6 July 2020 by Jonathan Metzer
The latest reports of HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights lay bare the conditions in some British prisons.
Some of the language that is used to describe living conditions in the Chief Inspector’s report is shocking – including “appalling”, “squalid”, “intolerable”, “extremely squalid” and beset with “vermin and filth”.
The Chief Inspector’s view is that such conditions “should not feature in 21st century jails”. This conclusion was expressed prior to the further impact caused by the Covid-19 pandemic.
Since the pandemic, the Government has introduced measures to address the risk of contagion including a blanket ban on visits since around 24th March which has still not been revisited despite the Covid-19 threat level having been reduced to level 3 on 19th June.
The conclusion of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights is that the Government’s response and the deficiencies in the measures to mitigate the impact of this “have put at risk the right to family life of up to an estimated 17,000 children of mothers in prison”.
In the view of this author, the evidence indicates that in several respects the UK may well be in breach of vital protections for prisoners and their families under Articles 3 and 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This extended piece will examine these issues in detail.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
19 May 2020 by Jonathan Metzer
QX v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2020] EWHC 1221 (Admin)
In a complicated but very important decision, the High Court has ruled as a preliminary issue that the procedural protections under Article 6 which require a person to be given sufficient information about the allegations against them so they can give effective instructions to their lawyers will apply to a challenge to conditions imposed by order on a man suspected to have affiliations to Al-Qaeda.
This ‘extended look’ will explain the background to the issues in play and the way that a powerful ‘cocktail’ of rights under Articles 6 and 8 ECHR operates to try to ensure that a balance is struck between the rights of the individual and the collective interest in security.
Temporary Exclusion Orders
The claimant, QX, is a British national. He is married with three children who are all of toddler age. In October 2018, he and his wife were arrested in Istanbul.
On 26 November 2018 the Secretary of State successfully applied to the court for permission to impose a Temporary Exclusion Order (TEO) on QX for two years on grounds of national security. This was granted by the court and on 9 January 2019 QX was returned from Istanbul to the UK under the terms of the TEO.
A TEO is an order which may be imposed under the Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 (“the 2015 Act”) in order to temporarily disrupt the return and activities of a citizen suspected of being involved in terrorist-related activity abroad to manage the risk that they may pose to the public. It is an offence triable in either the Magistrates’ or the Crown Court with a maximum sentence of 5 years if a person does not comply with TEO conditions without reasonable excuse.
Continue reading →Like this:
Like Loading...
17 July 2024 by Guest Contributor
The ECHR’s Additional Protocols 4, 7 and 12 have never been ratified by the UK and are not included in the schedule to the Human Rights Act 1998. This post suggests that the new government remedy this. It also sets out part of the history to the Additional Protocols, what the rights in those Protocols include, a summary of the relevant jurisprudence and a brief note of what effect they might have in the UK.
In the run up to the 1997 general election and during the drafting of the Labour Party’s policy on what was to become the Human Rights Bill there were discussions within the Shadow Cabinet about whether or not the remaining Protocols 4, 6 and 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights that, were not currently binding on the UK as a matter of international law, should be signed and ratified and, as a result, bind the UK at an international level.
At the time the Labour Government said ‘It will be possible to ratify Protocol 4 only if the potential conflicts with our domestic laws can be resolved. This remains under consideration but we do not propose to ratify Protocol 4 at present.’[1] The then government had concerns that Articles 2 and 3 of Protocol 4 may confer rights in relation to passports and a right of abode on categories of British nationals who do not currently have a right to reside in the UK.[2] In a subsequent Joint Committee on Human Rights report, the Committee noted that the terms of Article 2 of Protocol 4 are ‘substantially similar to those of Article 12 ICCPR, which the UK has ratified subject to reservations regarding disciplinary procedures for members of the armed forces, and regarding nationals of dependent territories and the right to enter and remain in the UK and each of the dependent territories.’[3]
In contrast, it was eventually agreed by the new Labour Government that Protocol 7 should be ratified and added to Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act:
“4.15 In general, the provisions of Protocol 7 reflect principles already inherent in our law. In view of concerns in some of these areas in recent years, the Government believes that it would be particularly helpful to give these important principles the same legal status as other rights in the Convention by ratifying and incorporating Protocol 7. There is, however, a difficulty with this because a few provisions of our domestic law, for example in relation to the property rights of spouses, could not be interpreted in a way which is compatible with Protocol 7. The Government intends to legislate to remove these inconsistencies, when a suitable opportunity occurs, and then to sign and ratify the Protocol.
4.16 The Secretary of State will be able to amend the Human Rights Act by Order so as to insert into it the rights contained in any Protocols to the Convention which the United Kingdom ratifies in future. The Order will be subject to approval by both Houses of Parliament. The Bill also enables any reservation to a Protocol to be added, but as with the existing reservation it will have to be reviewed every five years if not withdrawn earlier.”[4]
Changes which resulted in the ability to comply with the provision of equality between spouses in Article 5 of Protocol 7, were only made in 2010.[5] However, once these changes were made, the 2010 election came along and Labour was out of office. Protocol 7 remains unratified.
The Additional Rights in these Protocols
The rights in Protocol 4:
- Prohibition of imprisonment for debt
- Freedom of movement within a territory
- Freedom to leave the territory
- Prohibition of expulsion of nationals
- Prohibition of collective expulsion of aliens[6]
The rights in Protocol 7:
- Procedural safeguards relating to the expulsion of aliens
- Right of appeal in criminal matters
- Compensation for wrongful conviction
- Right not to be tried or punished twice
- Equality between spouses
The right in Protocol 12
Any right set out in law shall be secured without discrimination
Protocol 4 and 7 add rights to the ECHR, at least in part, to make up for deficiencies in the ECHR itself when compared to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) – the UN’s equivalent of the ECHR. The UK ratified the ICCPR in 1976 (and now 172 countries across the World have ratified it).
The right to free movement and the prohibition on the collective expulsion of aliens contained in Protocol 4 are also set out in Articles 19 and 45 of the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. The prohibition against double jeopardy and the equivalence between men and women contained in Protocol 7 are set out in Articles 23 and 50 of the Charter and the general prohibition against discrimination in Protocol 12 is contained in Articles 20 and 21.
Currently, Protocol 4 of the ECHR has been signed and ratified by all bar four of the 46 Member States of the Council of Europe (Greece, Switzerland, Turkey and the UK have not ratified the Protocol). Protocol 7 has been signed and ratified by every one of the 46 Member States except for Germany, Netherlands and UK. If ratified, art.4 of Protocol 4 could be an important tool in challenging the effects of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and Illegal Migration Act 2023 domestically and in Strasbourg. Despite inconsistent applications of art.4 of Protocol 4, the Court’s jurisprudence is one of the few legal protections against European externalisation policies and a way for those affected to challenge domestic decisions.
Protocol 12, the general anti-discrimination provision, is also a right already contained in the ICCPR[7] but is missing from the main body of the ECHR itself. Article 14, in the main Convention, only prohibits discrimination where this relates directly to the other rights in the Convention. Protocol 12 is, however, a ‘stand-alone’ provision and has a much wider remit. Protocol 12 has been ratified by twenty Member States although it only came into force in 2005. It is accepted that it would have been more difficult for the UK to ratify in 2005. Concerns were raised regarding its potential breadth, though the Joint Committee on Human Rights considered that these concerns were unwarranted.[8] In addition, the Labour Government’s Equality Act of 2010 has now resolved many of any remaining difficulties with compliance. As a signatory to a wide variety of international human rights instruments concerning equality and non-discrimination, the United Kingdom has already accepted the main principles enshrined in Protocol 12.
As with all the Convention Rights, these rights come with protections and caveats to protect the wider public interest and the interests of society more generally. This is already clear from the fact that they are all tried and tested by being part of the ICCPR, ratified across the World and by the fact that so many countries in Europe have agreed to be bound by them.
It is also clear that, all these rights are all already largely protected by provisions of domestic law. Further, to assuage concerns regarding overreach, many of the rights in these Protocols are subject to limitations or restriction. For example, restrictions which:
“are in accordance with law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the maintenance of ordre public, for the prevention of crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.”
“may … be … imposed in accordance with law and justified by the public interest in a democratic society.”
“[are] necessary in the interests of public order or is grounded on reasons of national security.”
“shall not prevent the reopening of the case in accordance with the law and penal procedure of the State concerned, if there is evidence of new or newly discovered facts, or if there has been a fundamental defect in the previous proceedings, which could affect the outcome of the case.”
Many of the provisions impose important but relatively restricted ‘due process’ rights – rights to a fair procedure which is already largely set out in UK law or provided by the common law created, in large measure, by judicial review.
In relation to Protocol 12, the prohibition of discrimination, consistently with the Equality Act 2010, “distinctions for which an objective and reasonable justification exist do not constitute discrimination.”
Conclusion
The focus of protecting human rights in the UK must, at the very least, be the preservation of the Human Rights Act without any erosion of either the rights or the remedies it provides. Nevertheless, the threat to the Act will hopefully disappear now that the Labour Party is in government. It is, therefore, an important step to consider adding the further protections that are set out in Protocols 4, 7 and 12 and to bring the UK in line with most of the rest of 46 countries of the Council of Europe and the 172 countries that have ratified the ICCPR.
In the context of more the authoritarian rhetoric in politics[9] and, particularly, the regressive steps taken by the previous Government towards those seeking asylum and refuge in the UK and increasing isolation from Europe, the new Government should, at least, send a clear signal that there is a new approach being developed and indicate this by ratifying Protocols 4, 7 and 12. This will hopefully provide a way to rectify some of the damage done by recent legislation and pre-empt further attacks on human rights.
John Wadham is Human Rights Advisor to the Northern Ireland Policing Board
Fiona Byrne is an Independent Human Rights Consultant and previously Human Rights Officer at the Northern Ireland Policing Board
The views expressed are those of the authors alone.
[1] Rights Brought Home, October 1997, CM 3782, para 4.11
[2] Department of Constitutional Affairs, Report of the Outcome of an Interdepartmental Review Conducted by the Department of Constitutional Affairs, July 2004, p. 40
[3] Joint Committee on Human Rights, Review of International Human Rights Instruments, Seventeenth Report of Session 2004-05, para 38
[4] Rights Brought Home, October 1997, CM 3782, paras 4.15 and 4.16
[5] By sections 198 to 201 of the Equality Act 2010.
[6] For more detailed analysis of this provision and the applicability on legislation such as the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and the Illegal Migration Act 2023, see John Wadham, Fiona Byrne, More Human Rights: Protocols 4, 7 and 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act 1998, European Human Rights Law Review 2023, Issue 6.
[7] Article 26.
[8] Joint Committee on Human Rights, 17th Report (2005–2006), HL 99, para 33
[9] For example, in 2023, the UK has been downgraded from ‘narrowed’ to ‘obstructed’ civic freedoms in a new report by the CIVICUS Monitor, a global research collaboration that rates and tracks fundamental freedoms in 197 countries and territories: https://monitor.civicus.org/country-rating-changes/uk/
Like this:
Like Loading...
In his 
Litigation relating to information rights can sometimes seem very dry and obscure, entailing lengthy analysis of the merits of public authorities disclosing or withholding information which is highly specialised or obtuse, and of little real interest to the general population. But this case – the case of the “Black Spider Letters” – really is a fascinating one, involving an examination not just of the legislative provisions relating to the disclosure of information, but also a consideration of the existence and extent of constitutional conventions pertaining to the role of the monarchy in government. At the same time, it has the potential to generate such controversy as to make for perfect tabloid fodder. It has been the subject of 
Recent comments