Mr Grayling: why he's wrong about replacing the Human Rights Act
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
April 08, 2014 at 11:30 AM
3 minute read
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.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLatham's magic circle strikes, pay rises and EY's legal takeover: the best of Legal Week over the last few weeks
3 minute readJob losses, soaring partner profits and Freshfields exits - the best of Legal Week over the past two weeks
3 minute readMagic circle PEP hikes, the associate pay conundrum and more #MeToo - the best of Legal Week last week
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Law Firm Disrupted: Playing the Talent Game to Win
- 2A&O Shearman Adopts 3-Level Lockstep Pay Model Amid Shift to All-Equity Partnership
- 3Preparing Your Law Firm for 2025: Smart Ways to Embrace AI & Other Technologies
- 4BD Settles Thousands of Bard Hernia Mesh Lawsuits
- 5A RICO Surge Is Underway: Here's How the Allstate Push Might Play Out
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250