In this article, first published on the Halsbury's Law Exchange blog, Stephen Hockman QC questions Justice Secretary Chris Grayling's plans to replace the Human Rights Act

The recent debates between UKIP leader Nigel Farage and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg highlight once again how difficult it is to persuade the British public to embrace anything European. In his appearance on 26 March before the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling MP showed clearly that the Conservatives intend to capitalise on this at the next general election.

Grayling stated: "My position has been very clear all along, I have no issue with the (European Human Rights) Convention, which I regard as a laudable document, a statement of the principles of a modern democratic nation".

However, Grayling made it clear that it is the decisions of the Strasbourg Court of which he disapproves, and he wants to "curtail the role of the Court in the UK". To achieve this, he deems it necessary to "replace the Human Rights Act".

As we now have (for the first time) a Lord Chancellor who is not a lawyer, it is crucial that he should receive suitable and correct legal advice in carrying out his responsibilities. Sadly, this does not in this case seem to have occurred, for the following reasons:

◾It is the Human Rights Convention itself in Art 46 which requires the governments of contracting states to implement the decisions of the Court in those cases which are brought to it. This is hardly surprising, since the Convention would otherwise be toothless.

◾The Human Rights Act imposes no more stringent obligation on our courts, recording simply that Strasbourg decisions should be "taken into account". Hence Grayling's purported justification for the repeal of the Human Rights Act is specious.

◾The central and logically necessary reason for the enactment of the Human Rights Act was to make the Convention binding upon government and the courts in this country. If it is in order to undermine this principle that Grayling wishes to repeal the Act, then his support for the Convention is itself shown to be equally specious.

Stephen Hockman QC is head of chambers at 6 Pump Court, a former Chairman of the Bar, and a contributor to the Halsbury's Law Exchange blog. Click here to follow the Halsbury's Law Exchange on Twitter.