In the grand scheme of things, most laws don’t amount to much. Consultations are sent out and statutes wind their way through Parliament… and then nothing much of consequence happens. But the Human Rights Act (HRA) turned out to be that rare beast that attracted controversy and debate from its inception but, ultimately, proved to have the constitutional, political and legal resonance to justify the fuss.
This seemed no certainty back in 1997 when its creation was first floated; opponents of constitutional reform had long argued that such considerations fail to pass the saloon bar test of being on the mind of the average voter. As it happened, in the tense post-9/11 world in which the Act was soon operating, the legislation seemed rarely off the saloon bar talking list – thanks to its regular demonisation in the press.
