Hugely important report due imminently… no, not that one

28 November 2012 by

Remember the Commission on a Bill of Rights? You know, the one set up by the Government in the early days of the Coalition to sort out the Human Rights Act? No, not the Leveson Inquiry; that’s about the media (you may have heard that it is reporting tomorrow). CBOR is the one with the eight lawyers, four selected by each of the Coalition partners, a bit like a legal Brady Bunch.

Some accused the Government of kicking the rights issue into the long grass by assigning it to a commission with a far away reporting date – the end of 2012. It seemed so far away, back in the halcyon summer of 2010. Remember David Cameron and Nick Clegg’ romance in the Rose Garden?

Well, the long grass has now grown and CBOR is due to report in just over a month. As I posted in July, the Commission has consulted the public for a second time. The responses have now been published, categorised into Individual responsesRespondent organisations and bodies and Postcard responses. In case you were wondering about the ‘postcard responses’ these resulted from campaigns organised by the British Institute of Human Rights and the Human Rights Consortium.

I have only skim read some of the responses and will not be undertaking any detailed analysis; we should know more soon enough when CBOR publishes its report. One thing to note is that given this was the only real substantive consultation undertaken by the Commission (the first was vague and didn’t propose any particular reforms), the number of responses is somewhat pathetic.; 109 from individuals and 106 from organisations. As admirable as the postcard campaigns are, much more could have been done by the Commission to make it easy for people to respond.

The paucity of responses is a symptom of how CBOR has failed to  capture the public imagination. Compare the Leveson Inquiry. It has rarely been out of the news. This is understandable partly as it is about the news. But Leveson has also had access to huge resources, took evidence from senior politicians, including the Prime Minister and his two predecessors, as well as other leading lights of society. The entire proceedings were broadcast live on the internet and transcripts and evidence published online the same day.

By contrast, CBOR has been squirreling away in the background with very little public engagement or interest. Who has been discussing CBOR on Twitter, the current barometer of public opinion? Practically nobody. When was the last time you saw it mentioned on the television news? For one, I can’t remember it ever being mentioned (although it must have been at some point back in the ancient history of 2010).

I have no doubt that the talented and knowledgeable commissioners have worked hard and will produce interesting and useful recommendations. But given its remit was in part to “consider ways to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties”, and also given the obvious public relations problem that the human rights system has, a truly useful Commission would have done more, and had appropriate resources, to engage public opinion.

If the UK really wants to take rights reform seriously, and politicians such as Nick Herbert MP really do want to “reclaim rights” and “redeem” them in the minds of the public (more on his interesting Policy Exchange lecture soon – in the meantime, read Carl Gardner), then the public needs properly to be engaged. It doesn’t need to be a full-scale Leveson-style hoopla, but it has to be more than this. Surely, the issue of fundamental rights protections is as – if not more – important than the proper regulation of the press.

For one, I doubt this or even the next government will launch the kind of public consultation and engagement needed to let people have their say – and feel they have had their say – about human rights. Unfortunately, the issue has become mired in a proxy war about whether we should reclaim our ‘sovereignty’ from continental Europe. The terms of this debate are so unclear and shifting that no politician will feel confident enough to stand behind a rights system with teeth.

The public, consistently misled by politicians and the press (I hope Lord Justice Leveson can devote a paragraph or two to this, is understandably jaundiced about rights. Ironically, this public misunderstanding of the provenance of human rights law – that even our domestic decisions are foisted on us by Europe (the truth is that the vast majority of decisions are made by our own courts) – has made it almost impossible for politicians to stand up for human rights and therefore do anything to fix the problem.

This leaves the field open for MPs such as Nick Herbert and Dominic Raab who veil arguments for international isolationism in the cloth of improving human rights protections. The public, not politicians with their complex personal and political agendas, should be setting the terms of this crucial debate.

As things stand, however useful its recommendations, the Commission on a Bill of Rights is unlikely to do anything to reduce accusations of elitism and public disengagement with human rights. Whatever Lord Justice Leveson tells us tomorrow, at least the public will feel they have been given the opportunity to say what they think.

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

Read more:


  1. Andrew says:

    CBOR mints are a minty bit stronger . . .

    Sorry about that!

  2. Helen says:

    Also worth mentioning maybe that that 1,244 postcards organised by the Human Rights Consortium were from Northern Ireland.

  3. Although those sending postcards may not have engaged with the process in any meaningful way as you say, the BIHR postcards were still a response, and they allowed senders to do more than send just the pro forma postcard, there were over 600 responses and many senders actually included personal statements of their own regarding the process which are reproduced fully on the report you have linked to. He numbers are admittedly disappointing, but such is life with these issues, and I agree that without the media hoopla available to the Levi enquiry, many probably just did not know about the consultations.

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Mike – perfectly fair. I have amended that bit of the post. It was a good idea and clearly worked.

Comments are closed.

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.




Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals Anne Sacoolas 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 diplomatic relations 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 hague convention Harry Dunn 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 prostituton Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation refugee 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 The Round Up 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 Weekly Round-up Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe


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: