{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01860166773572803, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005131494547787043, 'mean_word_length': 4.756457564575646, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Human rights and the ombudsmen

The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) introduced a radical new legal tool with which to resolve legal disputes. The full extent of the Act’s effect is arguable, as many cases since April 2000 might well have secured much the same result prior to the HRA by using pre-existing principles of law. Nevertheless, for better or worse, few would argue against the conclusion that the HRA has changed the manner in which lawyers and the courts have approached the resolution of legal disputes. This article will not even begin to attempt to add to the wealth of literature on the HRA and the courts. It will, however, review the extent to which the public sector ombudsmen (the Ombudsmen) have been required to take on board developments in this area of the law. It will do this first by presenting an argument that the Ombudsmen are well placed to consider human rights factors when resolving their investigations and, second, by analysing a recent joint investigation of the Health Services Ombudsman (HSO) and the Local Government Ombudsman (LGO). This investigation concerned an arguably significant breach of the human rights of a young man with severe learning difficulties while he was being cared for at a care home. Underlying this argument as to the role of the ombudsman, a further observation is also being put forward in this article. This is that academic scholars, particularly lawyers, should be much more aware of the alternative arenas within which the human rights culture required by the HRA is currently being promoted.