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
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.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”.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments