Threats to Human Rights Act are a mistake and risk ‘making things worse’, former Supreme Court president warns

Government has launched review after protests that legislation is exploited to block deportation of foreign-born criminals

Government threats to curtail the Human Rights Act are a mistake and risk “making things worse”, a former Supreme Court president is warning.

A review has been launched after long-standing Conservative protests that the legislation is being exploited to, for example, prevent the deportation of foreign-born criminals.

But Baroness Hale – who delivered the landmark verdict that Boris Johnson had shut done Parliament illegally in 2019 – strongly defended the Act for giving Britons vital protections.

“I don't think there's a problem and I don't think there's any need to fix it,” she told the joint human rights committee.

“And I can't myself think of a fix that could make things better, as opposed to potentially making things worse.”

The Human Rights Act had “brought rights home” by allowing UK citizens to bring cases alleging their human rights have been violated in this country.

“That must be a good thing, compared with having to take the United Kingdom to Strasbourg, to the European Court of Human Rights in order to get a remedy, years after the event – and not a very effective one,” Baroness Hale said.

A former Court of Appeal judge, Peter Gross, is chairing a panel of legal experts to examine the way in which judges rule on protections in the Human Rights Act.

It will also consider “whether domestic courts are being unduly drawn into areas of policy”, rather than leaving that to Parliament.

The review follows repeated Tory pledges to radically alter the Act – or get rid of it altogether. The 2019 election manifesto promised to “update” it.

Campaigners fear the aim is to limit protections for asylum seekers and other vulnerable groups, while Labour has accused the prime minister of using the cover of the Covid-19 pandemic to attack human rights.

Baroness Hale also dismissed the argument that the Act – passed by Tony Blair’s Labour government – undermined UK sovereignty, pointing out the rulings of judges did not change the law.

“The Act does not operate as a constraint on parliamentary sovereignty,” she told the MPs and peers.

“The most the court can do is make a declaration of incompatibility. And that leaves it entirely up to Parliament to decide what, if anything, to do about it.”

Announcing the review in December, the justice secretary Robert Buckland, said: “Human rights are deeply rooted in our constitution and the UK has a proud tradition of upholding and promoting them at home and abroad.

“After 20 years of operation, the time is right to consider whether the Human Rights Act is still working effectively.”

Sir Peter said his review “will entail an independent process of careful reflection to consider its workings, together with whether and, if so, what, reforms might be justified”.