By Gabriel Princewill-
Proposed human rights reforms will weaken existing protections contained in the Human Rights Act, a parliamentary committee has warned, in a desperate urge to the British government to drop plans for a so-called bill of rights.
The Committee criticized proposals to replace these protections with a ‘British’ Bill of Rights, concluding that they would instead cause confusion and result in more cases being sent to the European Court of Human Rights. It also finds that attempts to strengthen freedom of speech could undermine the enforcement of other rights.
In a 93-page report published today, the joint committee on human rights provided its reasons why it felt the Uk government has not made a proper case for replacing the Human Rights Act with a bill of rights in the form proposed by the government.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights concluded that that the Human Rights Act would be weakened by the Government’s proposals, and that the measures the Government says would strengthen rights are likely to have the opposite effect on other rights.
According to the Committee, ascribing greater importance to freedom of expression would likely damage rights including the right to privacy and the right to a fair trial, the Committee argues.
The committee also said that placing greater restrictions on who can bring a human rights claim or reducing the damages owed to a claimant because of a perception of them being undeserving would contravene the fundamental principle that human rights are universal.
The Committee further expressed strong disagreement with the Uk government’s stance that more weight should be giving to Parliament’s discretion of ensuring legislation is compliant with the HRA, than the compatibility requirement ‘as much as possible’ stipulated by section 3 of the Human Rights Act.
The proposed remedy by the Uk government to the perceived problem, by weakening the duty under section 3 of the Human Rights Act, which currently requires courts to read legislation compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights as far as it is possible to do so, has been rejected by the committee.
The Committee also rejected the premise that section 3 of the Human Rights Act is need of any reform, claiming that its present state balances respect for Parliamentary sovereignty with effective protection for human rights.
The report concluded that plans to diminish the existing relationship between the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights would make litigation more costly and time-consuming, in the process creating more legal uncertainty.
The committee also warned that amending section 2 of the 1998 legislation, which requires UK courts to take into account Strasbourg judgments, would increase the likelihood of cases being taken to the ECtHR, risking more adverse judgments against the UK.
The evidence for a permission stage to prevent ‘frivolous’ claims is weak, it adds, pointing out that the law already provides several mechanisms to prevent unjustified claims being brought to court.
The inclusion of the right to trial by jury in the so-called bill of rights, meanwhile, is merely ‘symbolic’.
The report says: ‘During the pandemic, the government suspended jury trials before the Crown Court on the grounds of a public health emergency, which led to inevitable delays to justice. If the British bill of rights contained specific protections for the right to trial by jury, the Government may be open to challenge if they seek to reduce the scope of jury trials, or suspend jury trials, in the future.
‘The government states it is their intention to “create a bill of rights for the whole of the United Kingdom, founded on principles common to us all”. However, the right to jury trial does not exist in Scottish procedure. The bill of rights would therefore diverge from universality, as not all rights would be given effect in all four jurisdictions. It will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to determine whether to make any amendments to their criminal justice system.’
Instead of introducing a bill of rights, which the report describes as a ‘rebranding exercise’, the committee suggests the government focus on championing respect for human rights as a core element of the country’s constitution and values.
Unproven
Committee chair Harriet Harman MP said: ‘The government’s case that human rights legislation is in serious need of reform is not proven. There is nothing in their consultation that would serve to strengthen the protections we currently have and much that would weaken them. In many cases what is described as the strengthening of rights is simply tweaking what is already protected, while at the same time making it harder for people to actually enforce their rights.’
A spokesperson for the Ministry of Justice said: ‘Our proposals will strengthen quintessentially British human rights, such as freedom of expression, while staying a party to the ECHR. They will also prevent abuses of the system, adding a healthy dose of common sense and restore parliament’s rightful role as the ultimate decision-maker on laws impacting the UK population’.