header-logo header-logo

14 December 2012 / Alec Samuels
Issue: 7542 / Categories: Opinion , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Defending our rights

The UK should repeal HRA 1998 & withdraw from the European Convention, says Alec Samuels

We are all in favour of human rights. Some fear the Human Rights Act 1998 might be modified, or repealed, and possibly replaced by a Bill of Rights (see Geoffrey Bindman QC, “Defending our rights”, NLJ, 12 October 2012, p 1272). I submit that the Act should be repealed and the UK should withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention).

All too often the human rights argument is a last resort, thrown in for good measure, scraping the bottom of the barrel, the case is otherwise a loser. Litigation becomes protracted and costly. The human rights argument usually fails. In the European Court of Human Rights it almost always fails. The Convention is expressed in vague terminology, and the rights are usually “qualified”. Strasbourg law and institutions are essentially continental, based on the civil law system.

Paradoxically, the Act says the Convention (in the schedule) is not binding but must be taken into account (s 2(1)),

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll