The future of human rights, a decade on

6 October 2010 by

Two prominent public law barristers spoke last night on the future of the Human Rights Act at the annual seminar organised by the Constitutional and Administrative Bar Association.

The seminar had a special significance as the HRA has just celebrated its 10th birthday. Both speakers looked to the future of the act in light of the coming budget cuts and economic austerity policies.

Alex Bailin QC began by reviewing the case-law developments over the past year (his talk can be downloaded here). One point which stood out was the ever-complex dialogue between the UK courts and their Strasbourg-based cousin, the European Court of Human Rights. Since the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law, the UK courts and government have not always acted consistently with regard to decisions of the Strasbourg court. Bailin said that dialogue is currently at a “very intense phase“, thanks in part to a number of rulings which have criticised UK anti-terrorism policy. We have covered the key topics here, for example police stop and search powers, DNA retention and control orders.

Bailin cited the control order and stop and search cases as examples of the dialogue working. In both cases, UK policy has been reviewed and the courts have responded too. The DNA retention decision (S & Marper v UK) exhibits some inherent problems in the structure of the HRA, and in particular the fact that lower courts cannot take Strasbourg decisions into account if the UK House of Lords (now the Supreme Court) has come to a different conclusion (see our post). In the meantime, over a million non-convicted persons whose DNA has been retained must wait for the government to change the law.

However, the “worst” example of the relationship is the continued inaction on the part of the UK to implement the 2005 decision in Hirst v UK (No.2), in which the Strasbourg court ruled that prisoners should be given the right to vote in elections.

Meanwhile, a number of recent court decisions may be leading towards a “head-on clash” between the UK Supreme Court and Europe: in particular R v Horncastle, in which the Supreme Court held that s.2 HRA only requires the domestic courts to take into account Strasbourg case-law, not slavishly to follow it.

In his conclusion, Bailin asked whether, 10 years on, we had started to reach the boundaries of he HRA. Clearly this is an open question, but he rightly answered by giving an example of how far we had come in just a decade. In the recent litigation relating to Guantanamo Bay detainees, the UK courts have repeatedly used the HRA to prize open the formally closed world of the intelligence services. In one of the judgments, Lord Neuberger, the head of the Court of Appeal, said that “at least some SyS officials appear to have a dubious record when it comes to human rights and coercive techniques” Compare this to the passage cited by Bailin from a 1991 judgment in which the Court of Appeal approved the comments of Lord Denning. The contrast speaks for itself:

There is a conflict between the interests of national security on the one hand and the freedom of the individual on the other. The balance between these two is not for a court of law. It is for the Home Secretary … In some parts of the world national security has on occasions been used as an excuse for all sorts of infringements of individual liberty. But not in England.

Human rights in the age of austerity

The second speaker, Jonathan Swift QC, is First Treasury Counsel, which means that he is effectively the joint most senior government barrister. He has appeared in many of the most significant public law cases of recent years.

He looked at the potential effects which the coming ‘age of austerity’ would have on human rights litigation, and whether the focus of cases is likely to change. I argued recently (see here) that the ‘age of terrorism’ was now ending for human rights campaigners, and that the battleground would now be, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, the economy, stupid.

Swift began by saying that whatever the focus of litigants, the courts will generally be unwilling to entertain challenges to macro-economic policy, that is to the larger aims of the national budget. However, certain government policies may be challenged: for example, the proposed immigration cap and the equality impact of public sector cuts.

Article 1 of Protocol 1, the right to the peaceful enjoyment of property, is now likely to take centre stage. For example, if capricious government cuts lead to jobs disappearing, this may amount to a breach of property rights. The general focus of such cases has been the concept of “fair balance”, between the wider priorities of public authorities and the effects they have on individuals. Swift highlighted the potential difficulties in arguing before a court that a multibillion pound deficit must come second to a job worth a few thousand pounds. Of course, this problem is not new and there will always be clever lawyers to suggest more appropriate comparators.

Playing Robin to Article 1 Protocol 1’s Batman, said Swift, will be Article 8 (the right to family life). Most public authority decision which affects individual lives can also be seen in light of the right to family life. In a recent example, the House of Lords may have instituted a positive obligation on the state to provide housing to asylum seekers.

Another potential arena for human rights challenges relates to the ‘value for money’ or otherwise of government contractors. The new government is keen on outsourcing to the private sector, and this means that the question of what is a public authority will be further examined. Section 6 of the HRA provides that only public authorities can be challenged, and the term has proved to be somewhat elastic.

Much to look forward to

The ALBA seminar provided a good opportunity to take stock of how far the HRA has taken UK law since its introduction 10 years ago. In combination with the new Supreme Court, the UK under the Human Rights Act has undergone something of a constitutional revolution, and this is clearest in the run of stinging defeats which the government has suffered in anti-terrorism cases.

But with a new government, a poor economy and a (hopefully) receding terrorist threat, the focus of the HRA should now shift to economic issues. If if does, this may even result in a better public perception of human rights protections, which are, after all, not just for terrorists but for everyone. Whatever happens, there is clearly much to look forward for those with an interest in human rights.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS, or return to the home page

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 procurement 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: