What will happen to human rights after the next election? – Roger Smith

20 March 2013 by

The Anglesea pub in west London, which was a polling station for the 2010 general election.This post by Roger Smith was originally the text of a speech to the Working Men’s College and is reproduced here with permission and thanks.

Human rights will be a politically live issue at the next election. Leading on the issue will by the Conservative Party, urged on by elements in the media such as the Daily Mail with a commercial interest in resistance to any law on privacy deriving from human rights. So, the Working Men’s College has done well to identify this topic for exploration. This evening is a celebration of the college’s stated aim to ‘engage positively with the past, while finding new ways to pursue its founders’ aims into the 21st century.’

The pace on human rights is being forced by Theresa May, seen by some as the Tory leader in waiting. She made it clear at the weekend that both the HRA and the European Convention which it introduces into domestic law are under fire:

We need to stop human rights legislation interfering with our ability to fight crime and control immigration. That’s why, as our last manifesto promised, the next Conservative government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and it’s why we should also consider very carefully our relationship with the European Court of Human Rights and the Convention it enforces …  by 2015 we’ll need a plan for dealing with the European Court of Human Rights. And yes, I want to be clear that all options – including leaving the Convention altogether – should be on the table.

This should worry all defenders of human rights in whatever party (and there remain some like Ken Clarke and Dominic Grieve in her own).  Mrs May is deliberately raising the political ante on human rights. She is attacking both the HRA and on the edge of attacking the ECHR.

The Liberal Democrats will hold firm to the current structure of human rights protection. They have, to their credit consistently advanced the idea of incorporation of the European Convention since well before any other party.

Labour’s position is not quite so predictable. Jack Straw, who took the Human Rights Act through Parliament as Home Secretary, recently joined with David Davis to lead Parliamentary opposition to a decision of the European Court of Human Rights in relation to votes for prisoners. They jointly wrote an article for the Daily Telegraph headlined: ‘We must defy Strasbourg on prisoners votes’. It went on to identify its target not so much as the European Convention or the Human Rights Act but the court set up by the Convention whose decisions signatories to the Council agree to implement:

We do not dispute the right of the Strasbourg Court to curb government excesses within the constraints of the Treaty and Convention Britain signed. However, in attempting to overrule British law on prisoner voting rights, Strasbourg judges have exceeded the limits of their proper authority. If the Court does not reflect the views of member states of the Council of Europe, there will be conflict. Where the court infringes our constitutional rights, we will not back down.

So, human rights faces a pincer attack. The immediate cause of Mrs May’s intervention was an interpretation of the European Convention by the Upper Tribunal in a case involving a Mrs Izuazu. Jack Straw and David Davis don’t like its implementation by the European Court of Human Rights in a case involving a Mr Hirst.

Mrs May’s direct criticism of the Human Rights Act is easiest to deal with. Mrs Izuazu was a Nigerian convicted of travelling on false papers and presenting a false national insurance number. She challenged a decision to deport her back to Nigeria on the basis that she had a steady relationship with a man here and deportation would involve a disproportionate interference with her right to a family life (contrary to Article 8 of the Convention). Irritated by the Tribunal Judge’s decision to side with Mrs Izauzu, the Home Secretary’s article was – perhaps a little too petulantly – entitled “‘It’s my job to deport foreigners who commit serious crime – and I’ll fight any judge who stands in my way,’.

Actually, the Home Secretary’s job can be put with somewhat more precision. It’s her role to follow UK law in relation to the deportation of foreigners. Her frustration comes from the fact that she amended the Immigration Rules to fit the result that she wanted but not the supporting legislation. Under the Human Rights Act, the judges are bound by the legislation but not the rules. The latter were passed after a debate by a vote in the House of Commons – not having gone through the full process of Parliamentary scrutiny with votes in both Houses of Parliament and detailed examination. If statute authorised deportation at the Home Secretary’s direction then every UK judge would allow it.

So, why did Mrs May not seek the powers that she coveted in legislation? Probably because she thought she might not get it through the House of Lords. As she will know perfectly well, the doctrine is Parliamentary Sovereignty, not ministerial or House of Commons supremacy. Ministers who want to make decisions of any kind  simply have to get statutory approval and they are home free. Judges remain in their traditional role as lions under the throne. Their only enhanced powers in relation to human rights relates to a power to overrule secondary legislation and to declare that primary legislation is not, in their view, compatible with the European Convention.

The Human Rights Act has played an enormous role in making our society more transparent and our institutions more accountable. I cite just one example – the behaviour of British forces in Iraq. The Act allowed redress against soldiers who mistreated prisoners  such as Baha Mousa who was killed while in detention in Basra. It forced the Army to amend its interrogation procedures back to what the UK government had said since the 1970s that they were – without violence or threat. We now have the A| Sweady inquiry into further events. The Human Rights Act has made all this possible and lifted the veil over one of the previously concealed areas of state activity. This is uncomfortable for ministers – whose reaction is to reach for legislation that will allow greater secrecy – and for our armed forces.

So, we should not fear an attack on the Human Rights Act as such. We can defend it with ease. The more difficult point is that raised by David Davis and Jack Straw. This relates to the European Convention and not the Human Rights Act. Nevertheless, domestic courts interpret the Convention in the shadow of the European Court. Any change in its role affects the domestic balance under the Human Rights Act.

Straw and Davis raise a serious point which cannot be lightly dismissed. They  argue:

in recent years the Court seems to have forgotten that its job is to apply the principles of the Convention as originally intended by those who signed it – nothing more, nothing less …  the Court has defined the Human Rights Convention as a “living instrument” to allow it to expand its influence as the judges see fit. As a result, we now find ourselves in a situation where the Court is trying to impose judgments on Britain which would have astonished those who signed the Convention. And by taking this approach, Strasbourg risks undermining its own authority.

How do we answer this criticism? We should not be simplistic. The European Convention gives the European Court a privileged role. Its word is law: signatories to the Convention agree to implement its decisions. If it went off on frolics of its own, the court would undermine its own authorit.

Davis and Straw refer to the doctrine that the convention is a ‘living instrument’ and can be interpreted as befits the time. But their objection to this as undemocratic is less cogent than may first appear. The alternative would be to take the ‘originalist’ position of some of the conservative members of the US Supreme Court. This leads to arcane debate about what the US constitution meant when it was drafted three centuries ago. This gets absurd.  There really is no sensible alternative to the living instrument approach.

Let’s find the most difficult cases to examine the issues. Two candidates would be the decision in Hirst on prisoner voting and Abu Qatada. On prisoner voting, the court held that a blanket ban in the UK on prisoners voting was a disproportionate infringement of the right to vote. The House of Commons disagrees. We have a constitutional stand off. The court is sticking to its guns; the other states are harrying the UK to implement the decision.

In the abstract, this is not an easy situation and it may well be an example of a court making a decision at the margins of the acceptable. However, it is not, in practice, quite the big deal that Davis and Straw have argued. Clashes like this happen under all constitutions: the US is always bickering about which branch of government has what powers – with goodwill, they can be easily settled. This is actually a really minor issue. The government should put forward legislation which will give the vote to some prisoners – it could be pretty minimal. The issue would go away. You could argue that this is a fudge but if there really was an important democratic issue then, frankly, the court would not have decided as it did. Without all this fuss, every prison governor in the land would have cheered a prisoner sufficiently engaged to want to vote.

In Abu Qatada’s case the European Court agreed that he could safely be returned to Jordan and assurances that he would not be tortured could be relied upon. However, he was likely to tried for offences dating back to the early 1970s on evidence that might well have been obtained by torture. So, the court decided that he would not get a fair trial and should not be deported.

This again is a difficult decision in the abstract. Abu Qatada is not a UK citizen. He was born near Bethlehem in Palestine though he is usually referred to as a Jordanian. Jordan has only recently amended its constitution to make torture unlawful. Abu Qatada is accused of offences dating back to the 1970s. Any evidence from that time is pretty likely to be tainted by torture: it was used as routine. And, indeed, Jordan was one of the CIA’s torturers of choice in the war against terror.

One of the purposes of the European Convention is to make an international statement about values. This includes an absolute abhorrence of torture. In a world where torture is all too prevalent, Europe presents itself as a beacon.  The decision on Abu Qatada is logical. If we are against torture then we are against torture and we need to take a coherent stand against any condoning of it. Previous cases have not gone further than saying you cannot deport someone to a country where there is a reasonable chance that they will be tortured. I accept that this decision is another decision that gets close to the boundary of how far the court can reasonably go. But, I don’t think it crosses it. I think it is right.

There are three conditions which I would agree that the court should accept:

First, it would be prudent to accept a degree of judicial restraint on the part of the court in respecting areas of democratic responsibility. The language of this principle changes over time but the concept remains the same. The courts should go easy on – and that is not to say avoid – overturning decisions for which others are electorally responsible. The concept of restraint is now a bit old fashioned but ideas of ‘relative institutional competence’ amount to the same.

Second, the court should continue to accept the existing doctrine of  ‘margin of appreciation’ ie recognition of a degree of discretion in how a state may implement the Convention.

Finally, the European Court should be willing to conduct dialogues with individual domestic courts about the appropriate way forward – as has begun to happen and can be seen in the decisions of the European Court in relation to UK legislation on hearsay when ultimately – and at the second go – it allowed UK domestic legislation to be reflected in its judgement while retaining its principle of a fair trial.

Once the European Court has come to a decision, whatever it is, governments like our own should do all they can to find ways of living with it. Mrs May raises a doubt about the international influence of the court but it is enormous. Talk to human rights activists in Turkey, Russia and some of the states on Europe’s eastern boundary. The convention is often all they have got in the face of domestic legislation and institutions. We cannot credibly argue for a UK opt out without accepting that others will follow and the Convention will break up. Our politicians are often tempted by too narrow a concept of our national interest. We cannot argue – for reasons of our history and economy – that we are a little state like Belarus for which the outside does not matter.

We are bound into the web of international relations – like it or not – and a UKIP version of a plucky little England making it on its own is just not real – particularly now that we have lost the empire that sustained us through the best part of the last two centuries.  We need the big states of the next century – China, India and Brazil – to integrate human rights within the world views with which they will begin to dominate the world. There is even less chance of this than otherwise if we give up on the idea.

So, we should find, with the college, new ways of grappling with the future that involve protection of our old ideas, acceptance of the global economy that is now inevitable and the universal commitment to human rights – which, frankly, is not.

Professor Roger Smith OBE was the Director of Justice – you can read about his many other achievements here, read his blog here and follow him on Twitter (@rogerjgsmith)

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

Related posts


  1. RightsGoneWrong says:

    “So, why did Mrs May not seek the powers that she coveted in legislation? Probably because she thought she might not get it through the House of Lords. As she will know perfectly well, the doctrine is Parliamentary Sovereignty, not ministerial or House of Commons supremacy.”

    Labour have agreed to primary legislation in principle, I suspect its more like a Nick Clegg cabinet veto which is responsible. The Lib Dem’s don’t want the voters to know who is responsible for blocking sensible reform of Human Rights in the UK, so they do it behind closed doors. If Labour and the Conservatives support it, they could use the parliament act to get it through the Lords. I agree that blaming the judges for such blatantly silly decisions, which make a mockery of the immigration and border system, or for members of the public bringing them, when it is not what they were meant for, is pointless.

    There has to be something wrong with the system, if article 8 can be used to allow an illegal immigrant to settle here, under any circumstances. What about all the people that filled in the forms, paid the money and jumped through hoops for the right to stay in this country, how is it fair on them?

    Dominic Rabb’s amendment would have solved this issue, but the European court would have ruled that it breached the convention, as even though article 8 is a proportional right, not an absolute right, it must be applicable in some cases and not refused for a whole category of people, such as foreign criminals. Whether the European Court has the power though rule 39 to do any thing about it, is debated by some.

    1. Amy Williams says:

      The Upper Tribunal actually agreed with Ms May that Ms Izuazu should not be able to stay here – an unfortunate omission from the article. The factors you mention – Ms Izuazu established her family life in precarious circumstances (undocumented) and it would not be impossible for her husband to join her in Nigeria – were discussed by the judge. The disagreement with the Home Secretary was over the question ofthe force of the Immigration Rules – you can read the judgment here http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKUT/IAC/2013/00045_ukut_iac_2013_ui_nigeria.html

  2. James Lawson says:

    Theresa May, is just another ‘here today and gone tomorrow’ politician (as Sir Robin Day would have said) She is not ‘Caligula’. Although she may regard Human Rights as mere ‘privileges’ to be granted or withheld by Ministers depending on whether or not they obtain judgments in their favour, it is important to place their rhetoric in context. It is designed to bully and intimidate. It has worked pretty well with the European Court who are now less ready to deliver adverse judgments against the UK following the Brighton Conference and threats to withdraw from the European Convention. We will see whether her threats to repeal the Human Rights Act have been sufficient to produce the desired degree of judicial ‘deference’ when the Supreme Court deliver judgment in the Qatada case in a few weeks time.

  3. John Allman says:

    This would undo the beneficial effect of Clift v Slough Borough Council on the position of defamation claimants against public sector defendants.

  4. “IF the conservatives win the next election.” If its and buts were presents, we would all have a wonderful Christmas!!!

  5. Justice should be blind to prejudice and treat all people equally, but different circumstances will mean not all can be treated identically.

  6. forcedadoption says:

    The quote below is so true I will repeat it !

    Straw and Davis raise a serious point which cannot be lightly dismissed. They argue:

    in recent years the Court seems to have forgotten that its job is to apply the principles of the Convention as originally intended by those who signed it – nothing more, nothing less … the Court has defined the Human Rights Convention as a “living instrument” to allow it to expand its influence as the judges see fit. As a result, we now find ourselves in a situation where the Court is trying to impose judgments on Britain which would have astonished those who signed the Convention. And by taking this approach, Strasbourg risks undermining its own authority.

    UK Judges interpret the right to privacy without intervention by public authority (clause 8) not as protection for the family against the STATE as intended, but protection for the State against the family !If parents dare to protest publicly when their children are taken by social services ,they jail such parents for violating the privacy of the babies that have been taken from them !! Those judges should be jailed themselves for for distorting the law in order to committ such crimes against humanity.

    1. Actually Judges don’t interpret the right to privacy without state intervention at all, Courts themselves are state authorities and their actions are effectively state intervention whether the litigants are private or state authority. Judges are bound themselves to act within the Human Rights Act and convention articles by way of s.6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 under which it is unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. Under s.6(3)(a) public authorities is defined as including courts and tribunals.
      This means that when a court is hearing a case involving privacy rights between private litigants judges themselves are legally bound to ensure that their own actions and decisions are taken with regard to convention rights thereby giving horizontal effect to Article 8 of the convention where relevant between private litigants.
      I am interested in your remarks on parents being jailed for speaking out on the court enforced actions of social services in taking children into care where parents under threat of contempt of court are prevented from speaking out publicly. This is definitely something that needs remedied; secret courts are in no ones interest, and there are other ways to protect the identity of a child without blanket banning parents and the wider public from discussing what goes on behind closed judicial doors, especially when those parents can find themselves at the mercy of an intrusive press.

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: