Joshua Rozenberg resigned Telegraph post after editors sexed up human rights story

19 February 2015 by

Screen Shot 2015-02-19 at 21.56.47On yesterday’s Newsnight (from 7 minutes 20 seconds in), Britain’s foremost legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg revealed that he resigned as the Telegraph’s legal editor in 2007 after the news desk sexed up a human rights story with false information. 

The story is still on the Telegraph’s website here. It was a report of the 2007 House of Lords decision in Secretary of State for Defence v Al-Skeini & Ors [2007] UKHL, a case about whether the Human Rights Act applied to actions of the British Army in Iraq. The House of Lords ruled that the Act did apply in British detention facilities, but that it did not apply in the streets of occupied Basra. There is an excellent summary of the case by Rozenberg here.

The problem, Rozenberg revealed last night, was with a line in the second paragraph which was added by the news desk despite his objections:

The ruling could open the way for civilian victims of military actions to sue the Ministry of Defence for millions of pounds

“It would make a better story”, Rozenberg told his editors, “but it just isn’t true”. And it wasn’t. The Law Lords had explicitly rejected claims by families of “civilian victims of military action“. Rozenberg told Newsnight that a judge commented the following day that this was wrong, and it was then the Telegraph’s legal editor decided to resign.

Ironically, three years later the European Court of Human Rights effectively reversed the House of Lords’ decision. Maybe the news desk knew?

The Telegraph has been a regular offender in this blog’s posts about poor human rights reporting, but now there is hard evidence that its editorial staff, at least in 2007, deliberately manufactured false claims about human rights. They never bothered to find a replacement legal editor, which perhaps explains why their human rights coverage is now badly written and ideologically driven. We are all the worse for it.

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

Read more


  1. Captain Sensible says:

    Dig the ECHR reverse the whole HoL decision or just the one of the two main parts ? Your link does not make it clear.

    The military have a saying about “mission creep” i.e. going beyond the original intent or objective and as has been stated ECHR law is “living” and the court can go into tangential areas if it chooses – a sort of legal mission creep. HR lawyers would of course use any existing judgement as a springboard for ever more challenges.

    Under these circumstances the newspaper should be allowed to express its opinion and concerns about future interpretation of the judgement. I also seriously doubt Rozenberg would have resigned over this one trivial thing and I doubt it even more as his official website says he was with the Telegraph until the end of 2008. Something not quite right about all this.

  2. Watch it says:

    This needs more coverage. If the Tories get back in they are going to use this kind of made-up bullshit in their justification of tearing up the HRA. The only way to resist is to spread the knowledge of how ideologically driven this is. Well done.

  3. Dan Bunting says:

    Fair play to Joshua – only increased in my estimation. And a good reminder that broadsheets can be just as mendacious as the tabloids…

  4. finolamoss says:

    Political manipulation by news desks, to incite public hatred , of their only protection, and freedom, the Human Rights Act.

    This was then for years, deliberately, encouraged by stories, and spin, against the act, to engender public disapproval..

    Just one of the many media manipulation for state purpose.

    Who needs Leveson ?

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: