[ad_1]
A former appeals court judge has been appointed to lead a review of how the Human Rights Act (HRA) is interpreted in UK courts.
Sir Peter Gross, who retired last year, will chair a panel of legal experts to examine how judges decide on protections in law.
Ministers allege that it is being exploited inappropriately, in particular to prevent deportation of those classified as “foreign-born criminals”. Labor justice spokesman David Lammy said the government was attacking human rights amid a pandemic.
The HRA, introduced by the Labor government in 1998, incorporates the rights set out in the European human rights convention, which is substantially the drafting work of British lawyers after the Second World War.
There have been repeated promises by the Conservative Party in successive elections to eliminate or radically alter the law. The last manifesto in 2019 simply promised to “update” the HRA.
The government’s focus is shifting toward observing how the act operates rather than mounting an all-out frontal attack on its existence.
However, civil rights groups fear that the policy is aimed at severely limiting the scope of legal protections for asylum seekers, victims and other vulnerable groups.
The review will examine the relationship between the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) in Strasbourg and whether the dialogue between national courts and the ECHR works effectively.
It will also consider the impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, the executive and the parliament, and “whether national courts are improperly engaging in policy areas.
Additionally, it will look at how the HRA is applied outside of the UK, a concern that is also addressed in the government’s controversial overseas operations bill.
Justice Secretary Robert Buckland said: “Human rights are deeply embedded in our constitution and the UK has a proud tradition of upholding and promoting them at home and abroad. After 20 years of operation, it is the right moment to consider whether the Human Rights Law continues to function effectively.
Gross said: “The law is a very important part of our legal framework; [the review] it will involve an independent process of careful reflection to consider how it works, along with whether the reforms could be justified and, if so, what.
Many controversies around the law center on the interpretations of article 8 of the convention, which guarantees the right to respect for private and family life.
For example, last month, the ECHR, which considers claims that the convention has been violated, ruled that the UK had violated the right to family life of a Nigerian deported in 2018, one of whose children had a heart defect. rare congenital. In that case, UK courts were criticized for adopting too narrow an interpretation of the protections.
The panel of experts participating in the review includes members of the Policy Exchange, an expert group that strongly supports the government’s constitutional reform policies, as well as experienced human rights academics and lawyers.
Lammy said: “It is insane that the government is prioritizing launching an attack on human rights amid the coronavirus pandemic.
Unlike the Conservatives, Labor prides itself on this country’s leading role in the development of human rights after World War II. There is no need to review the rights and freedoms that sustain our democracy and that we all enjoy ”.
Kate Allen, Director of Amnesty International UK, said: “Breaking the Human Rights Act would be a big step backwards. It would be the largest reduction of duties in the history of the United Kingdom.
“From Hillsborough to Grenfell and the terrible mismanagement of the recent Covid crisis in nursing homes, we have never needed so much a means to hold the government to account and we know that the Human Rights Act does it extremely effectively.
“It took ordinary people a long time to gain these rights and we must not allow politicians to take them away from them in one fell swoop.”
