David Isaac, the former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, has called on the government to ensure its review of the Human Rights Act is \u201cindependent-minded on potentially political issues and \u201cshould not mean turning our back on European human rights.\u201d<\/p>\n
In December 2020, it was announced that former-judge Sir Peter Gross would head up a review of the Human Rights Act, which incorporates the rights of the European Convention of Human Rights into domestic law.<\/p>\n
To this end, the review will assess what role the European Court of Human Rights (ECHtR) will play in the UK post-Brexit. As is, the act compels courts to \u201ctake account\u201d of decisions made by the ECHtR, though it specifically states they are not required to follow its decisions.<\/p>\n
Of more concern to Isaac is that the review also intends to examine whether the legislation bestows judges, rather than parliament, too much power over matters of policy. A number of judge-led decisions throughout the Brexit process has left many within the Conservative party with a sour taste in their mouth. However, as Isaac notes \u201cdecisions by judges have historically been significant in promoting human rights \u2014 and often ahead of legislative change.\u201d<\/p>\n
Scepticism of the Human Rights Act within the Conservative party did not start with the Brexit referendum – their 2010 and 2015 Conservative manifestos both pledged to repeal the act. In 2019 they ambiguously committed to \u201cupdate\u201d the legislation.<\/p>\n
While the latter pledge pulls back from complete revocation, it is generally accepted that an \u201cupdate\u201d would lead to pre-existing rights protections being watered down.<\/p>\n
Martha Spurrier, a barrister and the director of Liberty, wrote at the time:<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile we cannot be clear about what \u201cupdate\u201d means, the proposal appears not to be aimed at what rights people enjoy, but rather when and where those rights can be enjoyed and who can be held to account for their violation. Updating the legislation to make it applicable to some but not others would be an attack on the structure and accessibility of the Act.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Going on to add that:<\/p>\n
\n\u201cIt is rarely those in the halls of Westminster who rely on the Act to secure the justice they need. It is people such as the families of the Hillsborough victims, the same-sex couple who fought for equal rights, and the victims of John Worboys, among countless of others.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Many, including the International Observatory of Human Rights (IOHR), have called on the government to safeguard the rights protected by the Human Rights Act. Any review should look into how it should be expanded to cover rights lost from Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, rather than stymied.<\/p>\n
\nToday, the UK celebrates 22 years of the Human Rights Act.<\/p>\n
The Human Rights Act 1998 represented a major turning point for protecting human rights in Britain. #Rights4All<\/a> #HRA<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/zmz9duWGv2<\/a><\/p>\n
\u2014 International Observatory of Human Rights (@observatoryihr) November 9, 2020<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n