• Home
  • Subscribe
  • Case table
  • About
  • Topics
    • Legal topics
      • Children
      • Criminal
      • Employment
      • Environment
      • European
      • Freedom of Information
      • Immigration/Extradition
      • Inquests and Inquiries
      • Family
      • International
      • Media
      • Medical
      • Mental Health
      • Politics / Public Order
      • Prisons
      • Religion
      • Terrorism
    • Introduction to Human Rights
    • Article 2
    • Article 3
    • Article 4
    • Article 5
    • Article 6
    • Article 7
    • Article 8
    • Article 9
    • Article 10
    • Article 11
    • Article 12
    • Article 13
    • Article 14
    • Protocol 1 Article 1
    • Protocol 1 Article 3
    • Protocol 2 Article 1
  • Archive
  • Contact

UK Human Rights Blog

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Terror suspects cannot be deported to Pakistan in case of ill-treatment
Mentally disabled prisoner discriminated against by authorities »

Terror case reopens debate on repeal of Human Rights Act [updated]

May 19, 2010 by Adam Wagner

Debate reopened

We posted this morning on the case of the “Pathway students”, in which two suspected terrorists used human rights law to avoid deportation due to fear of torture. Almost immediately after the decision was announced, the BBC reported that a “commission” is to be set up to address the future of the Human Rights Act. Has the case prompted a swift reconsideration of the Coalition’s position on human rights?

Probably not. It would appear that a commission to review the 1998 Act will be set up, as part of a wide raft of civil liberties reforms to be announced by Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg later today. However, the timing of the announcement alongside the terror decision is probably coincidental and the commission is likely to have been planned since last week’s Coalition agreement.

We noted last week in our review of the Con-Lib Coalition agreement that there was no mention of human rights in the text, which probably signified a disagreement between the two partners rather than an oversight. It would appear that the proposed “commission” on the future of the Human Rights Act is a compromise reached at the time of the agreement in order to resolve the diametrically opposed manifesto promises of the two parties, with the Conservatives promising to “Replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights“ and the Liberal Democrats to “Ensure that everyone has the same protections under the law by protecting the Human Rights Act.”

Mr Clegg is to announce a raft of reforms, most of which which were foreshadowed in the Coalition agreement. He told The Times this morning that today “he will set out how the State will shrink from people’s lives (no ID cards, curbs on personal details stored on government databases); how people will gain a more direct say in government (elected peers, voting reform, recalling misbehaving MPs); and “radical devolution” of power to voluntary groups and those other than the State to provide services.” He also said that “Any government would tamper with [the HRA] at its peril”.

What now?

Of course, a review of the Human Rights Act could lead to a few quite different outcomes. The most unlikely outcome would be that the Act would be scrapped outright and the UK returned to the position it was in before October 2000, where courts could take notice of human rights cases from the European Court of Human Rights but not apply them directly. The second possibility is that the Act would be repealed, and replaced with a ‘Bill of Rights‘, as the Conservatives have been promising albeit with little further detail. A third option would be a “Human Rights Act plus”, which would aim to recalibrate the rights and responsibilities set out in the current Act, which incorporates most of text of the European Convention on Human Rights, while keeping to the spirit of that Convention.

The third option is probably the most likely given the Liberal Democrats’ (in addition to the new Justice Secretary’s) opposition to repeal. However, this may lead to legal problems given that the UK is bound by European Law (seperately from the responsibilities it is placed under by the Human Rights Act) to the rights granted by the ECHR, and any substantive restriction of the rights due to new legislation could lead to compensation claims for breaches of rights in the European Court, as was the position pre-October 2000. That is not to say that a recalibration would have to weaken the protections; it could also be used to strengthen some of the rights, such as including a new “right to information“.

Human Rights Act Plus

As has been the case throughout this debate, supporters of the 1998 Act urge caution. Shami Chakrabarti, the Director of Liberty, has written in The Times that the Government should be very reluctant to tinker with the Human Rights Act, as “A retreat from human rights towards “citizens’ privileges” is the road to Guantánamo Bay. This is not the moment in our history to repeat such a misguided journey. I urge David Cameron and Nick Clegg away from that path — not because it’s unlawful, not because it would surely destroy their optimistic coalition. Because it’s wrong.“

We will follow the debate with interest. At present, however, it would appear that the review of the Human Rights Act, which at first seemed to have been kicked into the long grass by the new Coalition Government, is very much back on the agenda.

Read more

  • Update 19/05/10 – The full text of Nick Clegg’s speech on political reform can be found here - Note that as was the case with the Coalition agreement, there is again no mention at all of human rights.
  • Our previous posts on the Bill of Rights

Rate this:

Share:

  • Email
  • Digg

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Posted in In the news, Politics / Public Order, Terrorism | Tagged Coalition Government, commission, Human Rights Act, Terrorism |

  • Welcome!

    UK Human Rights Blog is written by members of 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscription is free.

    Editorial Team

    • Adam Wagner
    • Rosalind English
    • Angus McCullough QC

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 10,250 other followers

  • Browse by legal topic

  • RSS Recommended

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • Supreme Court judgment: Assange v Swedish Judicial Authority - Carl Gardner May 30, 2012
    • Julian Assange's extradition stayed thanks to quick legal footwork | Joshua Rozenberg | Law | guardian.co.uk May 30, 2012
    • New Judgment: Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority [2012] UKSC 22 May 30, 2012
    • What if Julian Assange loses in the Supreme Court? May 29, 2012
    • Secret justice concessions won't silence its critics | The Spectator May 29, 2012
    • ICLR's case summaries are now on Guardian Law | Daniel Hoadley | Law | guardian.co.uk May 29, 2012
    • The High Court is unable to agree on Twitter Joke Trial appeal - David Allen Green May 28, 2012
  • RSS Case law

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • SCOPPOLA v. ITALY (No. 3) - 126/05 [2012] ECHR 868 (22 May 2012) May 23, 2012
      ECtHR Grand Chamber: automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of prisoners unlawful but up to individual states how to implement changes were such a ban exist
    • Dishonesty in entry clearance applications May 21, 2012
      An Upper Tribunal (UT) decision confirms that, where an application for entry clearance is “marred by dishonesty” – whether in the applicant’s knowledge or not and even where the applicant is presently eligible for entry – it is not a disproportionate response for the Home Secretary to refuse the application, even in light of Article 8
    • MM and AO (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012) May 18, 2012
      Secretary of State acted lawfully in not ordering independent inquiry into 2009 protest at Immigration Detention Centre. Challenge by children separated from parents during protest and claiming pschiatric damage as result.
    • British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2012] EWHC 1295 (Admin) (17 May 2012) May 17, 2012
      Sky, BBC, ITN etc. succeed in JR of decision by court to order production of 100+ hours of video footage to Essex Police of Dale Farm protesters: "... there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the footage of over 100 hours included material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation"
    • Humphreys v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKSC 18 (16 May 2012) May 16, 2012
      Supreme Court: paying child tax credit to "main" care giver not discriminatory under art.14 ECHR to father caring for child 3 days per week. The specific test for justifying discrimination in the context of state benefits is that with questions of social and economic strategy the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless i […]
  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Law
  • UKHRB on Twitter

    • #Assange loses SC appeal 5 votes to 2. Like to be #ECtHR application to block #extradition 4 hours ago
    • #Assange Supreme Court decision imminent bbc.co.uk/news/uk-182594… #extradition 5 hours ago
    • Also fresh on the blog- The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on by David Hart QC ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/the… 5 hours ago
    • Good morning all, @IsabelMcArdle here. Justive and Security Bill- the govt is not for turning by Angela Patrick ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… 5 hours ago
    Follow @ukhumanrightsb
  • Adam Wagner on Twitter

    • RT @simonmckay: Catt v Metropolitan Police. Important case on #protest and #dataretention. Would be surprised if it was not appealed:htt ... 39 minutes ago
    • For anyone who hasn't read it > Justice & Security Bill: Government is not for turning - Angela Patrick of @justicehq: wp.me/pJiO3-3Gc 55 minutes ago
    • RT @CrowtherSimon: Excellent piece by @justicehq's Angela Patrick on Just& Sec Bill on @ukhumanrightsb ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… #secretj ... 56 minutes ago
    • RT @I_am_peevee: @AdamWagner1 @gideonconn "and excellent artist"... 1 hour ago
    • My friend and brilliant musician @GideonConn has a brand new video: youtube.com/watch?v=tX-ZrZ… 1 hour ago
    • Excellent from @joshuarozenerg on the potentially embarrassing mess surrounding the #Assange ruling is.gd/4Qs0h3 1 hour ago
    Follow @adamwagner1
  • RSS Recent posts

    • The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on May 29, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Justice and Security Bill: The Government is not for turning – Angela Patrick May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • We need to think about Kevin May 29, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Key Justice and Security Bill resources May 29, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Free Speech at Work: A 1COR Seminar and Mock Trial – Wed 27th June May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • Time and time again: Article 6 to the rescue May 27, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Prisoner voting, Bratza’s replacement and peaceful protest – The Human Rights Roundup May 27, 2012 Wessen Jazrawi
    • The case for letting prisoners vote – Reuven Ziegler May 24, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
  • Links

    • 1 Crown Office Row
    • 1COR Human Rights Update
    • 1COR resources
    • A(nother) Lawyer Writes
    • Ashley Connick's Blog
    • AVMA Blog
    • BAILII
    • Beneath the Wig
    • British Institute of Human Rights
    • Cearta.ie
    • Charon QC
    • David Allen Green
    • ECHR Blog
    • ECHR News
    • Education Law Blog
    • EJIL Talk!
    • eutopia Law
    • Family Lore
    • Free Movement Blog
    • Garrulous Law
    • Guardian Legal Network
    • Halsbury's Law Exchange
    • Head of Legal
    • Human Rights in Ireland
    • Inforrm's Blog
    • Inner Temple Current Awareness
    • Jack of Kent
    • Jailhouse Lawyer's Blog
    • Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants
    • Joshua Rozenberg's Blog
    • Law and Lawyers
    • Law Think
    • Lawbore
    • Lawyer Watch
    • Legal Week Legal Village
    • Meeja Law
    • Mental Health Law Online
    • Nearly Legal
    • Panopticon Blog
    • PHD Studies in Human Rights
    • Pink Tape
    • RightsNI
    • RPC Privacy Blog
    • Strasbourg Observers
    • The Human Rights Blog
    • The Justice Gap
    • The Magistrate's Blog
    • The Pupillage Blog
    • The Small Places
    • The Time Blawg
    • UK Constitutional Law Group blog
    • UK Freedom of Information Blog
    • UK Immigration Law Blog
    • UK Supreme Court Blog
    • Venables legal resources
    • Watching the Law
  • Disclaimer

    This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: Customized MistyLook by Sadish.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.