My understanding was always the governments couldn’t actact contrarily to HRA rights.
On the other hand there is this regime of judicial so called “declarations of incompatibility” which are albeit apparently non-binding.
But suppose the rights violations act 2023 grants government minister X a power to undertake a certain procedure against people that clearly violates their rights. Like for example summarily and arbitrarily summon them for immediate maiming or castration.
The law grants a power to the government which is clearly in contradiction with individuals’ HRA rights, yet, it was passed into law by an act of Parliament.
Suppose that Minister Alex exercises this power against citizen Bob and selects him to report to the Wapping Docks at dawn tomorrow for unanaesthetised castration.
Usually it seems that Bob can apply for judicial review against such conduct of government officials, and it seems to me that usually in such cases the judicial result would be binding.
So where does the conversely non-binding regime of declarations of incompatibility figure into this mix?