Have the courts struck a balance between the protection of individual rights under The Human Rights Act and Parliamentary sovereignty?

The traditional Diceyan view was that the role of the judges is to protect civil liberties and human rights through the common law, and by judicial interpretation. Dicey placed great emphasis on the fact that there was no need for a formal document laying down the rights of the individual, as the remedies of private law provided adequate protection. His view was backed up by the classic decision in Entick v Carrington, where the courts …

…has been used wisely. The case of R v A indicates that a court can easily cross the line between interpretation and legislating. By exceeding their powers, the courts will undermine the concept of Parliamentary sovereignty and create an imbalance between the need to protect individual rights, and respect for Parliamentary sovereignty. Therefore, the judges can be trusted to uphold and protect human rights to quite a large degree, but not to a total degree.