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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll