The Human Rights Act 1998 enshrines in UK law the articles of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which guarantees numerous individual rights, from the right to a fair trial to freedom of assembly. While most people support these things in principle, critics object to the Act on several grounds. Many are concerned that the convention weakens our capacity to deal effectively with crime and terrorism, while others object that the Act encourages a litigious culture, by codifying dubious entitlements. Some feel that making British law subject to a convention originating outside the country undermines national sovereignty, and have proposed a Bill of Rights to be drawn up in Britain itself, reflecting real public concerns. Still others believe the problem is that the Human Rights Act gives too much power to judges and lawyers at the expense of elected and accountable politicians. Supporters of the Act say that despite any imperfections, it does more to protect liberty than any alternative, and that without it our human rights would not be protected.

How has the Human Rights Act contributed to the wider debate about liberty? Has the codification of certain freedoms in the statute books galvanised or restricted society’s idea of freedom?  Is the human rights movement still effective in preserving human dignity, or is it now just a nice little earner for altruistic lawyers and NGOs? Have legal appeals taken the place of political activism? What is next for the debate on freedom and does the Human Rights Act have a place?