Repeal of Human Rights Act would make no difference

5 August 2010 by

Lord Hope

Lord Hope, the Deputy President of the UK Supreme Court, has said that repealing the Human Rights Act would have little practical effect effect on the enforcement of rights in the courts.

Joshua Rozenberg reports Lord Hope’s comments in the Law Society Gazette:

… what Hope did confirm – and I have never before heard a serving judge say this so clearly – was that repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would, by itself, make very little difference to way such rights are enforced in our courts. As he explained, the most significant change to the UK’s relationship with the Human Rights convention came in 1966, when Britain first allowed individuals to bring cases against the government; until then, claims against Britain could be brought only by other states. As a result, courts in the UK felt obliged to take the convention into account.

He went on to say that if the Human Rights Act were to be taken away now “all that jurisprudence is there… And the right of individual petition will be there. And we will still have to recognise that if we take a decision which is contrary to the human rights convention, somebody is going to complain to Strasbourg and that may cause trouble for the UKSo it’s very difficult to see how simply wiping out the Human Rights Act is really going to change anything until we withdraw from the convention – which, personally, I don’t think is conceivable.’

These comments echo those of the President of the Supreme Court, Lord Phillips, who has said recently in a lecture a limited number of acts of parliament – including the Human Rights Act – might soon be seen to have attained in law the status of “constitutional statutes”. This only applies to a handful of laws, but means that judges can apply those laws in ways which are unambiguously contrary to the will of Parliament (see our recent post: Increasingly muscular Supreme Court good for human rights).

The Human Rights Act is no longer under any serious threat. It certainly was pre-election, but after the forming of the Coalition, the Liberal Democrats would not accept the Act’s repeal as the Conservatives had pledged. Instead, the issue has been deferred for a while with the announcement of a Commission to investigate the creation of a Bill of Rights. It is clearly the view of the most  senior figures in the judiciary think that it would not be open for any government to withdraw from the rights enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights, even if they chose to. This is unlikely to be tested, however.

It would be interesting, however, if the Human Rights Act was to be “supplemented” by a Bill of Rights, and if the consequence – intended or unintended – was to restrict certain rights enshrined under the Convention. For example, if the Bill sought to restrict protections afforded to convicted terrorists who cannot be extradited as there is a risk of them being tortured, an issue which has recently caused a stir. In that scenario, the Bill of Rights itself could be rendered unenforceable, and it appears that the Supreme Court would be only too happy to rule against the will of Parliament if the case were strong enough.

Whoever leads the impending Commission will have to be very careful not to set up this confrontation, as a (unwritten) constitutional crisis would only divert the Supreme Court from continuing the success it has enjoyed in its first year of business.

Read more:

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

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.




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.


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption ALBA Al Qaeda animal rights 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 Artificial Intelligence Asbestos assisted suicide asylum Australia autism benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery Catholicism Chagos Islanders Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners climate change clinical negligence Coercion common law confidentiality consent conservation constitution contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs Court of Protection crime Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation deportation deprivation of liberty Detention disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Family Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage Gaza genetics Germany Google Grenfell Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests international law internet Inuit Iran Iraq Ireland Islam Israel Italy IVF Japan Judaism judicial review jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid Leveson Inquiry LGBTQ Rights liability Libel Liberty Libya Lithuania local authorities marriage mental capacity Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery music Muslim nationality national security NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary ouster clauses parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury Piracy Plagiarism planning Poland Police Politics pollution press Prisoners Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia Saudi Arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing statelessness stop and search Strasbourg Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treaty TTIP Turkey UK Ukraine USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wind farms WomenInLaw YearInReview Zimbabwe
%d bloggers like this: