In its regular monthly column law firm Weightmans tackles some of the bad press about the effect of this new legislation....

Many of these new rights are absolute and public authorities will have no defence.
False. Every one of us has the rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. That means, first of all, that our individual rights have to be balanced against the rights of others. Secondly, the courts will recognise that public authorities must have priorities and must make difficult decisions about how best to apply limited resources. Even Article 2 – the right to life – is only absolute in the sense that the UK cannot opt out of it.

But priorities, resources and competing needs will influence cases where life is taken or lost. A rare example of an absolute right is freedom from torture under Article 3, where the end is not allowed to justify the means.

This is a charter for criminals and disgruntled claimants. We will be inundated with claims.
False. The act is a major constitutional change, so there are bound to be some cases that test its limits. Most of us would like to think that we already have the rights set out in the convention, so it is perhaps only a way of making our rights clear and enforceable. The courts have already indicated that they will not entertain trivial points.

It will only affect public authorities, so private organisations do not need to worry.
False. Only a public authority can be sued under the act, but that includes anyone who carries out public functions. Popular examples of hybrid bodies are Railtrack (private company with a regulatory and public safety role) and Group 4 (private company operating prisons and transporting prisoners).

Private companies that are sub-contractors to public authorities will also be carrying out public functions under the act. Finally, courts and tribunals must take convention law into account in every case they deal with, so all private law is affected by the new regime.

Uniforms for school or work will be outlawed.
False. Article 10 – freedom of expression – does include self-expression through dress. As with most rights, limitations can be imposed. So, for example, if a school or other public authority or a commercial organisation had a genuine interest in promoting a corporate spirit and identity and reinforcing a brand and image which was essential to the organisation then the imposition of a uniform or the enforcement of a dress code would be acceptable.

It is simply necessary to remind ourselves that there should be some rational explanation for the rules which we lay down.

It will be impossible to carry out surveillance where we think it is necessary.
False. Surveillance is a useful and legitimate tool in both the criminal and civil spheres. There will be many good reasons for using these methods, and that will still be the case under the Human Rights Act.

The individual's right to privacy under Article 8 will usually be outweighed by the public interest in preventing fraudulent civil claims. But bear in mind also the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act which came into force on September 25, 2000 and may affect your right to proceed. Remember always that you should have a sound factual, as well as legal, basis for carrying out surveillance.

We will be forever taking legal advice about every aspect of our work.
False. You are still the best judges of your own business and your public functions. You should therefore continue to make judgments about what is in the best interests of your organisation and keep your eye on the operational ball.

The Human Rights Act should encourage best practice, which should in turn lead to a more efficient service. Most importantly, your existing statutory powers and obligations under primary legislation will still stand.