The United Kingdom and Human Rights - College of Social ...

Is a Bill of Rights the Remedy? 153
Communications Act 1989 is necessary in order to
provide a remedy for unauthorised interception: the Act
regulates the giving of permission to intercept, but does
not provide sanctions for failure to seek authorisation.
Until there is such a sanction, citizens will not be
protected against unauthorised invasion of privacy by
persons in official positions with access to methods of
communication.
To argue for yet more laws and specific amendments
to deal with human legal rights deficiencies is not
inconsistent with urging a Bill of Rights. Seeking a Bill of
Rights is a different demand, involving different issues,
and achieving similar but different purposes. The two
demands are complementary, a point repeatedly made
by advocates of a Bill of Rights, which is a set of general
principles incorporating minimum legal standards, rather
than detailed legal rules, and which can, even when not
directly in issue, assist in interpretation, either where
there are omissions in legislation, or where a situation
not governed by the common law arises and application
of such principles would be appropriate.
No sensible person has ever argued that a Bill of
Rights can tackle detailed questions or that the courts are
appropriate bodies to work out administrative blueprints
for detailed implementation. This is putting up an Aunt
Sally. No one has disputed that judges have only been
trained to deal with issues which tend to be specific and
are not equipped to dream up legislative and administrative
schemes. Even the American courts have shied away
from that task. Objections, couched in language claiming
that judges are incapable of deciding in a broad
legislative fashion, show misunderstanding of the scope
and applicability of a Bill of Rights.
Vagueness and indeterminacy will always be with us;
precision is an illusion; rules potentially conflict; rules
have to be interpreted; rules have to be applied and