Twenty-five years on: an empirical study of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000

This article offers the first systematic evaluation of the Human Rights (Jersey) Law 2000 (HRJL), twenty-five years after its enactment. Using court judgments, States Assembly debates, scrutiny reports and government documents, it applies Joshua Newman’s four evaluative dimensions—objectives, tools, distributional outcomes and political impact—to a constitutional statute. The record is mixed. Rights feature in litigation and legislative process but enforcement is patchy and access limited by restrictive legal aid. Institutions are sparse: there is no commissioner, no committee, and only a short-lived programme of public legal education. Distribution is uneven: foreign offenders and financial actors have mobilised rights most effectively, while women and low-income groups are largely absent. Politically, incorporation has proved stable but low-salience, with rights almost invisible in elections, Assembly debate, and civil society. The study concludes that the HRJL has delivered stability without salience, entrenchment without civic depth.