Why the replacement to the HRA (1998) is a terrible idea.

First of all, what will the Bill of Rights do? Well, in 1998, the Human Rights Act (HRA) passed by Mr Blair's government entrenched the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights) into UK law, making it admissible in our own courts. The ECHR has protected rights and no matter what the government says the ECtHR only rules against the government if the rule of law is broken!

Now, the Bill of Rights originated with Dominic Raab - now Deputy PM and Justice Secretary - in 2009 when he published the book "The Assault on Liberty: What Went Wrong with Rights". The original idea of the removal of the HRA was of course before then, but lacked a replacement which Raab provides. Conservatives were not happy with the idea of prisoner's voting which the ECtHR have ruled for, stating that it infringes upon Article 3, Protocol No.1 "The Right to Free Elections". In the land of Westminster, have we seen prisoner's voting? No. Why? Because, de jure, we should allow them to but de facto, we are "looking into it" therefore we don't have to. The prisoner voting debate is fascinating because critics of the ECtHR say that they are reaching in their judgement. This is precisely Raab's criticism, it is not clear enough! The Government's Bill will "Restore common sense" to rights in Britain. Even if there is a legal debate we are internationally obligated to follow the courts rulings in the application of the ECHR, whether it is "common sense" or not, the Rule of Law applies to all people (including the Government). The UK government being able to ignore their decision on issues such as prisoner voting perhaps signifies the pointlessness of the new Bill. 

In summary, Raab will remain faithful to the basic rights in the ECHR - which is great - but will not follow the application of such law in the ECtHR (Strasburg). In the Bill, it states that the ECtHR cannot "Be part of domestic law" or "affect Parliamentary legislation" because this frustrates the democratically elected representatives will. In practice, the newfound Supremacy of our Supreme court means that when the ECtHR states that it is unlawful - breaching the ECHR - for us to move immigrants to Rwanda there is nothing they can do about it, which has led many to call this a purely political move. The argument here is that courts in the UK should have greater influence on the application of law in this country, but aforementioned we ignore the rulings of the ECtHR in cases anyway. From the Supreme court website:

 "The Human Rights Act also requires UK courts, including the Supreme Court, to "take account" of decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (which sits in Strasbourg). UK courts are not required, however, always to follow the decisions of that Court. Indeed, they can decline to do so, particularly if they consider that the Strasbourg Court has not sufficiently appreciated or accommodated particular aspects of our domestic constitutional position"

Inevitably, ignoring the common law which comes from other countries under the ECHR - as we will no longer be required to "take account" inconsistencies will quickly emerge.  Now, the Executive Summary on the government website states that the Brighton Declaration 2012 was "intended to ensure that the Strasbourg Court handles efficiently those cases that have not been effectively addressed at national level." and is going to remain in full force. Essentially, if you have a problem with the ruling in the UK courts you can still go to Strasbourg. Ultimately, as differences in the application of the ECHR grow the more the losing party will seek to appeal their case, which creates a world of issues including funding, time and the legal reputation of Britain. 

With already criminally low legal aid available, making the trip to Strasbourg will become a ball ache which simply isn't feasible. Furthermore, the courts are to give greater weight to the views of Parliament when balancing rights which further adds to the benefit of the doubt Parliament already receives when dealing with judicial review cases. As seen by the Public Law Projects work from 2021: "In March this year, the IRAL [Independent Review of Administrative Law] reported that out of 5,502 Cart judicial reviews brought between 2012 and 2019, only 0.22% were successful" indicating the lack of success claimants have against the government, and by giving greater weight to the views of the government controlled Parliament, the Rule of Law comes into question. To make it clear, the Rule of Law applies to all people, at all times and all in the same way. Parliament should be no different. 

According to the Children's Legal Centre for Wales the following changes are also included within the Bill:

- Changing the definition of public authorities. The ECHR will now no longer apply to private provides of public services. 

At First I couldn't conceivably think this could be true because this quite clearly breaks the rule of law. 

- Government wants to stop the courts from being able to override subordinate legislation incompatible with the ECHR

This one is particularly dangerous. Subordinate legislation, secondary legislation or statutory instruments. Largely similar. The government pumps 1000s of them across various pieces of legislation with only a slither receiving scrutiny, simply because there are too many and not enough time or resources to track them down. This strengthens again the governments ability de facto to legislate when de jure, that is solely Parliament's job.

That's my coverage of the Bill slowly progressing through the House of Lords as we speak! A terrible idea.