header-logo header-logo

02 April 2009
Issue: 7363 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-detail

Rights (and responsibilities) for all

Human rights need protection not abstract discussion

The Ministry of Justice has launched a Bill of Rights and Responsibilities, reigniting the debate over human rights in the UK.

The wide-ranging green paper, published last week, proposes introducing a raft of new rights to build on existing ones. These include rights relating to free health care and victims of crime.

The paper lists some of the responsibilities of UK citizens and asks whether they should be written in a single document. They include: obeying the law, reporting crimes and co-operating with prosecution agencies; paying taxes; voting and jury service; treating NHS staff with respect; and living within our environmental limits.

Launching the paper, Jack Straw, justice secretary, said: “In difficult times, people need to know that their fundamental rights and freedoms are protected, whatever happens in the world around them, and that others will behave responsibly towards them.
“That is why the government has emphasised the importance of fair chances, fair rules and having a fair say; that everyone should play by the rules.
“We believe it is important that people know their rights and their responsibilities. That common knowledge helps bind us together as a nation.
“This government is proud to have introduced the Human Rights Act and will not backtrack from it or repeal it. But we believe more should be done to bring out the responsibilities which accompany rights.
“We also believe that there could be merit in bringing together rights such as free health care, victims’ rights and equality, which are currently scattered across the UK’s legal and political landscape.”

Eric Metcalfe, director of human rights, Justice, says: “It’s a very thoughtful paper, but ultimately we question whether this is the right time to be having an abstract discussion about a Bill of Rights when the Human Rights Act is still in need of protection.

“We do believe that there’s a case for adding new rights, but it is important to protect existing rights, particularly while the opposing party is pledged to repeal the Human Rights Act. There have been a lot of misconceptions about the Human Rights Act and it is important to inform people about these. For example, it seems to be put out in the press that the courts are overriding the democratic will of Parliament, and that’s not true. It is always open to Parliament to pass the laws that it wants.”
 

Issue: 7363 / Categories: Legal News , Human rights
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll