The Human Rights Act of 1998 has come under fire from many who believe the U.K would be better off without the Act; it is at times much too stringent in regards to the courts, and there is the feeling amongst critics that it is yet another entity which takes away from the concept of sovereignty that the U.K enjoys. This then makes it the topic of considerable debate and controversy; the extent to how controversial the HRA really is however is up for debate.
One of the main facets of the HRA which fuels controversy is the fact that the Act is enforced by an external court in the form of the ECHR. This has proved to be controversial as due to this the judiciary or government not having full control of enforcement of the Human Rights Act and subsequent interpretations of cases coming under the Act, which has in turn produced some fairly controversial cases, perhaps most notable of which includes the case of Learco Chindamo. Chindarmo was a schoolboy who at 15, murdered headmaster Phillip Lawrence outside the gates of his school in the U.K; problems ensued when it arose that under the HRA, Learco could not be deported to his home country of Italy, firstly as he had resided in Britain for over 19 years (the deportation attempt occurred in 2007) and that if all else failed, he could appeal to his human rights, under the Article 8 ‘right to family life’. This was obviously a case of great debate as it featured a supranational body in the ECHR coming into direct conflict with the whims of a British court, thus providing a clear example as to the possible controversy the HRA can cause. In a similar vein, the ECHR being comprised of unelectable, thus largely unaccountable judges adds more ‘fuel to the fire’ for critics as the argument can be made our courts are being taken over by a ‘faceless’ entity which acts above the jurisdiction of the U.K judiciary.
The case of Chindamo is also indicative of another aspect of the HRA that has proved controversial, in that the Act raises issues for immigration and asylum. More specifically, refugees and asylum seekers are granted the perk of the 1951 Refugee Convention, meaning that they cannot normally be returned to a country where they fear persecution for certain specified reasons. Moreover, Article 3 of the HRA states asylum seekers cannot be returned to a country which practices torture and general inhumane treatment. These laws are bound to be subject to controversy, especially amongst the ‘Farage-esque’ anti-immigration group, who would be outraged at another safeguard for immigrants to enjoy. However, this is counteracted by the fact that Article 3 has a high threshold. It is not enough to establish that someone will be treated unfairly or unjustly, or that they are likely to encounter living conditions or health or education standards that are significantly worse than those in the UK.
A more recent issue involving Human Rights which has been a topic of much controversy is the issue of votes for prisoners. The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly ruled that banning most prisoners from voting is a breach of their human rights, and has on four occasions ruled that the UK is violating prisoners' rights by banning almost all of them from voting. The U.K is yet to change this, and in theory Parliament is not obliged to change this law at all. This again comes under the issue of the supranational body of the ECHR coming into conflict with the rulings of the U.K judiciary, and is a key issue which may not be solved for a sizeable period of time.

However, for all the controversy that stems from the HRA, there are aspects of it which perhaps make it the inverse, uncontroversial.
The main characteristic of the HRA seen to be appealing by many is that it, by definition, has a strong human rights ethos, thus appealing to the strong and ever growing human rights culture present in the world system today. Human rights as a principle is viewed as being a very positive thing, so an act known as the ‘Human rights act’ will have an inherently positive feel about it. Moreover, the Act does strive to make sure that Human rights are being enforced to its fullest extent, including basic human needs such as the right to life, the right not to be tortured inhumanely, the right to freedom, of thought and religion, and the right to freedom of association with others; perhaps the stringency of the HRA is necessary in order to preserve these human rights completely.
The Human Rights act is also seen as a tool by many to keep Governments in check, not least of which the U.K government. This has been seen on numerous occasions: The 1978 ECHR decision ruled that the British army’s use of five techniques on detainees – wall-standing (forcing detainees to remain in a “stress position” for hours, spreadeagled against the wall), hooding, subjection to noise, and deprivation of sleep, food and drink – amounted to inhuman and degrading treatment, and the ECHR ruling in 1981 that the criminalisation of homosexuality in Northern Ireland was illegal to name two. The HRA in general has been utilised throughout the years to investigate and attempt to expose many corrupt, unjust regimes where the human rights of many are being abused, and for that it can be deemed uncontroversial.
Finally, there is the general sense that the impact of the HRA on judicial courts has been overstated by critics. For example, the HRA does not give power to the judicial branch to strike down actions of Parliament. In the highly controversial Belmarsh case, for instance, Parliament could have ignored the judgement declaring indefinite detention for foreign nationals. Further, even though Parliament chose not to ignore the judgment, the suspected international terrorists had to remain in prison until new legislation was written since the principle of parliamentary sovereignty makes it impossible to strike down primary legislation. Hence the HRA has provided a moral rather than legal check on the legislature. Also, there have been only 11 occasions upon which the superior courts have upheld Declarations that Acts of Parliament were incompatible with the Convention rights, and on each occasion Parliament has passed further legislation putting the law back into conformity.
To conclude, the HRA and by extension the ECHR, at its core, is an entity that is inherently uncontroversial, due to it being an Act that by definition appeals to the strong and ever growing rights movement present in Politics. However, the ‘red tape’ and bureaucracy has complicated matters on the HRA, from deportation to votes for prisoners to the overall feeling that it is an Act which supports the unjust more than the needy. In summary, I feel that the HRA is more controversial, than uncontroversial.