The Government plans to revise the Human Rights Act by replacing it with a Bill of Rights which it says will restore “common sense” to the application of the law in the UK.
The new bill would protect “fundamental rights” such as “the right to a fair trial and the right to life,” which are “a fundamental part of a modern democratic society,” he said government proposals. It would seek to “reverse the missionary crawls that have led to human rights laws being used for an increasing number of purposes and often with little regard for the rights of wider society”.
Boris Johnson promised reform of the 1998 human rights law Conservative Party Manifesto 2019where he vowed to update the law to ensure “a proper balance between the rights of individuals, our vital national security and effective government.”
Dominik Raabthe justice minister and deputy prime minister, said in December that the changes would “bolster Parliament’s role as the ultimate decision-maker and safeguard rights such as freedom of speech” he reported financial times. Many Conservative MPs have also criticized the existing legislation for encouraging “false” legal challenges against the government.
But “lawyers and campaign groups have expressed concern about the proposals,” arguing that they will “restrict public authorities’ duties to protect human rights and make it more difficult for individuals to pursue judicial proceedings over alleged violations,” the newspaper said.
The government proposals will “leave our human rights broadly unchanged,” argued Alberto Costa, MP for South Leicestershire, and Adam Tomkins, a former Scottish Conservative MSP, in an article for The times in February. They will “reinforce” aspects such as the right to a jury trial, which will be “incorporated into the corpus of human rights,” thereby “filling a gap that is all too glaring for an ordinary lawyer in continental human rights charters,” they wrote.
“And beyond that, the all-important right to freedom of expression will be strengthened,” they added. “As one judge famously put it, the right to speak innocently is not worth having. This needs to be underscored in legislation to avert the risk that this country’s long-standing commitment to freedom of expression is not eroded under the pressure of new censorship.”
Far from undermining the UK’s “commitment to liberty”, the reforms “will only serve to strengthen it”, they concluded.
The government has already outlined plans to tackle attempts by foreign-born criminals to resist deportation from the UK by invoking human rights law, the FT reported. She has also outlined plans to limit the steps to be taken by public authorities – such as the police – to protect the human rights guaranteed by Article 2 of existing legislation, which protects the right to life.
While the government may think Britain’s human rights law “needs to be rebalanced to emphasize the primacy of…British legal history,” some lawyers and activists fear a new Bill of Rights “could be a mess,” they said BBC‘s home and legal correspondent Dominic Casciani in December.
And this isn’t just a warning from “left-wing keen lawyers, as some right-wingers would claim.” The government’s own independent review contains “an amazing 580 pages” of advice and warnings that can be summed up in a few words: “Don’t rush to change things when the evidence shows they don’t need fixing”.
“Attack on Liberties”
Earlier this month, the Welsh and Scottish governments described the plans as an “ideologically motivated attack on liberties and liberties”.
They called on the government “to listen to evidence from civil society and the legal profession and to reverse their proposals,” arguing that Westminster is pushing the changes “although its own independent human rights review finds no good case for substantive changes.”
In a statement accompanying the proposed reforms, the decentralized governments highlighted that the human rights law was “central to the fight for justice”. Hillsborough Disasterand to bring John Worboys, known as the “Black Taxi Rapist,” to justice in the face of “grave failures” by the Metropolitan Police.
It’s a fear shared by rights group Liberty, which said the families of the 97 victims of the Hillsborough disaster had relied on Article 2 of the Human Rights Act to conduct a new investigation, which in 2016 concluded that supporters had been unlawfully killed, the FT reported.
But Raab has argued to the House of Commons Judiciary Committee that the so-called “positive obligations” imposed by Article 2 could have “a significant impact on police resources” – such as the number of life-threatening reports that the police are dealing with is obliged under the legislation when criminals have faced death threats from rival gangs.
https://www.theweek.co.uk/news/law/956171/human-rights-act-overhaul-bill-of-rights The government’s plans to revise the flagship human rights law