header-logo header-logo

The human condition

24 March 2011
Issue: 7458 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

New commission to investigate UK Bill of Rights

Lord Lester and Helena Kennedy QC are among eight human rights experts appointed to a commission to investigate the case for a UK Bill of Rights.
The commission, due to file its final report and recommendations by the end of 2012, will be chaired by former permanent secretary, Sir Leigh Lewis. Its members include Sir David Edward PC QC, a former judge of the European Court of Justice, and Professor Philippe Sands QC.

Launching the commission this week, Ken Clarke, secretary of state for justice, said: “I hope that this work will help to inform the debate on human rights at home and assist us as we continue to press for reform of the Strasbourg Court.”

The Ministry of Justice said the independent commission would investigate the creation of a UK Bill of Rights that “incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law, and protects and extends our liberties”. It will advise the government on potential reform of the European Court of Human Rights in the run-up to the UK’s chairmanship of the Council of Europe later this year.

Sir Leigh Lewis, says: “I hope that the commission’s final report will provide an objective and informed basis for the future debate on human rights in the UK.”

Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC, chairman of the board, British Institute of Human Rights, said: “We note that any Bill of Rights recommended by the government’s Commission is required to build on all our obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights and ensure that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law.

“However, we are concerned that the terms of reference make no reference to the Human Rights Act. We call on the new commission, as a matter of urgency, to confirm that it will ensure any proposal for a Bill of Rights builds on the Human Rights Act, and is designed to enhance, rather than weaken, the protections and mechanisms already in place.

“Such an assurance would increase the prospect of a genuine and open debate about the legal protection of human rights in the UK.”

Human rights group, Justice predicted last year, in the report Devolution and Human Rights, that any attempt to substantially amend the Act would likely “prove a legal and political nightmare”.
 

Issue: 7458 / Categories: Legal News
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