Dominic Raab’s Bill of Rights would see more cases go to Strasbourg and should be dropped, inquest finds
Dominic Raab’s bill of rights would weaken UK courts and lead to more decisions in Strasbourg, according to an official inquiry.
Parliament’s Joint Committee on Human Rights (JCHR) has said the proposed law should be scrapped after ‘overwhelming’ opposition and ‘inadequate justification’ for changes that would weaken people’s ability to enforce their fundamental freedoms .
A scathing report concluded: “We do not believe this to be a bill of rights at all and recommend that the title of the bill be changed accordingly.
“The government should not act on this bill: it weakens the protection of rights, it undermines the universality of rights, it shows disregard for our international legal obligations, it creates legal uncertainty and hinders effective effective, it will lead to an increase in the number of cases in Strasbourg and will damage our international reputation as guardians of human rights.
The bill, which would remove and replace the Human Rights Act, was introduced in parliament last June but progress has stalled following the collapse of Boris Johnson’s government.
The Bill of Rights was said to have been “set aside” under Liz Truss, but appears to have been revived since Rishi Sunak took over as Prime Minister and Mr Raab returned as Justice Secretary.
It appears set to press on through Parliament, despite the division within the Conservative Party and the antipathy of several current and former ministers towards what some have called a “vain bill”.
Joanna Cherry KC, president of the JCHR, said the law does not protect rights, but “removes and restricts certain human rights protections that the government finds inconvenient”.
“We are also very concerned about the negative impact on the constitutional arrangements of decentralized nations and the Good Friday Agreement,” she added.
“We have asked the government to reconsider the vast majority of the articles of the bill. However, there is so little appetite for these reforms and the impact is likely to be so detrimental to the protection of human rights in the UK that it might be wiser to abandon the bill in its entirety.
Dominic Raab denounces the “nonsense” of the law on human rights
JCHR said its six-month investigation found that the Bill of Rights bill “not only lacks support, but has sparked overwhelming and widespread concern.”
He said a formal consultation, call for evidence and survey found a “limited number” of supporters who were a “tiny minority” of all respondents.
MPs and peers from all parties concluded that there was “no case for this bill”, and no evidence that it would achieve the government’s stated goals such as protecting free speech, the strengthening of parliamentary sovereignty and the empowerment of British courts.
“The committee concludes that the likely outcome of the legislation is that more people would have to go to the European Court of Human Rights to enforce their rights and that more adverse judgments are likely to be delivered against the UK” , says a press release.
“We believe some of its provisions are simply unnecessary, while others are positively detrimental to the enforcement and protection of human rights in the UK.”
The report warned that the Bill of Rights would remove bonds that have secured justice in landmark cases including the Hillsborough disaster investigations and black cab rapist John Worboys, warning that groups raising concerns included those who fight against violence against women.
One clause could “enable the government to escape responsibility for human rights violations committed during military operations abroad”, while another “extinguishes” the right to family life of people threatened with deportation.
The committee said it was hard to see any part aimed at getting UK judges to ignore interim measures from the European Court of Human Rights as anything other than a ‘reaction’ to last-minute injunctions who stopped an attempted deportation flight to Rwanda.
He warned: “The bill appears to be a way to address a small number of specific issues, which, while important, we would not expect to see in a fundamental rights law.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: ‘The Bill of Rights builds on the UK’s proud tradition of freedom by strengthening freedom of expression, injecting a healthy dose of common sense back into the system and by ending the abuse of our laws.
“The government was elected on the basis of a manifesto which pledged to update human rights law to ensure a fair balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and a government effective – that’s what we do.”