Know your rights

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

Thomas Jefferson's words in the American Declaration Of Independence

Even today, more than 200 years after it was written, the American Declaration Of Independence can still bring tears to the eyes. As a statement of the condition that all sensible human beings would aspire to, it has probably never been surpassed. But to say that people have rights is one thing. To guarantee and protect them is another.

Thomas Jefferson and his colleagues who drafted the Declaration believed it was the role of government to 'secure these rights'. Ironically, though, it has often been governments who have abused, rather than protected, human rights.

The Americans recognised that when they incorporated into their new Constitution a 'Bill Of Rights'. "Fresh in their minds," says an article from the US National Archives and Records Administration, "was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the revolution."

If it's government that is supposed to uphold rights, but also government that is one of the principal abusers of them, who stands up for the common man?

The answer has been to try to institute checks and balances on government - with the law as the ultimate check. Which makes it all the more astonishing that as of today, there is no human rights legislation enshrined in English law.

The Americans got their Bill of Rights 211 years ago. Since the European Convention on Human Rights was enacted back in 1956, the nations of Europe have one by one enshrined that legislation as part of their own domestic law. But not here in Britain. If a British citizen felt his rights were being infringed, he had to go to the European Court in Strasbourg for redress.

Jackie Knights, senior criminal lawyer at the York offices of solicitors Harrowell Shaftoe, said: "As far as human rights are concerned, we have been second class citizens. M. Poirot in Belgium, Herr Schmidt in Germany have been able to go to their own domestic courts to have their human rights upheld. We've had to go to Strasbourg."

Until now, that is. From Monday, when the 1998 Human Rights Act becomes law we will, for the first time in British history, effectively have our own Bill of Rights.

There are many rights that will be protected. Some of the main ones are:

nRight to life

nProhibition of torture and inhuman

or degrading treatment

nProhibition of slavery and servitude

nRight to liberty and security

nRight to a fair trial

nRight to no punishment without law

nRight to respect for private and for

family life

nRight to freedom of thought, con

science and religion

nRight to freedom of expression

nRight to freedom of assembly and

association

nRight to marry

nProhibition of discrimination

Some of these are so fundamental it seems extraordinary they have never been embodied in English law before. Part of the reason, says Jackie Knights, is that legislators have probably felt - incorrectly, Jackie believes - that English common law and the 'rights' enshrined in Magna Carta were enough. Couple that with a tradition in Britain of powerful government, and you have a recipe for doing nothing.

"A cynic might say that the British establishment did not want to bring in anything until it became embarrassing not to do so. But now the establishment has been dragged kicking and screaming to Strasbourg so many times...."

So, what will the new Bill of Rights mean? It won't mean you can sue your neighbour for making your life hell, or even your employer for discrimination - not under this legislation, at least, because the Human Rights Act only applies to public bodies such as the police and local council. It is not intended to open the floodgates to petty claims against those bodies, nor will it lead to large compensation payouts.

But it will help establish legal parameters about how public authorities can treat citizens. And that will have important implications for everything from conditions in prisons and even elderly people's homes to the quality of statutory services provided by the council, availability of evidence in trials, the education of children with autism or other special needs - and many others. "It brings rights home," says Jackie Knights, "and puts us on a par with our European neighbours."

It doesn't go as far as some had hoped. Dr Mark Evans, head of the Department of Politics at York University, says it does not really address the imbalance of power between government and the rights of the individual, because the ultimate head of the judiciary which will defend those rights is the Lord Chancellor - appointed by government. But it is, he admits, a step in the right direction.

Nobody quite knows how the new laws will work out, yet. Expect a rush of test cases. But here is how some of them may affect you.

Right to life

This probably won't make much difference, because the right to life is so well protected already. Even abortion law probably won't be affected, says Jackie Knights.

Prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment

This could have implications for the way prisoners are treated in police custody cells or in solitary confinement. It could also in theory lead to improved conditions in some council-run elderly people's homes.

"If there is an old person who is incontinent who is left sitting in unpleasant conditions for a lengthy period of time, they or their family could argue that was an infringement of their rights," says Jackie.

Right to fair trial

This could force police to disclose information to the defence they don't want to. At the moment the requirement is they disclose anything that may undermine their case: but the police themselves decide what that is. In future, there will be a requirement of 'equality of arms' which should mean police have to disclose evidence so that defence and prosecution are equally well able to conduct the trial. If we'd had a Bill of Rights the miscarriage of justice that was the Guildford Four, in which police withheld evidence, may not have happened.

Right to respect for private and family life

Councils could find themselves being taken to court for failing to stop noisy neighbours disrupting their neighbours lives - and, if they take action, for intruding on the noisy neighbours' right to privacy. Police may also find it much harder to justify making raids on family homes - even with a search warrant - unless they can demonstrate their reasons for doing so outweigh the infringement of the right to privacy of the families involved.

Rights to freedom of thought, expression and assembly

These have to be balanced against issues such as public order and causing a nuisance. But ultimately, they could strengthen the right of people such as the recent fuel protesters to demonstrate.