GCHQ Surveillance, Tory Bill of Rights and Anti-Semitism – the Human Rights Roundup

2 February 2014 by

GCHQ at Cheltenham, GloucestershireWelcome back to the UK Human Rights Roundup, your regular all-singing, all-dancing extravaganza 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. 

This week, a group of MPs investigating drones were advised that large amounts of GCHQ surveillance is likely to be illegal, and the Conservatives continued their push for a Bill of Rights. Meanwhile, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights argued that anti-Semitism is alive and well in Europe.

In the News

GCHQ and Legal Loopholes

This week, two barristers, Jemima Stratford QC and Tim Johnston (both of Brick Court Chambers) warned MPs on the All Party Parliamentary Group on Drones that GCHQ is ‘using gaps in regulation to commit serious crimes with impunity’.

The advice explains that Britain’s main surveillance statutory framework is vague with too many gaps. This is being interpreted, they say, in a way that bypasses certain surveillance and privacy safeguards detailed in the ECHR.

The advice describes how the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) has not kept up with technological advances. Further, it looks into all the ways in which the surveillance activities are illegal. For example, leaving the decision to ministers of whether data can be shared with agencies can interfere with Article 8 rights. To transfer an individual’s private data must be proportionate.

For Adam Wagner’s discussion, see here.

Immigration Bill Human Rights Amendment Fails

A bid by rebel Tory MPs to stop foreign criminal using certain European Convention rights to avoid deportation has failed due to opposition from Labour and Lib Dem MPs.  Downing Street has stated that whilst Cameron’s views were in line with the rebels, he feared that such a move would be considered illegal.

Adam Wagner was interviewed by BBC Radio 5 Live on the amendment here (from from 2 h 26 mins).

Tory Bill of Rights

The Sunday Telegraph reports that the Prime Minister is expected to put reforming Britain’s relations with the ECtHR at the forefront of the Tory campaign for the European Parliament elections in May. Proposed plans involve scaling back Strasbourg’s power, with one source stating, echoing Chris Grayling’s earlier comments, ‘We want to make the Supreme Court supreme’. The Tories will introduce a Bill of Rights, which the principles of the ECHR will be written into. Notably, the passage in the Human Rights Act requiring courts to abide by judgments of the European Court of Human Rights will be repealed. However, there are no immediate plans, it would appear, to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights.

New Justice Minister Simon Hughes has defended the 1998 Human Rights Act as ‘a measured piece of legislation when understood and used properly’. A barrister by training, he also stated that, ‘human rights are not about bowing down to frivolous demands. They are about commonsense decisions affecting people’s rights when coming into contact with the power of the state’. Hughes has previously criticised the proposed Bill of Rights, and this time noted that it is unwise to discuss such a bill whilst the Scottish independence question remains unresolved.

Institutional Failure

The Human Rights Europe blog discusses the Grand Chamber judgment, O’Keeffe v Ireland (application no.35810/09). The case concerned the sexual abuse of a schoolgirl in the 1970s and whether the primary education system failed to protect her. It was ruled that there was a violation of Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman and degrading treatment) and of Article 13 (right to an effective remedy).

Anti-semitism alive and well

Inforrm considers Nil Mulzniek’s recent comment titled ‘Europe still haunted by antisemitism’. Mulzniek, the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, details how there has been an increase in anti-semitism in Europe and that it is imperative that national political leaders openly condemn it. Inforrm explains, however, that a glaring omission in his comment is the failure to consider freedom of expression for, ‘the balance between freedom of expression and the proper protection of the rights of minority or oppressed groups is a particularly difficult one to strike.’

Charter Horizontality

The recent decision of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union in C-176/12, Association de mediation sociale v Union locale des syndicates CGT, examines whether the Charter can apply to horizontal situations. That is, between two private parties, and whether an obligation can be imposed on an individual which would not otherwise be present if not for EU law. The case concerned Article 27 of the Charter.

Alison Young examines this and explains that ‘what is important is what is not said – it did not say that the provisions of the Charter, like Directives, cannot have horizontal effect.’ Therefore, it is possible that there will be future horizontal application to Charter provisions, and a disapplication of national laws in private party disputes.

Meanwhile, Krommendijk at Eutopia Law, argues that the decision concluded that Article 27 of the Charter ‘does not have horizontal effect and can thus not be invoked in a dispute between private parties’. He explains that the decision stands in sharp contrast to the Opinion of the Advocate General Cruz Villalon, in which he discussed whether the Article was a principle or right and concluded that it may have horizontal effect.

He also notes that whilst the preamble claims that all Charter rights are equally important, there seems to be a dichotomy between enforceable and justiciable civil and political rights, and so called economic, social and cultural rights.

 In other news

  • A new report from the European Committee of Social Rights lays down the failings of the UK’s social welfare provision. The 2013 survey of its adherence to the Council of Europe’s Social Charter demonstrated that, ‘the minimum levels of short term and long term incapacity benefit is manifestly inadequate’.
  • The European Courts blog discusses the O’Keeffe v Ireland case mentioned above, along with Camekan v Turkey, concerning Article 2 (right to life) in which Turkey was held responsible for delaying criminal proceedings and for the authorities failing to fulfil their obligations.
  • The ECtHR president, Judge Spielmann, has announced that pending cases in the court have dropped by more than 60,000 in just over two years. The annual table of violations for each country shows that states with the highest number of judgments finding at least one violation are Russia (119 judgments), Turkey (118), Romania (83), Ukraine (65), Hungary (40), Italy (34) and Greece.

In the Courts

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. Theo Hopkins says:


    Are we not always telling the Sun and the Daily Mail that the ECtHR is nothing to do with the EU? :-)

  2. Anne Palmer says:

    Surveillance, as the Government is already aware, would be in breach of Article 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. And as we are still-for now-in the EU Article 8 still applies. The people in this Country ALSO still indeed have a Bill of Rights 1689 which appartely also, still has work to do, for the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has very recently allegedly tried to alter a part of it to be in keeping of the EU’s Equality Act, re, The Succession to the Crown Act. However, as two codicils protect our Bill of Rights from being altered, it is doubtful-that it could be changed especially -without the people’s agreement-it therefore remains in full, for the people have never been asked if it may be altered. However, I doubt the people would agree to have it altered for any outside organisation especially as such as the now European Union. PLUS, there are indeed Treason Acts in place to protect our Constitution and thus it remain in full, -even though certain acts were alleged repealed-they remain. Many subjects of the British Crown gave their lives to keep each and every part of our long standing Common Law Constitution (And this is exactly WHY it is longstanding)- To fight to protect our Constitution RATHER THAN HAVE ANY FOREIGNER IMPOSE THEIR CONSTITUTION ON THE PEOPLE OF THIS COUNTRY.


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 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 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 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 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 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 Professional Discipline Property proportionality prosecutions 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 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 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: