Do we need a UK Bill of Rights?

5 August 2011 by

The UK Bill of Rights Commission has launched a public consultation on whether we need a Bill of Rights.

The consultation document is here and reproduced below. You have until 11 November 2011 to respond and you can do so via email or post.

The document provides a useful and fairly noncontroversial summary of rights protections as they currently exist within the UK constitutional structure. It does not, however, provide any information at all about what a “bill of rights” might entail or how such instruments work in other countries: contrast the far more detailed (and very useful) document produced in 2010 by the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

The Bill of Rights Commission was established in March 2011 and is due to report by the end of 2012. It is composed of 9 people, mostly Queen’s Counsel and not all of whom are human rights experts. For detailed background, see my most recent post as well as this excellent post on the UK Constitutional Law Group blog.

One interesting point which the consultation document makes is that:

no British rights that are ‘fundamental’ in the sense that they enjoy special constitutional protection against Parliament.

This represents the orthodox view of rights in UK law. However Lords Phillips and Hope – respectively the president and deputy president of the UK Supreme Court – have both argued recently that protections under the European Convention on Human Rights may have attained “constitutional” status. This means that if human rights were taken out of UK law, the courts may be able to apply them anyway, even if Parliament did not want them to.

In any event, this is an academic argument at present as the Bill of Rights Commission is not permitted by its terms of reference to recommend withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). At the moment we have a Human Rights Act, which incorporates the ECHR into UK law. Any Bill of Rights would have to be a “Human Rights Act plus”, as thanks to the Coalition Agreement, it cannot be a “Human Rights Act minus”.

It could, however, complicate matters. As I have pointed out before, the legal status of human rights protections in the UK is already pretty complex, potentially more so as a result of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (see para 46 of the consultation document, Rosalind English’s and this UK Constitutional Law Group post).

If a UK Bill of Rights ends up making things more complicated, by dividing and tailoring (to coin a phrase) the rights which already and exist under the ECHR, it will probably help nobody but lawyers.

The Commission is asking four questions:

(1) do you think we need a UK Bill of Rights?

If so,

(2) what do you think a UK Bill of Rights should contain?

(3) how do you think it should apply to the UK as a whole, including its four component countries of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales?

(4) having regard to our terms of reference, are there any other views which you would like to put forward at this stage?

I am yet to read any strong case for a positive answer to question 1. With that in mind, whether the Commission finds anything useful to do aside from making politically motivated gestures – for example on immigration and deportation – remains to be seen.

Given the Commission’s limited remit, the most that can be expected is two main recommendations.

First, a slight recalibration of the rights and responsibilities for the UK. As I have suggested before, this is an odd exercise to do in respect of “universal” rights which are broadly drafted and supposed to transcend national and cultural boundaries. It is also an end which could easily and less expensively be achieved by amending the Human Rights Act.

Secondly, a rebranding of the Human Rights Act as a “British” instrument, leaving aside the often made point that European Convention is a very British document already. This may make politicians feel more comfortable supporting it, rather than saying that rulings make them feel physically sick, but is unlikely to affect rights protections in any significant way.

Hopefully the public consultation will prompt some thoughtful responses which will be listened to, and the Commission will generate some creative ideas to improve rights protections in the UK. In the meantime, we have three months to let them know our thoughts.

View this document on Scribd

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

Related posts

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


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


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: