Evaluate the view that neither individual rights nor collective rights in the UK are adequately protected and guaranteed.

Question 1

P1: Agree HRA

Answer 1

1. The HRA incorporates the (ECHR), allowing individuals to bring cases to UK courts.
2. In A v Secretary of State (2004), the Law Lords ruled that indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects under the Anti-terrorism Act 2001 violated Article 5 (liberty).
3. UK courts have become more assertive in protecting rights through judicial review, holding the executive to account.
4. R (Miller) v Prime Minister (2019) ruled Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament unlawful, upholding constitutional principles.

Question 2

P1: Disagree HRA

Answer 2

1. The (HRA) is not entrenched: Parliament remains sovereign and can pass legislation that breaches rights. The Illegal Migration Act 2023 arguably violates the right to asylum and fair trial, but Parliament can still enact it.
2. UK courts can only issue a “declaration of incompatibility” — they cannot strike down laws.
3. The government has considered replacing the HRA with a “British Bill of Rights”, raising fears of weakening protections.

Question 3

P2: Individual Rights Agree

Answer 3

1. In Eweida v UK (2013), the ECHR upheld the right of a Christian woman to wear a cross at work, showing how the UK legal system can protect individual religious expression against both state and corporate restrictions.
2. The Equality Act 2010 consolidates protections against discrimination based on gender, race, religion, sexuality, disability, etc. and is actively used in tribunals and courts.

Question 4

P2: Individual Rights Disagree

Answer 4

1. Increasing legal restrictions have limited protest and expression.The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 allows police to restrict protests for causing “serious disruption” — a vague and potentially suppressive standard.
2. Public Order Act 2023 further criminalises tactics used by groups like Just Stop Oil, raising concerns about chilling effects on free speech.
   Surveillance laws (e.g.
3. Investigatory Powers Act 2016) have enabled mass data collection, infringing on privacy rights.

Question 5

P3: Agree Collective Rights v Individual Rights

Answer 5

1. In R (Begum) v Home Secretary (2021), the Supreme Court upheld the Home Secretary’s decision to deny Shamima Begum re-entry to the UK on national security grounds, emphasising the collective right to security.
2. The Investigatory Powers Act 2016 allows bulk collection of communications data by state agencies. In Big Brother Watch v UK (2021), the European Court of Human Rights found aspects of UK surveillance law breached Articles 8 (privacy) and 10 (expression)
3. Cuts to legal aid under the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 have limited individuals’ ability to enforce their rights, particularly in housing, family, and immigration cases.

Question 6

P3: Disagree Collective Rights v Individual

Answer 6

1. In A and Others v Secretary of State for the Home Department (2004), the House of Lords ruled that detaining foreign terror suspects indefinitely without trial under the Anti-terrorism Act 2001 was unlawful under the Human Rights Act — protecting individual liberty (Article 5), but limiting the government’s ability to respond to perceived threats.
2. lIn Ziegler v DPP (2021), the Supreme Court upheld the rights of protesters to block a road during a demonstration. Critics argued this gave undue weight to protest rights over the collective right of the public to move freely and access services.