header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 January 2016 / James Robottom
Issue: 7683 / Categories: Features , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Put it on the Bill

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7683_robottom

James Robottom examines the UK Bill of Rights process

The words of the Conservative Party 2015 Manifesto were clear enough: the next Conservative government will scrap the Human Rights Act, and introduce a British Bill of Rights.

By the time of the Queen’s speech on 27 May, however, it was clear that any “scrapping” was to be delayed. The speech contained only the rather watered down promise from Her Majesty that the government would “bring forward proposals for a British Bill of Rights”.

In the House of Commons on 8 September Dominic Raab, parliamentary under-secretary for justice, stated proposals for a Bill of Rights would be brought forward in the autumn, but refused “to be drawn on the substance and detail”.

Nothing more was then heard for some time. On 4 November Harriett Harman, appointed chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, wrote to Minister of Justice Michael Gove with five questions that highlighted the complete lack of information available on the proposals. They included whether the UK is to withdraw from

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

Read All
Sponsored by
Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Winckworth Sherwood—Charlotte Coleman & Qaisar Sheikh

Two promoted to partner in property litigation and education teams

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Dorsey & Whitney LLP—Peter Knust

Cross-border finance and restructuring specialist joins as of counsel in London

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

Powell Gilbert—Callum Beamish-Lacey

IP firm promotes litigator to partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Mazur and more—inside the litigation frontline

From blockbuster judgments to procedural shake-ups, the courts are busy reshaping litigation practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School hails the Court of Appeal's 'exquisite judgment’ in Mazur restoring the role of supervised non-qualified staff, and highlights a ‘mammoth’ damages ruling likened to War and Peace, alongside guidance on medical reporting fees, where a pragmatic 25% uplift was imposed

NLJ this week: Social media bans for children spark legal dilemmas
Momentum is building behind proposals to restrict children’s access to social media—but the legal and practical challenges are formidable. In NLJ this week, Nick Smallwood of Mills & Reeve examines global moves, including Australia’s under-16 ban and the UK's consultation
NLJ this week: Leasehold reform risks creating ‘forgotten freeholders’
Reforms designed to rebalance landlord-tenant relations may instead penalise leaseholders themselves. In this week's NLJ, Mike Somekh of The Freehold Collective warns that the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 risks creating an ‘underclass’ of resident-controlled freehold companies
NLJ this week: Court of Appeal clarifies when a claim truly begins
Timing is everything—and the Court of Appeal has delivered clarity on when proceedings are ‘brought’. In his latest 'Civil way' column for NLJ, Stephen Gold explains that a claim is issued for limitation purposes when the claim form is delivered to the court, even if fees are underpaid
NLJ this week: Split FDRs could ease pressure—and boost settlements
The traditional ‘single, intensive day’ of financial dispute resolution (FDR) may be due for a rethink. Writing in NLJ this week, Rachel Frost-Smith and Lauren Guiler of Birketts propose a ‘split FDR’ model, separating judicial evaluation from negotiation
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll