Basically, the proposed measures will restore Parliament’s role as the ultimate decision-maker of laws impacting the British population, which will allow more leeway in deciding how we interpret the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. man in Strasbourg. This will end our gold plating of any decisions Strasbourg makes when we bring them into UK law.
It will restore a common sense approach to vital areas such as the UK’s ability to deport foreign criminals, such as drug traffickers and terrorists, who too often exploit human rights laws to avoid the ‘expulsion.
The proposals do this by restricting the rights of people subject to deportation orders, strengthening the existing legal framework or limiting the grounds on which an expulsion decision can be overturned. This – alongside the wider Home Office in its new immigration plan – will reduce pull factors to the UK exploited by smugglers facilitating dangerous small boat crossings.
It is estimated that up to 70 percent of successful human rights challenges are brought by foreign offenders who invoke the right to family life at first instance when appealing deportation orders. This approach was even successful in the case of a man who assaulted his partner and paid no child support to support his family.
The plans will give the Supreme Court greater capacity to interpret human rights law in a UK context, meaning the government can enforce rules designed to tackle forced marriages without fear of interference from Strasbourg.
Today’s ruling aims to reinforce uniquely British traditions – such as free speech and the right to a jury trial – while ensuring that the system is not open to abuse.
Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for Justice Dominic Raab said: “Our plans for a Bill of Rights will strengthen uniquely British rights like free speech and jury trials, while preventing abuse of the system and adding a healthy dose of common sense. The UK will remain a party to the ECHR and will continue to fulfill its obligations under the Convention and all other international human rights treaties. However, ministers will ensure that the UK Supreme Court has the final say on UK rights by making it clear that they should not blindly follow the Strasbourg Court. This will mean that the rights are interpreted in a British context, respecting the case law, traditions and the intent of its elected legislators. “
The proposals also include measures to introduce an authorization step that will intercept frivolous claims that drain the energy and resources of the courts.
Meanwhile, greater emphasis will be placed on the rights to a jury trial and freedom of speech, meaning the space for rigorous debate will reflect the traditions of the UK and uphold its values.
The UK has a long history of advocacy – from the Magna Carta in 1215, the Claim and Bill of Rights of 1689, the Slave Trade Act of 1807 to the Representation of the People Act of 1918.
This consultation seeks views on how best to ensure that the country’s human rights framework puts rights and responsibilities side by side to meet the needs of the society it serves.
It follows a report by the Independent Human Rights Law Review Panel which reviewed the functioning of the Human Rights Law after 21 years of application.
You can respond here.