Hybrid public authorities and private acts under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(3)(b) and (5)
Ferrous Secure Services Ltd is a private company. Under a contract with the Home Office it runs an immigration detention centre, holding people detained under statutory immigration powers. It also has ordinary commercial contracts, including its contract of employment with Lena Novak, an office cleaner at its head office. In 2026 Rashid, a detainee, alleges that the conditions in which the company holds him breach his Convention rights. Separately, Lena is dismissed and argues that the company is bound by s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in relation to her dismissal.
Which of the following best describes the application of s.6 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to the company?
Choose one answer to see the reasoning.
Worked answer
Correct answer C: It is a public authority when detaining Rashid, a public function, but not as regards Lena's dismissal if that act is private.
THE RULE TO REMEMBER
A private body with some functions of a public nature is a hybrid public authority under HRA 1998 s.6(3)(b), bound by s.6 when performing those functions but not for acts of a private nature (s.6(5)).
Hybrid public authorities and private acts under the Human Rights Act 1998 s.6(3)(b) and (5)
Section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 makes it unlawful for a public authority to act incompatibly with a Convention right. By s.6(3)(b) "public authority" includes "any person certain of whose functions are functions of a public nature", so a private company can be a hybrid public authority. Detaining people under statutory immigration powers on behalf of the state is a function of a public nature, so the company is bound by s.6 in relation to Rashid. However, s.6(5) provides that, in relation to a particular act, a person is not a public authority by virtue only of s.6(3)(b) if the nature of the act is private. Dismissing a head-office cleaner under an ordinary employment contract is a private act, so Lena cannot rely on s.6 against the company.
Why A is wrong: s.6(3)(b) expressly extends public authority status to any person certain of whose functions are of a public nature, which can include a private company.
Why B is wrong: only a core public authority is bound for all its acts; a hybrid body under s.6(3)(b) is not a public authority for acts of a private nature (s.6(5)).
Why D is wrong: courts and tribunals are included by s.6(3)(a), but s.6(3) is inclusive and also covers bodies performing functions of a public nature.
Why E is wrong: s.6 contains no designation procedure; whether a body is a public authority depends on the nature of its functions and of the act concerned.
That's today's practice done. Another featured question tomorrow.
Related questions
Effect of a declaration of incompatibility (HRA 1998 ss.3-4)
Which of the following best describes the effect of the declaration?
Who may bring a Human Rights Act claim, and when (HRA 1998 s.7)
Which of the following best describes the position?
Effect of Strasbourg case law in domestic courts (HRA 1998 s.2)
Which of the following best describes the duty of the High Court in relation to the Strasbourg judgment?
A GOOD HABIT, DELIVERED
Tomorrow's question.
In your inbox.
One free question a day, with the answer and reasoning.
No course pitches. Just your daily practice.