Lawyers Protest Cuts, Constitutional Nihilism and Libel Liberalisation – the Human Rights Roundup

6 January 2014 by

Justice-Alliance-2014-demoWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular wholesome takeaway of human rights news and views.  The full list of links can be found here.  You can find previous roundups here.  Links compiled by Adam Wagner, post by Sarina Kidd. 

Welcome to 2014 and Santa has brought us the Defamation Act 2013, which aims to reduce the ‘chilling effect’ of previous libel laws . But as we enter 2014, not all is new. The Conservative Party continues to complain about European human rights. They seek to challenge the ECtHR ban on prison life sentences. How to deal with this? With hundreds of years of imprisonment instead. Meanwhile, today criminal lawyers will refuse to appear at court in order to protest against legal aid and criminal barrister fee cuts.

In the News

Fees protest

Today (Monday), for the first time in the history of the criminal bar, barristers will refuse to attend court and take to the street to protest against legal aid and fee cuts. The protests will take place from around 9:30-10 outside courts all round the country – all details here. For more detailed background on the protests and general issue, see:

Human Rights Overhaul

Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling has stated that the Conservative Party will draft new laws this year to limit the authority of European human rights legislation. Notably, this may include pulling out of the European Convention on Human Rights. This would be a Conservative party move and is unlikely to be backed by  Coalition partners the Liberal Democrats. Grayling has listed the four key principles that will be addressed, ‘We have to curtail the role of the court in the UK, we have to replace the Human Rights Act….we have to ensure there is a balance of rights in our laws…and we have to make our Supreme Court supreme’. The Shadow Justice Secretary recently criticised the Government’s European human rights approach, citing the Volkov case, as it has encouraged other countries, such as the Ukraine, not to adhere fully to the human rights framework.

Lord Judge (the former Lord chief Justice of England and Wales) gave an interview this week in which he put forth that the European Courts have too much power. Naturally, this has provided fodder for critics of the ECHR. ObiterJ examines Lord Judge’s points, and explains the misgivings he has with his arguments.

However, other serving judges, such as Lord Sumption and Lord Justice Laws, have also been critical of the ECHR, although Lady Hale and Lord Mance have provided some much needed counter arguments. The latter, for example, explained that having no written constitution or document containing fundamental rights actually constrains parliamentary sovereignty. He also detailed some of the important human rights successes that are attributable to the HRA 1998.

Richard Edwards, at Euro Rights blog, whilst happy with the current state of the Human Rights Act, has had a go at drafting a Euro Rights Bill of Rights. He states, ‘We hope it provides an alternative vision to the constitutional nihilism on offer from Messrs Cameron, Grayling, Raab et al’. You can read it here.

 Hundreds of years of solitude

The government’s onslaught against the ECHR continues with prison sentencing. The ECtHR ruled last year that life sentences violated human rights law due to the absence of a right to review. Ministers are trying to bypass this with a loophole; by giving sentences lasting hundreds of years (like the American system) it is intended that compliance with the Convention would appear to be .  This is because there would still be a right to review even though the laws of nature mean that the prisoner would inevitably die before the release date. The Telegraph has also reported it here.

The new Defamation Act 

The Defamation Act 2013 came into force on the 1st January 2014. The Act aims to reduce the ‘chilling effect’ that previous libel laws had on freedom of expression and legitimate debate. It is also hoped that it will prevent journalists, scientists and academics from being subjected to unfair legal threats. It is now the case that claimants, before suing, will have to demonstrate that they have suffered ‘serious harm’.  Mike Harris of The Libel Reform Campaign stated that, ‘we hope the judiciary will take note, and that in the future open debate on matters in the public interest will not be chilled by litigious oligarchs or corporations’.

Benefit Cap JR

Over at the Nearly Legal blog, Dave discusses a recent benefit cap challenge – R(JS) v SSWP [2013] EWHC 3350 (QB). The challenge argued Art 14/Art1Proto1/Art 8 discrimination and a Wednesbury challenge. As Dave explains, ‘the basic point is that the eligible amount for housing benefit is reduced by the excess over either £350 or £500pw (for singles and others respectively). However, where a member of the household is entitled to (for example) working tax credit, then the benefit cap does not apply. The cap is a pretty crude mechanism for forcing cheap part-time labour’.

The issue of concern here, however, was that such labour was not open to the claimants. Nevertheless, the Divisional Court found that although in this case the situation was not ideal, the policy generally struck a fair balance between in/out of work, with a ‘broad political concept of fairness’. The case will soon be going to the Court of Appeal.

In other News

  • Frank Cranmer at Law and Religion covers the last year’s important legal religious matters. He discusses, for example, the recent attempt by Lord Toulson in the Supreme Court to provide a definition of ‘religion’ appropriate to a multi faith, multi-cultural and rather secularised society.
  • Nigel Farage has suggested that the UK accept individuals fleeing the armed conflict in Syria. Importantly, however, only Christians should be given shelter.  Clearly such a statement has attracted comment and Noelle Quenivet at Euro Rights discusses her own reservations with this call. 

Upcoming Events

To add 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 the topics covered by this blog

UK Human Rights Blog Posts

1 comment;

  1. Libertarian says:

    If Chris Grayling actually wants to make the Supreme Court supreme, does this mean that he has finally seen the light and will include in his proposed legislation the power to strike down all/any legislation which violates human rights? (I rather think not, unfortunately!)

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 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 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: