stem 5
The Public Order Act 2023 supports a parliamentary view of rights because...
Model: ...it restricted protest rights through ordinary legislation. The Act has not been struck down by any court, because UK courts cannot strike down primary legislation.
Stem 6
A court-based view of rights would rely heavily on Belmarsh (2004), but the case actually supports parliamentary sovereignty because...
Model: ...the Law Lords could only issue a declaration of incompatibility. The decisive change came when Parliament chose to amend the law. Without that political choice, the declaration would have been merely advisory.
Stem 7
Hirst v UK on prisoner voting shows that even European-level rulings depend on Parliament because...
Model: ...the UK delayed compliance for over a decade and ultimately introduced only narrow changes. International rulings have limited force when Parliament chooses to ignore them.
Stem 8
The line of argument across the essay should be that...
Model: ...rights protection in the UK depends more on Parliament than on the courts. Parliament can override court rulings, repeal the HRA, and pass rights-restricting legislation. The courts hold what Parliament has lent them.