header-logo header-logo

Brexit could cut back our rights

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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll