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:
Jasper Gold

Assistant Editor:
Allyna Ng

Editors:
Rosalind English
Angus McCullough KC
David Hart KC
Martin Downs

Jim Duffy
Jonathan Metzer

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


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.

Tags


A2P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice administrative court adoption ALBA Allison Bailey Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Appeals Arrest Article 1 Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 article 3 protocol 1 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assisted Dying assisted suicide asylum Attorney General Australia autism benefits Best Interest Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Business care orders Caster Semenya Catholicism Chagos Islanders charities Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Closed Material Proceedings Closed proceedings Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs court of appeal Court of Arbitration for Sport Court of Protection covid crime Criminal Law Cybersecurity Damages Dartmoor data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability discipline disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence DPA DSD Regulations duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal enforcement Environment environmental rights Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice euthanasia evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Extraterritoriality Fair Trials Family family law Fertility FGM Finance findings of fact football foreign criminals foreign office Foster France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Free Speech Gambling Gay marriage Gaza gender Gender Recognition Act genetics Germany gmc Google government Grenfell Hate Speech Health healthcare high court HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration immunity India Indonesia information injunction injunctions inquest Inquests international law internet interview Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Jalla v Shell Japan Japanese Knotweed Journalism Judaism judicial review jury jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Land Reform Law Pod UK legal aid legal ethics legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice Mirror Principle modern slavery monitoring murder music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland NRPF nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary open justice ouster clauses PACE parental rights Parliament parliamentary expenses scandal Parole patents Pensions Personal Data Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Private Property Procedural Fairness procedural safeguards Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Protocols Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries public law reasons regulatory Regulatory Proceedings rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion Religious Freedom RightsInfo Right to assembly right to die Right to Education right to family life Right to life Right to Privacy Right to Roam right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia sanctions Saudi Arabia school Schools Scotland secrecy secret justice Section 55 separation of powers Sex sexual offence sexual orientation Sikhism Smoking social media Social Work South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Sports Law Standing statelessness Statutory Interpretation stop and search Strasbourg Strategic litigation Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture Transgender travel travellers treaty TTIP Turkey UK UK Constitutional Law Blog Ukraine UK Supreme Court Ullah unduly harsh united nations unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability voting Wales war War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks Wild Camping wind farms WomenInLaw World Athletics YearInReview Zimbabwe

Tags


A2P1 Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice administrative court adoption ALBA Allison Bailey Al Qaeda animal rights anonymity Appeals Arrest Article 1 Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 article 3 protocol 1 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 7 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assisted Dying assisted suicide asylum Attorney General Australia autism benefits Best Interest Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Business care orders Caster Semenya Catholicism Chagos Islanders charities Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Closed Material Proceedings Closed proceedings Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus Coroners costs court of appeal Court of Arbitration for Sport Court of Protection covid crime Criminal Law Cybersecurity Damages Dartmoor data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention diplomatic immunity disability discipline disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence DPA DSD Regulations duty of candour duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Employment Law Employment Tribunal enforcement Environment environmental rights Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice euthanasia evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Extraterritoriality Fair Trials Family family law Fertility FGM Finance findings of fact football foreign criminals foreign office Foster France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Free Speech Gambling Gay marriage Gaza gender Gender Recognition Act genetics Germany gmc Google government Grenfell Hate Speech Health healthcare high court HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration immunity India Indonesia information injunction injunctions inquest Inquests international law internet interview Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Jalla v Shell Japan Japanese Knotweed Journalism Judaism judicial review jury jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Land Reform Law Pod UK legal aid legal ethics legality Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage Maya Forstater mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice Mirror Principle modern slavery monitoring murder music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland NRPF nuclear challenges nuisance Obituary open justice ouster clauses PACE parental rights Parliament parliamentary expenses scandal Parole patents Pensions Personal Data Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Private Property Procedural Fairness procedural safeguards Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Protocols Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries public law reasons regulatory Regulatory Proceedings rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion Religious Freedom RightsInfo Right to assembly right to die Right to Education right to family life Right to life Right to Privacy Right to Roam right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia sanctions Saudi Arabia school Schools Scotland secrecy secret justice Section 55 separation of powers Sex sexual offence sexual orientation Sikhism Smoking social media Social Work South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Sports Law Standing statelessness Statutory Interpretation stop and search Strasbourg Strategic litigation Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture Transgender travel travellers treaty TTIP Turkey UK UK Constitutional Law Blog Ukraine UK Supreme Court Ullah unduly harsh united nations unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability voting Wales war War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks Wild Camping wind farms WomenInLaw World Athletics YearInReview Zimbabwe

Discover more from UK Human Rights Blog

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading