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

19 May 2010 by

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

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


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

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board care homes Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus coronavirus act 2020 costs costs budgets Court of Protection covid crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Facial Recognition Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania round-up Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence shamima begum Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance sweatshops Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

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.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: