Misleading Media, Immigration Snakes and Ladders and Human Rights Endurance – The Human Rights Roundup

14 October 2013 by

snakes HRBWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular full brass band of human rights news and views. The full list of links can be found here. You can  find previous roundups herePost by Sarina Kidd, edited and links compiled by Adam Wagner.

This week, Lord Neuberger implied that even if the Human Rights Act were to be abolished, the court would continue to uphold human rights, perhaps foreshadowing the Supreme Court’s decision in Osborn. Meanwhile, the controversial Immigration Bill  now has its overarching documents available, LSE are looking to create a written constitution and the Daily Mail are in trouble, again.

In the News

Party intentions and human rights persistence

The protection of human rights is set to be a hot topic in the run up to the general election in 2015. In a useful summary, Act for UK Rights lays down the different parties’ intentions for the Human Rights Act. Nick Clegg has listed ‘not ditching the Human Rights Act’ as one of the key things that the Liberal Democrats have prevented the Conservatives from doing in the coalition. Labour, of course, ‘support the Human Rights Act and its role in protecting people’, whilst the Conservatives plan to ‘scrap’ it and alter the UK’s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights.

Joshua Rozenberg analyses Lord Neuberger’s comments on Conservative plans to take power away from Strasbourg. The Supreme Court president stated that, ‘I do not think it is politically controversial that some form of human rights or citizen’s rights against the state are encoded or enshrined in a statute or some similar document so that they can be enforced in the courts’. This suggests that even if the Act were to be abolished, the courts would continue to uphold human rights – this is an interesting foreshadowing of the decision in Osborn which followed only days later.

Meanwhile, Anthony Bradley discusses Jack Straw’s Hamlyn Lectures, in a review of his published collection. Straw, when discussing the Human Rights Act and Europe, blamed the current discontent towards Europe as being due to the ‘ever expanding remit of the Strasbourg Court for which it has no mandate’.  Whilst accepting that the Convention should permit the Court to protect ‘basic human rights’ he agreed with Lord Hoffmann that these basic rights should not be stretched. Anthony Bradley dissects Straw’s arguments, noting that whilst he welcomes Straw’s continuing support for the HRA, ‘the features of the Strasbourg court that Straw now blames for the current discontents were all present and clearly visible in 1997’.

A written constitution?

The LSE has begun a project in collaboration with Democratic Audit to draft a new constitution for the UK by ‘crowdsourcing’. As Professor Conor Gearty explains, the ‘UK has no constitution, or as every first year law student learns, it has no constitution written down in one grand document’. Carl Gardner, of Head of Legal, states that although he is ‘firmly against a written constitution for Britain’ he thinks it is a ‘brilliant project’. Constitutionuk.com will provide a forum for debating, and suggested content covers equality of esteem, the celebration of respect for diversity, the protection of freedoms, subsidiarity and the guarantee of human security’.

A game of snakes and ladders: The Immigration Bill

You can track the progress of the Home Office’s major new Immigration Bill here. The overarching documents  are available here, looking at ‘proposed changes to reform the removals and appeals system, end the abuse of Article 8 and prevent illegal immigrants accessing and abusing public services or the labour market’. The Immigration Bill was introduced into the House of Commons on 10 October 2013.

The United Kingdom Immigration Law Blog discusses the Bill further, stating that ‘Immigration is the burning issue in the UK’s political arena’. Theresa May has likened the immigration system to a ‘never-ending game of snakes and ladders’ and is intent on ‘clamping down on the abuse of human rights in immigration appeals’.

The Misleading Media

This week, the ECHR corrected fallacious information that has featured recently in British Media. One example is of a Daily Mail article claiming that Strasbourg judges ‘handed the criminals taxpayer-funded payouts of £4.4 million – an average of £22,000 a head’. But this is ‘seriously misleading’, according to the court.  Obiter J’ discusses the offending article here – see also Joshua Rozenberg.

In other news

Case Comments

Should the UK create a system for independently investigating the deaths of detained psychiatric patients? Lord Justice Aiken and Mr Justice Mitting handed down judgment this week on the matter, finding that the current law did not require it. They suggested, however, that for public policy purposes, the UK may wish to create such a system.

In the Courts

Upcoming Events

To add events to this list, email Adam Wagner. Please only send events which (i) have their own webpage which can be linked to, and (ii) are relevant to topics covered by the blog.

UKHRB 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.




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: