The Dignity Toolkit: How a Fight for a Double Bed Taught Me the True Meaning of the Human Rights Act

For years, the Human Rights Act 1998 was, for me, a subject of purely academic fascination.

As a constitutional law scholar, I lectured on its intricate architecture, debated its seismic impact on the delicate balance between Parliament and the courts, and dissected the landmark cases that filled the law reports.¹

It was a complex, controversial, and deeply political statute—a text to be analyzed, a concept to be theorized.

I understood its mechanics, its critics, and its champions.

Or so I thought.

My abstract understanding shattered when theory collided with a brutal, bureaucratic reality.

A dear family friend, a woman from Yorkshire who I will call Eleanor, became disabled and was confined to her bed.

After decades of marriage, she and her husband faced a new and painful separation.

The local authority, in its wisdom, determined she required a special ‘profile’ bed for her care.

This bed, however, only came in a single size.

Her offer to pay the extra cost for a double version, so she could continue to sleep beside the man she had shared her life with, was refused.

For 18 agonizing months, they were stuck in a stalemate, their lives dictated by an inflexible policy.³

I watched, helpless, as my years of academic knowledge proved utterly useless against the intransigence of a public body.

The situation posed a question that my textbooks couldn’t answer: How could a legal system that purports to protect fundamental “human rights” permit such a profoundly inhuman outcome? It was a question that would lead me on a journey from detached intellectual curiosity to engaged advocacy, forcing me to unlearn what I thought I knew and discover the true purpose of this remarkable law.

Part I: The Case Against: Echoes in a Lecture Hall

Before my personal encounter with the Act’s real-world power, my understanding was shaped by the high-level, often contentious, debate that dominates legal and political circles.

I taught my students the sophisticated arguments against the Human Rights Act (HRA), and they are arguments worth understanding because they frame the public’s perception of the law.

Sovereignty and the ‘Democratic Deficit’

The most persistent criticism leveled against the HRA is that it undermines the bedrock principle of the UK constitution: the sovereignty of Parliament.⁴

Critics argue that the Act empowers unelected judges to challenge, and even effectively rewrite, legislation passed by the people’s democratically elected representatives.⁵

This, they contend, creates a “democratic deficit,” where vital policy decisions on complex social issues are shifted away from the political arena of Parliament and into the courtroom.⁷

This concern is deeply linked to the HRA’s relationship with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and its court in Strasbourg (the ECtHR).

Section 2 of the Act requires UK courts to “take into account” the case law of the ECtHR.⁹

Critics argue this has led to an over-reliance on the judgments of “foreign” judges, effectively ceding constitutional authority and allowing European legal norms to unduly influence British law.⁴

Judicial Overreach and the ‘Living Instrument’

Fueling this anxiety is the ECtHR’s doctrine of the Convention as a “living instrument”.¹¹

This principle allows the court to interpret the rights laid down in the 1950s in light of present-day conditions, reflecting evolving social standards.

While supporters see this as essential for keeping rights relevant, critics view it as a license for judicial activism and “mission creep,” where judges expand the meaning of rights far beyond what the original drafters—including British lawyers who helped shape the Convention—ever intended.¹

This, they argue, leads to legal uncertainty and allows judges to impose their own moral and political preferences, a role for which they have no democratic mandate.⁵

The ‘Villain’s Charter’ Narrative

These constitutional anxieties are powerfully amplified by a pervasive media and political narrative that paints the HRA as a “villain’s charter”.⁷

This narrative is built almost exclusively on a small number of high-profile, emotionally charged cases involving individuals whom the public widely considers “undeserving” of protection.

This selective focus has created a deeply distorted image of the Act’s primary function.

The cases are infamous:

• The Belmarsh Case (A and others v Secretary of State for the Home Department): In 2004, the House of Lords declared that the indefinite detention of foreign terror suspects without trial was incompatible with the HRA.¹⁴ The ruling, which challenged Part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, became the poster child for the argument that the HRA hinders national security and prioritizes the rights of terrorists over public safety.⁵
• Deportation of Foreign Criminals: Countless headlines have been generated by cases where foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes have used Article 8—the right to respect for private and family life—to challenge their deportation, arguing it would separate them from family in the UK.⁴ This has fueled the perception that the Act is “common sense-defying” and puts the rights of criminals before the public good.⁷
• Prisoner Voting Rights: The long-running saga of Hirst v UK (No. 2), in which the ECtHR found that the UK’s blanket ban on serving prisoners voting violated their rights, created a decade-long standoff and became a potent symbol of Strasbourg’s perceived interference in domestic affairs.⁴

The constant repetition of these “loud” cases in political discourse and media reports has drowned out almost everything else.

It has created a reality where the entire debate about the HRA is not about what the law actually does for the vast majority of people, but about what it is perceived to do based on a skewed and unrepresentative sample of its most controversial applications.

The Act’s true, everyday work—the “quiet” victories—remains largely invisible.

My own journey was about to take me from the loud, echoing chambers of constitutional conflict into the quiet, desperate reality of a single bedroom.

Part II: The Epiphany: From Legal Text to Lived Experience

The 18-month stalemate over Eleanor’s bed felt like a microcosm of the problem.

Here was a decision by a public authority that was logical within its own procedural bubble but utterly devoid of humanity.

My legal knowledge was powerless.

Arguing about policy, budgets, and regulations led nowhere.

The turning point came when an advocate, weary of the bureaucratic impasse, suggested a radical shift in language.

“Stop talking about what the council’s policy is,” she advised.

“Start talking about what Eleanor’s rights are.” My initial reaction was skepticism.

The HRA? The law of terrorists and constitutional crises? It seemed a world away from a dispute over bedroom furniture.

But we were out of options.

And so, we invoked the Human Rights Act.

The effect was instantaneous and profound.

It was in that moment that my entire academic understanding of the law was turned on its head.

I had an epiphany: the HRA isn’t a constitutional blueprint to be endlessly debated.

It’s a practical toolkit, designed for a very specific job: to build and defend human dignity against the impersonal machinery of the state.

The Analogy: The Dignity Toolkit

Imagine you are building a house.

The state, as the master builder, has countless laws, regulations, and policies—a vast library of blueprints.

The Human Rights Act is not another blueprint; it is the essential toolkit that every builder must use, and that you can use, to ensure the final structure is sound, fair, and fit for human habitation.

• The Foundation Stone (Section 6 – The Duty on Public Authorities): This is the most important part of the entire structure. Section 6 of the HRA lays down a fundamental ground rule: it is unlawful for any public authority—a council, a hospital, the police, a government department—to act in a way that is incompatible with a Convention right.⁹ This isn’t just a suggestion; it is a legal duty. It means they must consider your rights in every decision they make, every policy they write, and every service they provide. It is the foundation upon which everything else is built.
• The Master Key (Section 3 – The Interpretive Obligation): This is the toolkit’s most versatile and powerful instrument. Section 3 requires that all UK legislation—every blueprint in the library, old or new—must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with Convention rights, “so far as it is possible to do so”.⁹ It is like a master key or a universal adapter that allows you to make sense of any other law through a human rights lens. It doesn’t rewrite the law, but it ensures the law is applied in the most rights-respecting way possible.
• The Alarm Bell (Section 4 – Declaration of Incompatibility): Sometimes, a law is so fundamentally flawed that even the master key won’t work. In these rare cases, UK courts cannot demolish the law themselves (preserving parliamentary sovereignty). Instead, they can activate a loud alarm bell: a “declaration of incompatibility”.⁸ This is a formal statement to Parliament that one of its blueprints is dangerously faulty and needs to be fixed. It provides a political, rather than a legal, route to a solution.

For Eleanor, we didn’t need to go to court.

We didn’t need a judge.

We simply needed to remind the local authority of the foundation stone.

By invoking her Article 8 right to respect for private and family life, we pointed out that their decision was interfering with a fundamental aspect of her existence—her marriage—and that they had a legal duty under Section 6 of the HRA to act compatibly with that right.

Within three hours of an advocate making that point, the 18-month stalemate was broken.

The council found the money and agreed to provide the double bed in full.³

It was a quiet victory, one that would never make the national news, but for Eleanor and her husband, it changed everything.

And for me, it revealed the true, practical genius of the Human Rights Act.

Part III: A Tour of the Toolkit: How Our Rights Build a Better Society

Understanding the HRA as a toolkit transforms it from an abstract legal text into a set of practical instruments for justice.

Each Article of the Convention, brought into UK law by the HRA, is a tool with a specific function, designed to protect a different aspect of our dignity.

The most powerful realization is that these tools are not just for lawyers to wield in court; they are for everyone to use in their daily interactions with the state.

The most significant and yet least visible impact of the HRA comes from this preventative function.

The duty placed on all public bodies by Section 6 forces them to think about human rights before they act.

The greatest successes of the Act are the injustices that never happen because a hospital policy was drafted with a “human rights lens,” or a social worker was trained to consider a family’s rights before making a decision.³

The court cases, in this light, are not the primary work of the Act; they are the evidence of failures in this primary duty.

Eleanor’s story is a perfect example: the simple reminder of the authority’s duty prevented a lengthy and costly court battle.

Critics who measure the Act’s success by counting court victories are measuring the wrong thing; they are counting the times the safety net was used, not the number of times people were prevented from falling in the first place.

The Dignity Toolkit: A Practical Guide to Your Rights

To demystify the Act, it helps to lay out the tools clearly, translating the legal language into practical functions and grounding them in real-life stories.

Tool (Article & Name)	Core Function (The Job It Does)	A Real-World Example (Where It Was Used)
Art. 8: Right to Respect for Private & Family Life	Protects your personal space, family relationships, home, and correspondence from unnecessary state intrusion.	An elderly couple (the Driscolls) separated by a care home were reunited.23 A disabled woman secured a double bed to share with her husband.3
Art. 2: Right to Life	Obliges the state not only to refrain from taking life but also to take positive steps to protect life and properly investigate deaths.	Enabled the families of the Hillsborough disaster victims to secure a new, comprehensive inquest that established the truth.22
Art. 3: Prohibition of Torture, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment	An absolute right ensuring no one is subjected to extreme physical or mental suffering. A baseline of human dignity.	Challenged the degrading treatment of a man in a mental health hospital left in a soiled room.3 Used by a 19-year-old with autism who was excessively restrained by police.26
Art. 5: Right to Liberty & Security	Ensures you can only be detained by the state for very specific reasons and with proper legal process.	A voluntary patient in a hospital (“Jenny”) who was unlawfully prevented from leaving the ward was able to secure her freedom.26
Art. 6: Right to a Fair Trial	Guarantees a fair and public hearing by an independent tribunal, not just in criminal cases but in any decision on your “civil rights and obligations”.	Used to ensure fairness in tenancy disputes, care decisions, and benefits claims, ensuring people have a proper say in outcomes that affect their lives.23
Art. 10: Freedom of Expression	Protects your right to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas, crucial for journalism and public debate.	Used by The Sunday Times to publish a story about the thalidomide scandal in the public interest.28
Art. 14: Prohibition of Discrimination	Not a standalone right, but a “piggyback” right. Ensures you can enjoy all the other Convention rights without discrimination.	Used to ensure same-sex partners had the same tenancy succession rights as heterosexual spouses, reading the law through a non-discriminatory lens.23

Exploring the Tools in Detail

• The Keystone: Article 8 (Private and Family Life)
  This is the most versatile tool in the kit, protecting the core of our personal autonomy. Its power lies in its breadth. It was the tool that reunited Mr. and Mrs. Driscoll, an elderly couple who had been married for over 60 years but were placed in separate care homes by their council.23 It was the tool that allowed Eleanor to sleep next to her husband. Beyond these intimate family settings, it has been used to challenge the state’s blanket retention of DNA profiles and fingerprints from innocent people, arguing it was a disproportionate intrusion into their private lives.31 It has also affirmed the right of children conceived by anonymous donation to access information about their biological origins, recognizing that identity is a fundamental part of private life.31
• The Bedrock: Articles 2 & 3 (Life and Dignity)
  These are “absolute rights,” meaning they are the non-negotiable bedrock of the toolkit.29 The state can never justify torture or inhuman and degrading treatment. Article 2, the right to life, does more than just prohibit unlawful killing by the state. It imposes a “positive obligation” to safeguard life and to properly investigate deaths where the state may be implicated. This duty was central to the fight for justice by the Hillsborough families, whose decades-long campaign for truth culminated in a new, HRA-compliant inquest that finally exposed the failures of public bodies.22 Similarly, Article 3 protects against treatment that strips a person of their basic dignity, even without physical violence. It was successfully used to challenge the appalling treatment of a man detained in a mental health hospital who was left in a soiled room by staff who claimed it was “pointless” to clean it.3
• The Framework: Articles 5 & 6 (Liberty and Fairness)
  These rights provide the essential procedural scaffolding for a just society. The right to liberty under Article 5 is not just a shield against wrongful imprisonment in the traditional sense. It protects against all forms of detention by the state. It was the tool used by “Jenny,” a voluntary patient in a psychiatric hospital who was repeatedly told she could not leave the ward. Her advocate argued this amounted to an unlawful deprivation of liberty, and her freedom was restored.26 Article 6 guarantees a fair hearing when the state makes a decision about your “civil rights and obligations”—a broad term that covers everything from tenancy and employment disputes to welfare benefits and child custody. It ensures that you have a voice in the decisions that shape your life.
• The Public Square: Articles 9, 10, & 11 (Thought, Expression, and Assembly)
  These rights create the open space required for a healthy democracy. They are “qualified rights,” which means they are not absolute and can be restricted by the state.29 However, any such restriction must be lawful, pursue a legitimate aim (like protecting national security or the rights of others), and be proportionate—meaning it must be the least intrusive means of achieving that aim. This demonstrates the constant balancing act the HRA performs. These rights were at the heart of a case that found the police tactic of “kettling”—corralling large groups of protestors for hours—to be an unlawful restriction on the right to peaceful assembly when there was no imminent risk of a breach of the peace.31

Part IV: Sabotaging the Toolkit: The Story of the Bill of Rights

The quiet, dignity-affirming work of the HRA was consistently ignored in the political sphere.

Instead, the “villain’s charter” narrative, fueled by the loud and controversial cases, drove a sustained campaign to “scrap the Act”.⁶

This campaign culminated in the introduction of the Bill of Rights Bill in June 2022, a piece of legislation that, despite its name, was a direct assault on the very toolkit it claimed to be improving.³⁵

The government’s stated reasons for the Bill—to restore “common sense” and strengthen parliamentary sovereignty—were directly contradicted by the evidence from its own Independent Human Rights Act Review, which found the HRA was working well ³⁴, and by the overwhelming majority of responses to its public consultation.³⁸

This revealed the Bill for what it was: an ideological project masquerading as a technical reform.

Its proposals were meticulously designed to disable the HRA’s core functions.

Using the toolkit analogy, the Bill’s plan can be seen as a deliberate act of sabotage:

• Locking the Toolkit Away: The Bill proposed a new “permission stage” for human rights claims. A claimant would have to first prove they had suffered a “significant disadvantage” before a court could even hear their case.³⁸ This would be like putting a complex lock on the toolkit, making it inaccessible for the very “smaller” injustices—like Eleanor’s bed or the Driscolls’ separation—where the HRA has its most profound impact. It would have created a class of “acceptable” human rights breaches, effectively telling citizens that some violations of their dignity are too trivial for the law to care about.
• Breaking the Master Key: The Bill’s proposal to repeal Section 3, the powerful interpretive obligation, would have been the equivalent of snapping the master key in half.³⁸ Citizens and public bodies would be left with incompatible laws and no immediate remedy. The only tool left would be the “alarm bell” of a declaration of incompatibility, which offers no relief to the individual victim and leaves the faulty law in place until Parliament decides to act.
• Ignoring the Warning Light: In a direct challenge to the international legal order, the Bill included a clause stating that UK courts should not take account of “interim measures” from the ECtHR—urgent orders issued to prevent irreparable harm, such as in deportation cases where a person’s life is at risk.³⁸ This would be like ordering a pilot to ignore a stall warning from the aircraft’s central computer, willfully disregarding a critical safety mechanism and risking catastrophic failure.
• Blunting the Tools: The Bill also sought to restrict the courts’ ability to recognize “positive obligations”—the duty on the state to take active steps to protect rights.³⁸ This would be like blunting the tools, making them useless for proactively building a safer society. It would undermine the very principle that led to justice for the Hillsborough families and for the victims of the serial attacker John Worboys, where police were found to have failed in their positive duty to properly investigate crimes.⁴⁰

This project of legislative vandalism was met with a firestorm of unified opposition.

The devolved governments of Scotland and Wales called it an “ideologically motivated attack”.³⁵

The legal profession, led by the Law Society, warned it would damage the rule of law and prevent access to justice.³⁹

Over 50 human rights and civil society organizations, from Amnesty International to the End Violence Against Women Coalition, warned of “dire consequences”.⁴⁰

Faced with this overwhelming consensus from legal experts, civil society, and devolved nations, the government relented.

In June 2023, it was announced that the Bill of Rights Bill was being scrapped.³⁹

It was a quiet victory for constitutional pragmatism over political ideology, but a vital one.

Conclusion: Everyone an Architect

My journey from the lecture hall to the front line of a fight for a double bed transformed my understanding of what law is for.

I moved from seeing the Human Rights Act as a source of abstract constitutional conflict to seeing it as an essential, practical toolkit for everyday justice.

It is a law that gives us a language—of dignity, fairness, and respect—and a framework to hold power to account.

The true legacy of the HRA is not found in the sensationalized headlines about terrorists and criminals.

It is found in the thousands of un-televised moments where it has empowered an ordinary person to stand up to the state and demand to be treated with humanity.

Its success is measured in the care homes where elderly couples are kept together, in the hospitals where patients’ dignity is respected, and in the council offices where policies are designed with people, not just procedures, in mind.³

The scrapping of the Bill of Rights was a crucial victory, but the vigilance must continue.

Threats to our rights remain, often appearing in other legislation that seeks to chip away at protections for specific groups, such as asylum seekers or protestors.⁸

The public narrative remains dangerously distorted.

To protect this vital law, we must reclaim its story.

We must understand that the HRA is not something that belongs to lawyers and politicians.

It belongs to every one of us.

It is a toolkit that empowers us all to be architects of a fairer, more dignified society.

The responsibility now is to learn how to use these tools, to share the stories of their quiet successes, and to defend them for the generations to come.

Works cited

1. Reforming the Human Rights Act 1998 – House of Lords Library – UK Parliament, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/reforming-the-human-rights-act-1998/
2. The Impact of the Human Rights Act on the House of Lords – LSE Research Online, accessed on August 1, 2025, http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/24565/1/WPS2009-08_Shah_Poole.pdf
3. The Human Rights Act – Changing Lives, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/the_human_rights_act_-_changing_lives.pdf
4. Understanding the Human Rights Act 1998 | DavidsonMorris, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.davidsonmorris.com/human-rights-act-1998/
5. What’s wrong with the Human Rights Act? | Conor Casey | The Critic …, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://thecritic.co.uk/whats-wrong-with-the-human-rights-act/
6. Frederick Cowell: The Three Eras of Opposition to the Human Rights Act, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2022/11/14/frederick-cowell-the-three-eras-of-opposition-to-the-human-rights-act/
7. Human Rights Act 1998: Does it need replacing? – House of Lords …, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://lordslibrary.parliament.uk/human-rights-act-1998-does-it-need-replacing/
8. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9958/
9. Human Rights Act 1998 – Wikipedia, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Act_1998
10. A Section-by-Section Guide to the Human Rights Act | BIHR, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.bihr.org.uk/get-informed/legislation-explainers/whats-in-the-human-rights-act
11. The Problem With Human Rights Law – Civitas, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/TheProblemwithHumanRightsLaw.pdf
12. The Human Rights Act 1998: past, present and future | The Constitution Unit Blog, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://constitution-unit.com/2016/05/03/the-human-rights-act-1998-past-present-and-future/
13. The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998 – UK Parliament, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-9958/CBP-9958.pdf
14. A v Secretary of State for the Home Department – Wikipedia, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_v_Secretary_of_State_for_the_Home_Department
15. A and Others v UK – Belmarsh Case – LawTeacher.net, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/a-and-others-v-uk.php
16. Constitutionalism, counterterrorism, and the courts: Changes in the British constitutional landscape – Oxford Academic, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/9/1/172/902301
17. Belmarsh and the UK constitution #2: The House of Lords’ judgment, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://publiclawforeveryone.com/2013/02/04/belmarsh-and-the-uk-constitution-2-the-house-of-lords-judgment/
18. The Human Rights Act – Liberty, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.libertyhumanrights.org.uk/your-rights/the-human-rights-act/
19. The Human Rights Act 1998 – Citizens Advice, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/civil-rights/human-rights/the-human-rights-act-1998/
20. The UK’s Human Rights Act Explained – EachOther, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://eachother.org.uk/the-uks-human-rights-act-explained/
21. Human Rights Act 1998 | Protection, Equality & Discrimination – Britannica, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Human-Rights-Act-1998
22. Discussion Paper: Reflections on Implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.hrcscotland.org/resources/final-reflections-on-implementation-of-the-hra-discussion-paper-feb-2024.pdf
23. Human Rights Act – Important legal cases – YouTube, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_DAkqyxZzE
24. Human Rights Act impact outside courts • Disabled married woman secures special double bed A disabled women who was unable to – LSE, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.lse.ac.uk/sociology/assets/documents/human-rights/HRF17-KlugHRAOutsideCourt.pdf
25. Why is the Human Rights Act 1998 still so contested? And what can be done about it?, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://davidallengreen.com/2021/02/why-is-the-human-rights-act-1998-still-so-contested-and-what-can-be-done-about-it/
26. Revealing the real-world benefits of the UK’s Human Rights Act – LSE Blogs, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/humanrights/2015/03/25/revealing-the-real-world-benefits-of-the-uks-human-rights-act/
27. The Human Rights Act 1998: Article 8 case law and child and adolescent mental health services | Advances in Psychiatric Treatment – Cambridge University Press, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/advances-in-psychiatric-treatment/article/human-rights-act-1998-article-8-case-law-and-child-and-adolescent-mental-health-services/89C51B34EE7C228BBFB243C6FCF116EF
28. Human Rights Act Stories, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.bihr.org.uk/get-informed/the-human-rights-act-in-real-life/other
29. The UK Human Rights Act – Pinsent Masons, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/uk-human-rights-act
30. Elderly pair separated by council are reunited at care home – The Guardian, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/society/2006/feb/03/longtermcare.uknews
31. HRA landmark developments briefing – LSE, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.lse.ac.uk/sociology/assets/documents/human-rights/HRF15-KlugLandmarks.pdf
32. The Human Rights Act | British Institute of Human Rights, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.bihr.org.uk/get-informed/what-is-the-human-rights-act
33. When can a public authority interfere with your human rights? – Citizens Advice, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/civil-rights/human-rights/when-can-a-public-authority-interfere-with-your-human-rights/
34. Reform of the Human Rights Act 1998 – The House of Commons Library – UK Parliament, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9406/
35. The Human Rights Act and the British Bill of Rights – Human rights – gov.scot, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.gov.scot/policies/human-rights/human-rights-act/
36. Human Rights Act reform – The House of Commons Library – UK Parliament, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9581/
37. The Independent Human Rights Act Review 2021 – GOV.UK, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/61b8531c8fa8f5037778c3ae/ihrar-final-report.pdf
38. Legislative Scrutiny: Bill of Rights Bill – Joint Committee on Human …, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt5803/jtselect/jtrights/611/report.html
39. Human Rights Act reforms and the Bill of Rights Bill | The Law Society, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/human-rights/human-rights-act-reforms
40. Consequences ‘dire’ if Human Rights Act ditched, more than 50 groups warn – The Guardian, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/may/09/consequences-dire-human-rights-act-ditched-northern-ireland-boris-johnson
41. The Rights Removal Bill – Human Rights Consortium Scotland, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.hrcscotland.org/work-rights-removal-bill/
42. The Rights Removal Bill is dead, long live the Human Rights Act, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.bihr.org.uk/news-blogs/blog/the-rights-removal-bill-is-dead-long-live-the-human-rights-act
43. World Report 2024: United Kingdom | Human Rights Watch, accessed on August 1, 2025, https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2024/country-chapters/united-kingdom