“FIGHTING FOR YOUR RIGHTS – THE CASE FOR THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT” Amnesty International, Eastern Region Annual Conference Norwich Saturday 27 th March 2015 David Mead Professor of UK Human Rights

How does the HRA work? –changes how judges interpret statutes –imposes greater duties on “public authorities” – e.g. councils – when exercising discretionary powers What does it not do? –ECHR is not “higher law” & neither is Strasbourg Court –Judges not bound to follow ECHR –ECHR not directly enforceable in same way as EU Law is – not “incorporated”

 What’s all the fuss?  Who’s to blame?  Is the case against proven?  Why support the HRA?

So what’s all the fuss?  Strasbourg mission creep  Undermines domestic judges  Undermines parliamentary sovereignty  HRA goes far beyond UK’s obligations under the ECHR  Rights without responsibilities  Encompasses even trivial claims  Extra-territorial effect hinders army in theatre  Unelected judges  Villain’s charter  Security concerns

Who’s to blame? Labour party politicians Strasbourg judges Domestic judges The human rights “industry” Might we add to the mix... Tabloid newspapers

Is the case against proven? Flawed premise –Qualified rights in Arts 8-11 contain responsibilities –ECHR judges are elected Mistakes of law –Strasbourg law does not bind UK Supreme Court –Strasbourg has never ruled against life sentences –What about devolved nations? Misconceptualising problem –European Court cannot become “advisory” –Human rights are necessarily undemocratic

Misunderstandings and myths –Prisoner voting –Villains’ charter –National security concerns Misrepresenting the target –Is HRA or ECHR the problem? The role of Art 46 –Increasingly greater parity b/w UK & Strasbourg –EU Charter of Rights Matters of judgement –Mission creep or developmental & foreseen? –What does “serious” mean? –Interpretation IS a problem but...

Apart from the sanitation, the medicine, education... In principle, the HRA... Guarantees everyday protection Constrains governmental action Avoids rule by the majority Provides a touchstone In terms of realpolitik... Misplaced foreigner-criminal-terrorist narrative The Groucho Marx problem

How has the HRA helped? Michael v C/Constable of S. Wales [2015] UKSC 2 DSD v Metropolitan Police [2014] EWHC 436 Dora & Simon (BIHR case study) Balbir (BIHR case study) Warren v Care Fertility Ltd [2014] EWHC 602 P v Cheshire West Council [2014] UKSC 19 Janah v Libyan Embassy [2015] EWCA Civ 15 R (HC) v Home Secretary [2013] EWHC 982 Mid-Staffs Hospital Inquiry and compensation Effective investigations into deaths

Some further material The Conservative policy document can be found here rights-act-full-document rights-act-full-document Chris Grayling’s piece in ConservativeHome is here protect-human-rights-while-making-the-european-court-advisory-only.html protect-human-rights-while-making-the-european-court-advisory-only.html The most recent pro-reform/repeal contribution to the debate, itself heavily criticised, is this Civitas paper last week Dominic Grieve’s views are here unit-news/031214a and herehttp:// rights-act-why-the-conservatives-are-wronghttp:// unit-news/031214ahttp:// rights-act-why-the-conservatives-are-wrong Two readable academic blog critiques would be party-and-reform-of-the-human-rights-act-1998/ proposals-for-a-british-bill-of-rights/ Criticisms by former government lawyer Carl Gardner are here human-rights-plan/ human-rights-plan/