Protests as bill restricts Convention rights

A chorus of opposition has greeted the UK Government's Bill of Rights Bill, introduced to the House of Commons today by Lord Chancellor Dominic Raab.

Stating at the outset that it "reforms the law relating to human rights by repealing and replacing the Human Rights Act 1998", the bill has already been described by the Law Society of England & Wales as putting the UK "on a collision course with the rule of law".

A Government press release lists the bill's objectives as including:

• "prevent courts from placing new costly obligations on public authorities to actively protect someone’s human rights and limit the circumstances in which current obligations apply," which Martha Spurrier of Liberty pointed out, would affect for example the only legal tools available to the families of the Hillsborough victims, the victims of the John Worboys attacks, and patients at risk of suicide;
• "insulate the Government’s plans to increase the use of prison separation centres against legal challenge from extremist offenders claiming ‘a right to socialise’" (how can it do that, commentator Joshua Rosenberg asks, and why should claimants be denied access to the courts in cases where the Government may have acted unlawfully?);
• "prevent human rights from being used as a way to bring claims on overseas military operations once alternative options are provided by upcoming legislation", which it is feared will allow rights abuses committed in war to go unpunished, and members of the armed forces being left without legal protection;
• "confirm that interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights under rule 39, such as the one issued last week which prevented the removal flight to Rwanda, are not binding on UK courts", which would breach international law as the court has ruled that states parties are under an obligation to comply with interim measures.

Claimants founding on human rights will also have to seek permission from the court, and show they have suffered a "significant disadvantage" before their claim can go ahead, though courts are already able to filter out unmeritorious claims.

Those convicted of crimes will find their rights restricted in order that more foreign criminals can be deported – which "means impunity for rights abuses, particularly against people in prison, police custody, protestors", according to Spurrier, who pointed out on Twitter that only 7.8% of criminal deportation cases successfully rely on the article 8 right to family life.

The bill purports to make clear that the UK Supreme Court is the ultimate judicial decision-maker on human rights issues and that the case law of the European Court of Human Rights does not always need to be followed by UK courts – though the UK will remain party to the Convention, and if courts diverge from ECHR law, the UK is likely to be found in breach.

It has also been suggested that some of the bill's provisions are meaningless unless they are intended to enable ministers to make regulations that would conflict with human rights, reducing parliamentary scrutiny of rights matters.

Sophie Kemp, partner and head of Public Law at London firm Kingsley Napley, commented: "Calling Dominic Raab’s proposals a 'Bill of Rights' is another Orwellian turn from this Government. It is, in fact, a worrying 'Bill of Restrictions'."

Ministers have ignored cross-party pleas to have the bill scrutinised by committees prior to its introduction. More than 150 civil society organisations wrote to the Government in protest when it announced this move earlier this month.

Publication of the full text of the bill is awaited.