header-logo header-logo

04 July 2019
Issue: 7847 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Brexit could cut back our rights

The right to protection from state surveillance and from corporates gathering private data could be diminished after Brexit, Peers have warned.

In a letter to David Gauke, Lord Chancellor, last week, the House of Lords EU Justice Sub-Committee, chaired by Helena Kennedy QC, warned of a ‘real risk’ to rights after Brexit. The committee has been taking evidence since March on ‘Rights after Brexit’ from lawyers, academics and rights groups.

One major concern is the loss of the protection of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, which will not apply in the UK after Brexit. It protects rights not covered by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), such as the freestanding right to equality before the law. The Peers’ letter notes: ‘While this is also protected by Article 14 of the ECHR, under the ECHR this is not a freestanding right and can only be relied upon with other Convention rights.’

The Charter is stronger than the Convention in some areas―the letter cites ‘the right to protection of personal data (including, for example, both state surveillance and private sector collections of private data) [which] is more extensive under the Charter than the similar right to privacy protected by Article 8 of the ECHR’.

The Charter also provides stronger legal remedies for infringements, as the supremacy of EU law gives courts ‘power to disapply primary legislation which is incompatible with the Charter’. The committee highlights fears that ministers are being given ‘Henry VIII powers’ to change rights protections through statutory instrument. Moreover, individuals will no longer be able to bring certain types of judicial review claims on the basis of proportionality, nor bring claims based on equal treatment in the same way.

Other concerns include the risk of rights differing across the UK, for example, as the Equality Act 2010 does not cover Northern Ireland, the Charter was seen to underpin rights protections. Meanwhile, the Scottish Government is considering a Bill to ensure rights in Scotland can’t be scaled back after Brexit.

Baroness Kennedy said: ‘UK lawyers have been leading contributors to EU human rights law. So it's ironic that UK citizens post-Brexit will have diminished human rights protections, less access to remedies and face legal uncertainty.’

Issue: 7847 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll