The round-up: more righteous indignation about the Human Rights Act – in both camps.

17 May 2015 by

hot_airIn the news

We can be sure of one thing. A battle is coming.” The future of the Human Rights Act still dominates the news, and this quote comes from UKHRB’s Adam Wagner, who suggests five tactics to ensure that human rights are not eroded. Perhaps the most in-depth analysis to date comes from Jack of Kent, who isolates the “seven hurdles” facing the government, including  Scotland, Tory backbench rebels, the House of Lords and the wording of the “British Bill of Rights” itself. He summarises:

So the current situation is: if the UK government can address the immense problems presented by Scottish devolution and the Good Friday Agreement, win-over or defeat Conservative supporters of the Act, shove the legislation through the house of lords, work out which rights are to be protected, somehow come up with a draft Bill of British Rights, and also explain why any of this is really necessary, and can do all this (or to do something dramatic) in “one hundred days” then…the Conservatives can meet their manifesto commitment in accordance with their ambitious timetable. But it seems unlikely.

Jack of Kent´s conclusion is echoed by Matthew Scott in the Telegraph (“Gove…faces almost insurmountable odds”), Mark Elliott in Public Law for Everyone (“the HRA…is far more deeply politically entrenched that the UK Government has so far appreciated”) and the Economist (“getting rid of the HRA will be tough – and almost pointless”).

The BBC´s legal correspondent concurs, and argues that tackling human rights reform before the UK´s EU membership issue is settled would be “putting the political cart before the much bigger political horse”. David Green in the Financial Times: the incoming government´s desire for a “quick win” could become a messy defeat. Amnesty focus on how the reforms might jeopardize the Good Friday Agreement.

Keir Starmer, in the Guardian, predicts that most arguments in favour of repealing will falsely paint the HRA as a “villains´ charter”. In fact, this has already started – see Allison Pearson in the Telegraph (“the HRA gives comfort to [the UK´s] enemies”) or the Daily Mail, here, where they bizarrely use cases from the 1970s and 80s to show why the 1998 Act is not fit for purpose.

Adam Wagner has collected other commentary about the HRA here, as has ObiterJ here . This post will give the last word to Joshua Rozenberg, writing in the Guardian. He argues that “there is really no need for any significant reform at all” and calls upon Michael Gove to bring a measure of “humility and sensitivity” to the role that was so lacking in his predecessor.

 

Other news

  • Philippe Sands: The British bill of rights could “end the UK” by producing an intolerable situation where different people have different rights depending on which side of a border they happened to live.
  • Shami Chakrabarti: the Government’s plan to scrap the HRA is “pandering to xenophobia”.
  • The UN Human Rights Council has chastised the US over its epidemic of police violence and brutality. Their report makes an incredible 348 recommendations that address the “myriad human rights violations in the United States” (Huff Post).
  • Sepp Blatter among Fifa candidates failing to engage on human rights
  • The Boston Bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev has been sentenced to death, a decision criticized by Amnesty International.

In the courts

The Supreme Court has departed from the so-called Pereira Test, bringing significant and far-reaching consequences to homelessness law. The test determined whether a homeless person is “vulnerable” and therefore requires priority involved comparing a particular applicant to an “ordinary homeless person” – obviously leading to the issue of what constitutes an “ordinary” homeless person. This has been replaced with the simpler question of “is the applicant more vulnerable than an ordinary person if made homeless?”. According to nearlylegal.co.uk, this has thrown out the window “old shibboleths that the homeless are depressed/take drugs/are at more risk of sexual or physical abuse etc”. 

Alex Wessely

Events

On May 26th, Human Rights Lawyers Association and Bail for Immigration Detainees are holding an event entitled “Expensive, ineffective and unjust: what next for immigration detention after the parliamentary inquiry?”. The event is free and registration details can be found here.

If you would like your event to be mentioned on the Blog, please email Jim Duffy at jim.duffy@1cor.com

1 comment;


  1. Roger Nield says:

    Reblogged this on Simple Things.

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.

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


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

Disclaimer


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: