Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998?

Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1998?

Postby Denning » Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:40 pm

A provision of Practice Direction 2B states:
Human Rights
7A A deputy High Court Judge, a Master or District Judge may not try –
(1) a case in a claim made in respect of a judicial act under the Human Rights Act 1998, or
(2) a claim for a declaration of incompatibility in accordance with section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Is there any authority as to the exact meaning of the words "may not"?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:42 pm

Surely their meaning is perfectly clear.
Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6390
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1

Postby atticus » Sat Apr 18, 2015 3:47 pm

Quite clearly those categories of judge are not to try such cases. Why do you ask?
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1

Postby Denning » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:01 pm

Are you making the statement that in English Law: "may not" = "must not"?

Asking to have a definitive authority on the meaning "may not" within English Law.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1

Postby atticus » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:15 pm

If I was making that statement I woukd make that statement.

"May not" in this case means "is not permitted to".
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1

Postby atticus » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:17 pm

I think there may have been a case in the Court of Common Pleas in the 1830s or 1840s.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 19943
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1

Postby Denning » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:37 pm

atticus wrote:"May not" in this case means "is not permitted to".

Thank you.
atticus wrote:I think there may have been a case in the Court of Common Pleas in the 1830s or 1840s.

I would appreciate if anyone here could help with the said case law or parties so that I could do some searches about it.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1

Postby Slartibartfast » Sat Apr 18, 2015 4:42 pm

Denning wrote:Asking to have a definitive authority on the meaning "may not" within English Law.


I think that phrase is correctly understood as "is prohibited from", in the context of English law.
"Judicial tergiversation is not to be encouraged"
User avatar
Slartibartfast
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:06 pm

Re: Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1

Postby Denning » Sat May 30, 2015 3:43 am

Could I get some gracious examples (including case law where possible) of judicial acts under the Human Rights Act 1998?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Who can legally try a claim under the Human Rights Act 1

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sat May 30, 2015 7:11 am

Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6390
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Next

Return to Human Rights Law

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests