The Joint Committee on Human Rights urged the government to rethink the ‘vast majority’ of the clauses and questioned the wisdom of proceeding with it at all. Its report, published this week, warns the Bill would ‘seriously weaken’ the ability of individuals to seek redress for human rights breaches.
It gives specific examples of investigations that might not have taken place under the Bill due to its impact on positive obligations—the duty of public bodies to take active steps to safeguard rights—including the Hillsborough inquests and the investigation into the release of serial taxi driver rapist John Worboys.
The committee’s chair, Joanna Cherry KC, said: ‘It removes and restricts certain human rights protections that the government finds inconvenient and prescribes a restrictive approach to the interpretation and application of the European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR] in the courts of our domestic legal systems.’ She expressed concern about the ‘adverse impact on the constitutional arrangements of the devolved nations and the Good Friday Agreement’, and warned the Bill would result in ‘more barriers to enforcing human rights, more cases taken to Strasbourg and more adverse judgments against the UK’.
In the report, the committee highlights that attempts in the Bill to change how domestic courts interpret rights, read legislation and award damages will act as barriers against individuals enforcing their rights. Domestic courts would be required to focus on the original text of the ECHR, as it was when adopted in the 1950s, rather than how it has been developed to reflect the modern world. It warns removing courts’ ability to read legislation so it is compatible with human rights would reduce individuals’ protection from the state, while abandoning decades of case law would risk ‘dangerous uncertainty’.
