Is the Human Rights Act 1998 Entrenched?

No. The Human Rights Act 1998 is not entrenched. Parliament can amend or repeal it through another Act of Parliament. It does, however, have special status as a constitutional statute, which means it is not normally treated as repealed simply because a later Act appears to conflict with it.

What does entrenched mean?

An entrenched law is protected from change by the ordinary law-making process, perhaps by requiring a special majority. The Human Rights Act has no such protection. Under parliamentary sovereignty, Parliament remains able to change the law by passing a new Act.

Why is the distinction important?

In Thoburn v Sunderland City Council, the court identified the Human Rights Act as a constitutional statute. This gives it protection against implied repeal: a court should not assume that a later, inconsistent Act has silently repealed it. Parliament must make its intention to change the law clear. That is different from entrenchment, because Parliament can still choose to amend or repeal the Act.

The Act also gives courts ways to deal with legislation that may conflict with Convention rights. Section 3 requires courts, so far as possible, to interpret legislation compatibly with those rights. If a compatible interpretation is not possible, a court can make a declaration of incompatibility under section 4. The declaration does not invalidate the Act of Parliament.

For example, if a later Act clearly requires a rule that a court finds incompatible with a Convention right, the court cannot strike down that Act using the Human Rights Act. It may issue a declaration, leaving Parliament to decide whether to change the law.

Exam mistake to avoid: saying that the Human Rights Act is entrenched because it is a constitutional statute. Its special status limits implied repeal; it does not prevent Parliament from changing it.