Prior to its entry into force the Act received a substantial amount of negative media coverage, concerns were raised about widespread abuses of the immigration procedures as well as the possible strain on the welfare system. There were also fears that the Act would force judges to disregard Acts of Parliament and by doing so undermine the doctrine of Parliamentary supremacy. Yet the subsequent events have shown most of these concerns proved misplaced. The unease about statutory interpretation was mainly due to section 3 which provides that, whenever possible, legislation must be enforced consistently with the Convention. Section 4 adds that in cases where such interpretation is not possible the court may issue a declaration of incompatibility. The declaration does not overrule any provisions but merely states that the law does not comply with the European Convention of Human Rights.



The Act leadsto an increased protection for the rights of individuals, e.g. in Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones v Hello! Another notable example of human rights protection is the decision in Mendoza v Ghaidan, in this case the protected Rent Act tenant passed away. The court was asked to consider whether, for the purposes of the law of succession, the surviving homosexual partner should have the same rights as he would have had if the couple was heterosexual. The case is significant for several reasons: firstly, the court held that discrimination was unlawful, secondly, it shows that the Human Rights Act applies both to public and private bodies and thirdly, the court interpreted the Rent Act 1977 broadly enough to give effect to the Convention rights. In the opinion of Lord Lester of Herne Hill Mendoza was correctly decided, he even prized the decision for upholding constitutional rights which include equal treatment.