Five things we learned from Cameron’s human rights announcement

1 October 2014 by

9e422861-3131-40b3-a703-62426b2d1c9a-620x372There was some surprise at the lack of detail over human rights in Justice Secretary Chris Grayling and Home Secretary Theresa May’s speeches yesterday. Now, David Cameron has revealed all. Or at least, he has revealed some. Here is what we learned.

1. The Conservative Party will not be leaving the European Convention on Human Rights if it obtains a majority in 2015-2020.

This is the really important bit, as everyone knew the longstanding Tory policy of repealing the Human Rights Act and replacing it with a Bill of Rights (see below) would be maintained. There has been plenty of noise from the Eurosceptic right of the party in relation to the ECHR – both Grayling and May have consistently said leaving was a possibility. But surely now it is not. Or at least, if it intends to do so it would be very odd for that major policy not to have been mentioned at the Conference.

2. Saner heads have prevailed over the ECHR

Following on from (1), despite the rhetoric from Justice and the Home Office (both departments which, as it happens, are on the other side of most human rights claims), the reality is that criticism of the ECHR has been hugely overblown. The court delivers around 10 judgments against the UK every year out of a total of around 1,500 cases brought against the UK. Some of those judgments have been controversial: prisoner votes, Abu Qatada and whole life orders have somewhat obsessed the right wing press over the past couple of years. But the real effect of those judgments is minimal. Strasbourg has said it won’t order damages or costs for prisoners denied the vote, Abu Qatada was eventually sent back to Jordan as the UK wanted (albeit after a long delay – and he was subsequently acquitted) and the Court of Appeal came up with a clever fudge to allow UK judges to impose whole life orders in any event.

Despite the sacking of Dominic Grieve, Ken Clarke and William Hague, supposedly to make way for some kind of incoherent (Grieve’s word) democratic override policy, that now appears to have been scrapped. Rightly so. It would have backfired. The problem with over inflating criticism of Strasbourg is that any policy responding to that disproportionate criticism will itself be disproportionate. I was impressed by Daniel Finkelstein’s recent piece on human rights in The Times, being the first positive human rights pronouncement from a leading Tory in years. My reading of the content and timing was that there had been a genuine shift within influential figures in the party and I think that was probably a correct reading.

3. Here comes the British+NI Bill of Rights!

Of course, it can’t be a British Bill of Rights as it must involve Northern Ireland (remember the Good Friday Agreement?). But UK Bill of Rights doesn’t sounds as fish-and-chips-Magna-Carta-our-boys-on-VE-Day does it? Anyway, it will be fascinating to see how this document will be produced. There is a strong argument that the Conservative Party should not impose a bill of rights without agreement from the other parties – otherwise, it is really a Conservative Bill o Rights. Of course that would please the party supporters, and potentially stop claims from immigrants, prisoners etc. but a bill of right imposed by a majority seems to miss the point slightly. Remember, the Human Rights Act (or “Labour’s” Human Rights Act as Cameron described it) had cross-party support.

There is currently a strong rumour that Chris Grayling will provide more detail on Friday – but any first drafts of the bill should be approached cautiously – given how much is at stake, it must be assumed that a Conservative Party with a narrow majority would find it difficult to pass a seriously partisan bill.

Another issue which will be important in a Bill of Rights would be the influence of European Court of Human Rights judgments on our domestic judges. The Human Rights Act famously (OK, in my circles anyway) requires judges to “take into account” Strasbourg judgments. It seems likely that an amended/repealed HRA would water this down, although unless it told judges not to take Strasbourg decisions into account, the reality is that they will continue to do so. Contrary to the propaganda, many Strasbourg judgments are perfectly sensible and that, not section 2 of the HRA, is why our judges choose to follow them.

I suppose there is also a possibility that Grayling’s announcement will include some sort of democratic override as part of the bill of rights. How that would operate in practice is anyone’s guess – Parliament can already ignore ECtHR judgments if it wants to, as it is doing with prisoner votes. If such a policy was announced after the conference, not during it, that would be an indication of how concerned the party was of exposing it to scrutiny.

4. There is a non-sequitur at the centre of this policy

Cameron said this:

We do not require instruction on this from judges in Strasbourg. So at long last, with a Conservative Government after the next election, this country will have a new British Bill of Rights…

What he is saying is that the answer to problematic judgments from the European Court of Human Rights, is repealing the HRA and substituting a bill of rights. But if we remain party to the ECHR (what Cameron called “the charter” – but we will let him off as he may have had one eye on this), Parliament is bound under international law to abide by its rulings. We might be able to tinker with British judges’ duties to have regard to the judgments, but that is a separate issue. As Carl Gardner eloquently put it, British judges have been perfectly willing to ignore Strasbourg when they want to.

I am not advocating ECHR withdrawal – as said above, my view is that criticism has been overstated. But it is time to be open with the British public about what being party to the ECHR means. It means our Parliament have to follow judgments. Not because some crazy Moldovian judge told us to, but because our country signed up to an international treaty. That treaty has lots of benefits – it raises human rights standards for hundreds of millions of people in states which need it a lot more than us – and few downsides. Politicians including the Prime Minister need to explain, as annoying and convoluted as it is, that our domestic arrangements are largely separate from that system.

As it happens, I agree with Carl entirely that the best answer to the Strasbourg question is a boring, long-term campaign to increase the influence of national parliaments using the legitimate mechanism of the treaty – which is working. It is sad that this government achieved some significant wins earlier on at the Brighton Conference but has so disassociated itself from the Ken Clarke period that it cannot say so. Ironically, the long-term-reform-from-within approach is precisely that which Cameron is advocating in relation to the European Union.

5. There will be champagne in Strasbourg tonight

Those at the Council of Europe and European Court of Human Rights well know that the UK leaving the ECHR or continuing to threaten withdrawal is greatly weakening the system. They will be extremely relieved to hear that a Conservative majority wouldn’t be a death knell for the 64-year-old convention which has done so much good for Europe.


  1. NAZI HUNTER says:

    Only Hitler would have an issue with the Human Rights act, only a total scum bag guilty of breaching Human Rights countless times and intends to break them further would dare suggest to ‘ditch them, if he ditches them then surly he will be guilty of ‘insighting hatred’ among the human race which is criminal under the terrorist act, further more he has just publically announced that he is in the process of ‘conspiring to hurt the masses’ both of which are an arrestable offence be it by a police officer or a citizen weather they have to use force or otherwise this is blatant ‘conspiracy to hurt the masses’ and a resisted ‘all persons arrest’ may end up with the evidence of said inspired hate depending on the condition of this little Hitler when police arrive to take him away before trial.


    Throw this little ponsy Hitler out of our country and back to Germany like his ancestors and dont stop their, throw our the other two leaders also breaching countless laws and rights knowing that they are RUSSIAN Communists, in what democracy is David Cameron, relative of the Queen dictating like Hitler when the Royal Family who have reigned for 150 years, massacred 50% of the UK on invasion, covered it up and also got away with FUNDING THE NAZIO PARTY and THEIR RELATIVE SERVING AS SS, have they not raped and used as a toilet the entire UK genetic line and now are funneling everything to the EU, THROW THIS SCUM OUT NOW.

  2. […] Cameron actually was reigned in by the sensible wing of his party in relation to it (see here, here and here, and you should also read this), but it is clear that this is something that worries […]

  3. Reblogged this on Murran Kerschensteiner and commented:
    The Conservatives’ full-voiced though half-hearted attack on Human Rights continues. David Cameron announced at his party’s conference that the UK won’t be leaving ECHR after all. This is contrary to what has been threatened by the Prime Minister as well as his Home Secretary Theresa May and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. Nonetheless, his Cameron’s continued blaming of Britain’s ills on Strasbourg is wearing thin now, and damages not just the UK, but the ECtHR and Europe as a whole.

  4. Gavin Steele says:

    Adam, it’s all great… but please “non-sequitur” with a U!

    1. Adam Wagner says:

      Gavin, sincerest apologies.

  5. alrich says:

    I fear we have more to fear from the UK Bill of Rights than is suggested here. The version presented to parliament by Charlie Elphicke had rather disturbing elements wholly contrary to the rule of law – and he is working on the official Tory one.

    In particular it abolishes Art 13 of ECHR – the Article that gives “effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity”.

    It allows denial of rights for those whose behaviour doesn’t come up to standards ie a judge shall (not “may”) “take into account all the facts and circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the person seeking to assert the UK right”.

    It even allows state bodies to get the law wrong as long as their mistaken interpretation was “reasonable”. “Reasonableness” pops up as a weasel word in various places. The “Bill of Rights” is studied in detail here:

    On the issue of getting opposition support for such a fundamental constitutional change, I suspect the Tories won’t be that bothered, falling back on the supremacy of Parliament. Yes, we know all laws can be repealed or amended by future parliaments but the new (Tory) Bill of Rights would be “embedded” not so constitutionally by the simple process of the Daily Mail/Express/Sun making life a misery for any party daring to propose changes on the basis of old-fashioned legalistic principles such as separation of powers or the rule of law.

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: