CEDH

There's not one document that is the Constitution. It's more or less like the IIIrd Republic. You have different principles :
the separation of powers : Parliament and Government form a sort of power entity and the judges are strictly independent
the rule of law
the sovereignity of Parliament : there was a transfer of powers from the Monarch to the Parliament. An act that is given the royal assent is the most important document.

It works very well when there's no connection with abroad. But in 1972, the UK decided finally to enter the European Union. In the 1980s, when the UK signed the Human Rights Act, the question is how to articulate those legislations ?

The UK was one of the founding country. European Convention of Human Rights was one of the achievement of the Council.
The separate Bill of rights : one concerning GB, one concerning Scotlland and one northern Ireland.
An individual can lodge a complain in Strasbourg arguing that domestic law is unconventionnal. The UK, the judgement of E court of Human rights have binding force.

HRA :
Uk is a dualist state. In UK constitutional law, it is a royal prerogative to sign and ratify international instruments. Because of separation of powers, in order to prevent the Gt having an independent law making power outside parliament, the Uk is dualist. If the UK law is supposed to be changed by international treaty, it must be ratified. Then an act of parliament must be passed.
In 1950 the UK Gt signed the convention.
But it is not binding until the state ratified the text. The ratification had not been made in 1953.

The EHRA became binding in the UK at international law. But an act of parliament is needed for the EHRA. That act was adopted in 1998.

After WW2, the Council of E was founded and was supposed to draft a convention listing rights and liberties. The ECHR was adopted. It declared civil and political rigjhts. It provides that the enjoyment of these freedom could not suffer any discrimination art 14.
art 2 to 12

Art 1 relates to private and family life and his or her correspondance
'' there shall be no interference from the auhorities....''

Sunday times v UK : the position is that the ONU shift to the state to establish legality
Any state body reaching a decision must be given discretionary rule to decide. On complex policies, the state is likely to be allowed a certain dose of appreciation.
In 1966, the Uk accepted the jurisdiction of the european court of human rights. The Uk Gt was demanded to comply with any ruling of the court of Strasbourg. But the ruling did not directly change the Uk law. It was very expensive and very long. The successive Gt had not incorporate the european convention in UK law.
There have been lots of actions against the UK. So evolutive and dynamic approach of the european convention. Even if the Uk believed that laws and state practices were incompatible with the convention
After 1966 when the Court find irrepeatedly the UK in fault, the Uk had to enact a specific bill of rights to incorporate european convention in Uk law. That was done in 1998.
T Blair decided to give the European convention greater effect to domestic law and then decided to adopt legislation. This piece of legislation was given the royal assent in november 1998.

European convention was not the only document that provided protection of the Human rights. The judges had already provided a certain level of protection. The key element, that is to say how to articulate the constitution with this document, was done mainly thanks to the european convention. Section 1 of the HRA list the ECHR that will be given full effect.
Art 1 requires that the signatory state respect theses rights within their jurisdiction
Art 13 is the right to an effective remedy before a national authority. If a right or freedom has been violated by any administration, it is possible to seek a remedy directly before a court. The UK Gt regards the HRA to be a fullfilment of this right. And then the individual may petition direclty to the court of Strasbourg. The UK Gt is required to comply with any adverse ruling in such situation

Section 2 requires that the Uk court must be bound by jurisprudence.
Section 3 will impose an obligation on the interpretation of any piece of legislation. Every public body, political institution needs to look into the possibility of compatibility or non compatibility. This duty exists for all pieces of legislation, whenever it was enacted. The judge is supposed to consider the compatibility or non compatibility.
When an interpretation is not possible, when the law is incompatible with the european convention, the highest court (house of lords) may issue a declaration of incompatibility that will be sent to the Gt who will decide whether or not legislation must be done. But the judge will not modify the law itself, otherwise, there would be a violation of separation of powers. Thanks to the HRA, we can before a local court evoke the conventional rights of the european convention.
The european convention and the treaty of Rome are very solid, very strict but also very flexible.
The Bill of rights is about trying to fing a settlement, an organization between the different institutions. The Parliament is as strong and powerful as the monarch used to be. An act of Parliament is supreme. The HRA transposes the european convention. But how can Parliament can still be supreme when it is suposed to respect a certain amount of rights and freedom ? It cannot legislate freely on certain points. It must comply with conventional rights. This is how it affects the British constitution.
The HRA is exactly the same as the european convention of human rights. The judges used to protect the rights. Now, there is this HRA. The judge used to be a strong mean to protect rights, because there was no declaration of rights. Then was drafted the european convention of human rights. You could only petition to the Court of Strasbourg to enforce your rights, before 1998, because of the absence of incorporation of this convention in UK law. Thanks to the HRA, law can be declared incompatible. You can go directly in front of the UK courts.

The HRA is organized in sections.
Section 1 lists the conventional rights that are given full effect (2 to 12 and 14). artcile 13 is not transposed because it considered the text itself creates a right to an effective recourse in front of local courts.
Art 1 : obligation to respect human rights defined in the convention. The HRA is seen as fulfilling this obligation, that is the reason why there is no transposition. A UK court must take into account, since 1998, the european convention of human rights and the case law of the Court of Strasbourg to take into account the evolution and dynamic of law. It is binding only for a specific case. The Courts in the Uk will interpret further than what it written in the convention.
Section 4 : if in a case where obviously an old act of parliament is not compatible with a conventional right, the law lords are expected to declare incompatibility of this document. They must declare incompatibility.

On parle de l'intégration d'un texte de droit européen : soit droit communautaire, soit droit conventionnel
En 1972 la GB rentre dans l'UE avec le european community Act. Pour le coté conventionnel, GB signataire en 1950. Signature, ratification et incorporation. Il faut attendre 1953 pour que tous les Etats aient signé et que le texte soit considéré comme un texte de droit international. Mais, en 1953, il n'y a pas encore eu ratification. Si l'acte d'une institution politique est pris, il s'applique dans le pays. On peut alors agir devant les juridictions locales, mais qui décrètent que la loi est ainsi. En 1998, on décide de procéder à l'incorporation de la european convention of HR dans la loi anglaise par le HRA, qui énonce des méca à respecter pour l'application du droit conventionnel et transpose en droit interne certains articles de la convention européenne.