Sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10 HRA 1998

Question 2

What case confirmed the “mirror principle” in applying Strasbourg case law?
A. Re S and W
B. R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
C. Aston Cantlow
D. A and Others

Answer 2

B. R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator
Explanation: The court held UK law should generally mirror ECtHR rulings, unless strong reasons justify departure.

Question 3

In what case did the UK court choose to depart from Strasbourg jurisprudence?
A. Bellinger
B. Re S
C. R v Horncastle
D. Greenfield

Answer 3

C. R v Horncastle
Explanation: The UK Supreme Court declined to follow a Strasbourg decision on hearsay evidence, emphasising national context.

Question 4

What does Section 3 HRA require courts to do when interpreting legislation?
A. Ignore clear statutory wording
B. Apply EU supremacy
C. Interpret legislation to be compatible with Convention rights “so far as it is possible”
D. Create new rights where needed

Answer 4

C. Interpret legislation to be compatible with Convention rights “so far as it is possible”
Explanation: s.3 requires strong interpretation in favour of rights, within limits of possibility.

Question 5

What did the court decide in R v A (Complainant’s Sexual History)?
A. The legislation was struck down
B. Strasbourg law was ignored
C. The law was read to exclude rape trials
D. s.3 allowed reinterpretation to ensure fair trial

Answer 5

D. s.3 allowed reinterpretation to ensure fair trial
Explanation: The House of Lords used s.3 to “read in” a right to adduce evidence in rape trials.

Question 6

Which case illustrates the limits of Section 3, where the court refused to interpret “woman” to include transgender individuals?
A. Ullah
B. Re S
C. Bellinger v Bellinger
D. Greenfield

Answer 6

C. Bellinger v Bellinger
Explanation: The court held this change was too fundamental and required legislative action.

Question 6

What is a Declaration of Incompatibility under s.4?
A. A ruling that a statute is unconstitutional
B. A formal statement that a law is incompatible with Convention rights
C. A requirement to repeal the law
D. A criminal sanction

Answer 6

B. A formal statement that a law is incompatible with Convention rights
Explanation: A DOI highlights an incompatibility but does not strike down the law.

Question 7

What is the legal effect of a Declaration of Incompatibility?
A. The law is automatically repealed
B. The statute is unenforceable
C. The UK must appeal to Strasbourg
D. The law remains valid until Parliament changes it

Answer 7

D. The law remains valid until Parliament changes it
Explanation: A DOI respects parliamentary sovereignty – the law stays in force unless amended.

Question 8

Which of the following is considered a “core public authority” under s.6?
A. A local council
B. A private landlord
C. A commercial bank
D. A local newspaper

Answer 8

A. A local council
Explanation: Core public authorities include government departments, police, and councils.

Question 9

What does Section 6(1) HRA state?
A. Parliament must repeal laws that breach Convention rights
B. The Prime Minister is immune from judicial review
C. It is unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights
D. Strasbourg case law must be followed directly

Answer 9

C. It is unlawful for public authorities to act incompatibly with Convention rights
Explanation: s.6 ensures state accountability for protecting rights.

Question 10

When is a public authority exempt from s.6 liability?
A. When it is a private body
B. When Strasbourg has not ruled on the issue
C. When it acts reasonably
D. When it is enforcing incompatible legislation

Answer 10

D. When it is enforcing incompatible legislation
Explanation: Under s.6(2)(b), public bodies are not liable where legislation compels them to act incompatibly.

Question 11

Who can bring a claim under Section 7 of the HRA?
A. Anyone affected emotionally
B. Any UK resident
C. A victim within the meaning of Article 34 ECHR
D. Only political parties

Answer 11

C. A victim within the meaning of Article 34 ECHR
Explanation: Claimants must be directly and personally affected by the breach.

Question 12

What is the time limit for bringing an HRA claim under s.7(5)?
A. 1 year from the date of the unlawful act
B. 6 months
C. 3 years
D. There is no limit

Answer 12

A. 1 year from the date of the unlawful act
Explanation: Claims must be brought within 1 year, unless the court finds it equitable to extend.

Question 13

What remedies are available under Section 8 HRA?
A. Compensation only
B. Any remedy the court considers “just and appropriate”
C. Declarations only
D. Judicial review only

Answer 13

B. Any remedy the court considers “just and appropriate”
Explanation: s.8 includes damages, injunctions, declarations, and more.

Question 14

In Greenfield v Secretary of State, what did the court say about damages under the HRA?
A. They are not the main purpose of the Act and are discretionary
B. They must be awarded automatically
C. They are based on financial loss only
D. They are irrelevant

Answer 14

A. They are not the main purpose of the Act and are discretionary
Explanation: The court emphasised the goal is to vindicate rights, not to award compensation as of right.

Question 15

What does Section 10 of the HRA allow ministers to do?
A. Ignore Strasbourg judgments
B. Make legislation without Parliament
C. Invalidate court decisions
D. Remedy incompatibilities by Remedial Order

Answer 15

D. Remedy incompatibilities by Remedial Order
Explanation: s.10 empowers ministers to amend laws found incompatible via a court-issued DOI.

Question 16

What is the “standard procedure” for Remedial Orders under s.10?
A. A draft must be laid before Parliament for 60 days
B. The law is changed instantly
C. Strasbourg must approve
D. The Supreme Court must authorise it

Answer 16

A. A draft must be laid before Parliament for 60 days
Explanation: This ensures scrutiny while allowing for speedy correction of rights breaches.

Question 17

What is the overall aim of the HRA 1998?
A. To create new constitutional rights
B. To incorporate the ECHR into UK law while preserving parliamentary sovereignty
C. To replace common law with Convention rights
D. To transfer powers to Strasbourg

Answer 17

B. To incorporate the ECHR into UK law while preserving parliamentary sovereignty
Explanation: The HRA integrates rights into domestic law but maintains the sovereignty of Parliament.

Question 18

Which section allows courts to interpret legislation compatibly, and which section allows them to declare it incompatible?
A. s.3 and s.4 respectively
B. s.2 and s.6
C. s.7 and s.10
D. s.6 and s.2

Answer 18

A. s.3 and s.4 respectively
Explanation: s.3 enables interpretation, s.4 allows for a DOI where s.3 is not possible.

Question 19

What principle is best illustrated by Aston Cantlow PCC v Wallbank [2003]?
A. The mirror principle
B. Parliamentary supremacy
C. The definition of a hybrid public authority under s.6
D. Remedy limitations under s.8

Answer 19

C. The definition of a hybrid public authority under s.6
Explanation: The case clarified who qualifies as a core vs hybrid authority under the HRA.

Question 20

A court is faced with legislation that allows hearsay evidence in criminal trials. The ECtHR has ruled that this practice breaches Article 6. Can the UK court choose to depart from the Strasbourg ruling?
A. Yes, if the court provides a reasoned justification as in R v Horncastle
B. No, UK courts must follow Strasbourg case law without exception
C. Yes, but only if the Attorney General consents
D. No, unless a DOI is issued first

Answer 20

A. Yes, if the court provides a reasoned justification as in R v Horncastle
Explanation: UK courts must “take into account” ECtHR rulings (s.2), but may depart in limited cases, as shown in Horncastle.

Question 21

A statute explicitly states that evidence of a complainant’s past sexual history is inadmissible. The judge believes this breaches the defendant’s right to a fair trial. What should the court do under s.3?
A. Strike down the law
B. Refer it to Parliament
C. Interpret the provision compatibly with Article 6 to allow the evidence where necessary
D. Make a declaration of incompatibility immediately

Answer 21

C. Interpret the provision compatibly with Article 6 to allow the evidence where necessary
Explanation: R v A illustrates how s.3 allows courts to “read in” rights-consistent meanings even where statute is clear.

Question 22

A private care home refuses to allow visits between a terminally ill resident and their partner. Can a human rights claim under s.6 be brought against the care home?
A. Yes, all private bodies are covered
B. No, because they are not state-funded
C. Yes, they are a core public authority
D. Only if they are performing public functions under statute (hybrid authority)

Answer 22

D. Only if they are performing public functions under statute (hybrid authority)
Explanation: Under Aston Cantlow, only bodies performing public functions fall under s.6 HRA.

Question 23

Parliament enacts a law that mandates blanket surveillance of all mobile phones. A court finds it incompatible with Article 8, but cannot interpret it differently. What can the court do?
A. Order Parliament to amend it
B. Require compensation
C. Strike down the law
D. Issue a declaration of incompatibility under s.4

Answer 23

D. Issue a declaration of incompatibility under s.4
Explanation: Courts cannot strike down legislation under the HRA — instead, they may issue a DOI under s.4.

Question 24

A local authority evicts a tenant under a statutory procedure later found incompatible with Article 8. What protection does s.6 offer the tenant? A. None, unless Strasbourg intervenes B. Full immunity from eviction C. No protection if the authority was acting under incompatible legislation D. Automatic reinstatement

Answer 24

C. No protection if the authority was acting under incompatible legislation Explanation: s.6(2)(b) exempts authorities where legislation requires incompatible conduct.

Question 25

A convicted prisoner claims his Article 8 right to family life is breached by prison mail rules. The UK court disagrees but Strasbourg rules in his favour. Must the UK court now change its decision? A. Yes, it must automatically apply the ECtHR ruling B. No, UK courts are not bound by Strasbourg C. Not automatically, but UK courts must re-evaluate and may follow Strasbourg if consistent with domestic principles D. Yes, if the Minister for Justice agrees

Answer 25

C. Not automatically, but UK courts must re-evaluate and may follow Strasbourg if consistent with domestic principles Explanation: s.2 requires courts to take Strasbourg into account, but does not impose strict obedience.

Question 26

A claimant challenges a law preventing same-sex couples from adopting. The court finds the law violates Article 14 in conjunction with Article 8, but cannot interpret it compatibly. What is the next step? A. Issue a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 B. Award damages C. Strike down the law D. Refer the case to Strasbourg

Answer 26

A. Issue a declaration of incompatibility under s.4 Explanation: If s.3 cannot achieve compatibility, a DOI is the correct constitutional response.

Question 27

A religious charity delivering services under contract with the state denies access to services based on faith. Can it be subject to an HRA claim? A. Yes, if it is carrying out public functions (hybrid authority) B. No, it is a private charity C. Only if Parliament authorises the claim D. Yes, but only under EU law

Answer 27

A. Yes, if it is carrying out public functions (hybrid authority) Explanation: Where private bodies deliver public services, they may fall under s.6 as hybrid authorities.

Question 28

A court issues a DOI. Parliament accepts the finding and passes a Remedial Order under s.10. What procedural safeguard applies? A. It must be approved by the monarch B. The draft must be laid before Parliament for 60 days C. Strasbourg must be notified D. The order is permanent and cannot be challenged

Answer 28

B. The draft must be laid before Parliament for 60 days Explanation: Under the standard s.10 procedure, Parliament retains oversight of Remedial Orders.

Question 29

A legal person (corporation) claims its Article 10 rights have been breached by a public regulator. Can it bring a claim under the HRA? A. No, only individuals are protected B. Yes, if it qualifies as a “victim” under Article 34 ECHR C. No, Article 10 is not a corporate right D. Yes, but only with ministerial approval

Answer 29

B. Yes, if it qualifies as a “victim” under Article 34 ECHR Explanation: Legal persons (e.g., media companies) can bring claims under the HRA if they are directly affected.