Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55b6f6c457-cn8nj Total loading time: 0.432 Render date: 2021-09-26T20:25:59.431Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Bringing Rights More Home: Can a Home-grown UK Bill of Rights Lessen the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Abstract

HTML view is not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This article focuses on the strategy to replace the UK Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) with a home-grown Bill of Rights to lessen the influence of the European Court of Human Rights' case law. Without attempting to disregard the national-specific elements, the discussion of these questions is very relevant for all States confronted with the influence of Strasbourg. The tension between coherence, efficiency and autonomy is overarching. The article therefore approaches the issue not only from an outsider's perspective but also, where relevant, from a comparative constitutional law perspective. Both perspectives seem to be largely absent from the current (academic) debate. Firstly, this article analyzes the current relationship between the UK Supreme Court and the Strasbourg Court, which reveals that the judicial arguments in support of a mirror principle are not so much based on section 2(1) HRA, as they are, in the domestic courts' relationship with Strasbourg, on concerns about international obligations, hierarchy, effectiveness of the Strasbourg Court, coherence and efficiency. Internally, judicial arguments are founded on concerns about separation of powers, limited jurisdiction, and accustomedness to the precedent system. In the second part, this article focuses on the potential impact of a home-grown Bill of Rights on the current relationship between both courts; concluding that a home-grown Bill of Rights will most likely cause domestic courts to receive less latitude by Strasbourg and will not absolve domestic judges from the duty of taking into account the Strasbourg case law.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © 2014 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 Joint Committee on Human Rights, A Bill of Rights for the UK?, 2007–08, H.L. 165-I, H.C. 150–1, at 7 (U.K.), available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/165/165i.pdf. See also Parliament & Constitution Centre & Home Affairs Section, Background to Proposals for a British Bill of Rights and Duties, SN/PC/04559 (2009), available at http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/briefings/snpc-04559.pdf (providing an overview of each party's proposal for a British Bill of Rights).Google Scholar

2 Labour Party, The Labour Party Manifesto 2010: A Future Fair for All 9:3 (2010), available at http://www2.labour.org.uk/uploads/TheLabourPartyManifesto-2010.pdf.Google Scholar

3 Conservative Party, Invitation to Join the Government of Britain: The Conservative Manifesto 79 (2010), available at http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Activist%20Centre/Press%20and%20Policy/Manifestos/Manifesto 2010. See also David Cameron, Speech at the Centre for Policy Studies: Balancing Freedom and Security—A Modern British Bill of Rights (June 26, 2006), available at http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=293 (proposing a British Bill of Rights as necessary to provide balance between security and protection of individual freedom).Google Scholar

4 Liberal Democrat Party, Policy Paper 83: For the People, by the People 4.2.4 (2007). See also Liberal Democrat Party, Liberal Democrat Manifesto: Build a Fairer Britain 93–94 (2010), available at http://network.libdems.org.uk/manifesto2010/libdem_manifesto_2010.pdf (proposing a Freedom Bill to protect civil liberties).Google Scholar

5 See National Executive Comm., A New Agenda for Democracy: Labour's Proposals for Constitutional Reform (1993); Klug, Francesca, A Bill of Rights: What For?, in Towards a New Constitutional Settlement 130–33 (Christopher Bryant ed., 2007).Google Scholar

6 Home Office, Rights Brought Home: The Human Rights Bill (1997), available at http://www.archive.official-documents.co.uk/document/hoffice/rights/rights.htm.Google Scholar

7 Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222 [hereinafter Convention].Google Scholar

8 See Labour Party, Labour Party Manifesto 1997: New Labour Because Britain Deserves Better (1997) (“We will by statute incorporate the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law to bring these rights home and allow our people access to them in their national courts.”).Google Scholar

9 Human Rights Act, 1998, c. 42 (U.K.).Google Scholar

10 Besson, Samantha, The Reception Process in Ireland and the United Kingdom, in A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems 31, 40 (Helen Keller & Alec Stone Sweet eds., 2008).Google Scholar

11 See Feldman, David, Extending the Role of the Courts: The Human Rights Act 1998, 30 Parliamentary Hist. 65, 8384 (2011) (describing the Labour and Conservative disenchantment with the HRA in the early 2000s).Google Scholar

12 Hazell, Robert, Towards a New Constitutional Settlement: An Agenda for Gordon Brown's First 100 Days and Beyond 31 (2007). See also Joint Committee on Human Rights, The Human Rights Act: The DCA and Home Office Reviews, 2005–06, H.L. 278, H.C. 1716, at 3, 7 (U.K.), available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200506/jtselect/jtrights/278/278.pdf (describing the controversy surrounding the HRA in May 2006).Google Scholar

13 Hazell, , supra note 12, at 31.Google Scholar

14 Department for Constitutional Affairs, Review of the Implementation of the Human Rights Act 3 (2006).Google Scholar

15 See Cameron, , supra note 3 (proposing a British Bill of Rights in a speech before the Centre for Policy Studies).Google Scholar

16 Press Notice No. 38, Joint Committee on Human Rights, A British Bill of Rights (May 22, 2007), available at http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-archive/joint-committee-on-human-rights/jchrpn38–220507/.Google Scholar

17 Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 1.Google Scholar

18 See Alice Donald et al., The UK and the European Court of Human Rights 26 (Equality and Human Rights Commission 2012), available at http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/research/83._european_court_of_human_rights.pdf (noting the coalition parties' “divergent positions on human rights”).Google Scholar

19 490 Parl. Deb., H.C. (2009) 38 (U.K.) (comments of J. Straw).Google Scholar

20 Labour Party, supra note 2, at 3.Google Scholar

21 Klug, Francesca, ‘Solidity or Wind?‘ What's on the Menu in the Bill of Rights Debate?, 80 Pol. Q. 420 (2009).Google Scholar

22 See Conservative Party, supra note 3, at 79 (“To protect our freedoms from state encroachment and encourage greater social responsibility, we will replace the Human Rights Act with a UK Bill of Rights.”).Google Scholar

23 See HM Government, The Coalition: Our Programme for Government 11 (2010), available at http://www.direct.gov.uk/prod_consum_dg/groups/dg_digitalassets/@dg/@en/documents/digitalasset/dg_187876.pdf (proposing to establish a “Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights”).Google Scholar

24 526 Parl. Deb., H.C. (2011) 876 (U.K).Google Scholar

25 Comm'n on a Bill of Rights, A UK Bill of Rights?: The Choice Before Us, 1, at 5 (2012), available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/cbr/uk-bill-rights-vol-1.pdf.Google Scholar

26 Comm'n on a Bill of Rights, Discussion Paper: Do We Need a UK Bill of Rights? (2011), available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/cbr/cbr-discussion-paper.pdf; Comm'n on a Bill of Rights, Second Consultation (2012), available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/cbr/second-consultation/cbr-second-consultation.pdf.Google Scholar

27 Comm'n on a Bill of Rights, supra note 25, at 8.Google Scholar

29 See id. at 16, 25 (summarizing proposals for the replacment of the HRA with a Bill of Rights); 467 Parl. Deb., H.C. (2007) 218 (U.K.) (comments of Nick Herbert); Pinto-Duschinsky, Michael, Bringing Rights Back Home: Making Human Rights Compatible with Parliamentary Democracy in the UK 60 (2011), available at http://www.policyexchange.org.uk/images/publications/bringing%20rights%20back%20home%20-%20feb%2011.pdf; Cameron, supra note 3; Nick Herbert, Shadow Sec'y of State for Justice, Lecture at the British Library: Rights without Responsibilities—A Decade of the Human Rights Act (Nov. 24, 2008), available at http://bihr.org.uk/sites/default/files/081124%20Rights%20without%20responsibilities%20FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar

30 For a discussion on the desirability of a UK Bill of Rights, see Comm'n on a Bill of Rights, supra note 25, at 131–44.Google Scholar

31 See generally A Europe of Rights: The Impact of the ECHR on National Legal Systems (Helen Keller & Alec Stone Sweet eds., 2008).Google Scholar

32 Hoffman, Leonard, Judicial Studies Board Annual Lecture: The Universality of Human Rights 27 (Mar. 19, 2009), available at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Speeches/Hoffmann_2009_JSB_Annual_Lecture_Universality_of_Human_Rights.pdf; Mary Arden, Is the Convention Ours?, Address in the Dialogue Between Judges 2010 Symposium (Jan. 2010), in Dialogue Between Judges: The Convention Is Yours 22, 2728 (ECtHR ed., 2010), available at http://echr.coe.int/Documents/Dialogue_2010_ENG.pdf; David Cameron, Speech before the Council of Europe on the European Court of Human Rights (Jan. 25, 2012).Google Scholar

33 Lambrecht, Sarah, The Attitude of Four Supreme Courts Towards the European Court of Human Rights: Strasbourg has Spoken …, in Le Juge en Droit Européen et International/The Judge in European and International Law 301, 324 (Samantha Besson & Andreas R. Ziegler eds., 2013); see also Krisch, Nico, The Open Architecture of European Human Rights Law, 7 Mod. L. Rev. 183, 184 (2008).Google Scholar

34 Hirst v. United Kingdom (No. 2), ECHR App. No. 74025/01, 2005-IX Eur. Ct. H.R. 187 (2005).Google Scholar

35 Othman v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. No. 8139/09, 2012-I Eur. Ct. H.R. 159 (2012).Google Scholar

36 Chahal v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. No. 22414/93 (Nov. 15, 1996), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

37 Isobel White, Prisoners' Voting Rights (2013).Google Scholar

38 When using the term “European layer/level” in the article, I am referring to the Convention and its interpretation by the Strasbourg Court.Google Scholar

39 Cameron, Iain, Competing Rights?, in The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU After Lisbon 181, 190–91 (Sybe de Vries et al. eds., 2013).Google Scholar

40 Kavanagh, Aileen, Constitutional Review Under the UK Human Rights Act 310–37 (2009).Google Scholar

41 See, e.g., Kirkupp, James, Britain May Need to Withdraw from European Convention on Human Rights, Says Cameron, The Telegraph (Sept. 29, 2013), http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10342403/Britain-may-need-to-withdraw-from-European-Convention-on-Human-Rights-says-Cameron.html (quoting David Cameron as as saying he was willing to consider the option of withdrawl from the ECHR); Theresa May, Home Secretary, Speech at Conservative Party Conference: On Public Safety (Sept. 30, 2013), available at http://www.conservativepartyconference.org.uk/Speeches/2013_Theresa_May.aspx (“And it's why the Conservative position is clear—if leaving the European Convention is what it takes to fix our human rights laws, that is what we should do.”).Google Scholar

42 See Clapham, Andrew, The European Convention on Human Rights in the British Courts: Problems Associated with the Incorporation of International Human Rights, in Promoting Human Rights Through Bills of Rights: Comparative Perspectives 95, 95117 (Philip Alston ed., 1999).Google Scholar

43 See Gearty, Conor, The Human Rights Act: An Academic Sceptic Changes His Mind but Not His Heart, Eur. Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 582, 587–88 (2010).Google Scholar

44 Home Office, supra note 6, at para. 1.14.Google Scholar

45 See id. at paras. 1.18–.19 (“We therefore believe that the time has come to enable people to enforce their Convention rights against the State in the British courts, rather than having to incur the delays and expense which are involved in taking a case to the European Human Rights Commission and Court ….”).Google Scholar

46 This term being less misleading and confusing than “incorporation.” See R v. Lyons, [2002] UKHL 44, [2003] 1 A.C. 976 [27] (appeal taken from Eng.) (“Parliament may pass a law which mirrors the terms of the treaty and in that sense incorporates the treaty into English law. But even then, the metaphor of incorporate may be misleading. It is not the treaty but the statute which forms part of English law.”); In re McKerr, [2004] UKHL 12, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 807 [65] (appeal taken from N. Ir.) (“Although people sometimes speak of the Convention having been incorporated into domestic law, that is a misleading metaphor.”); In re P, [2008] UKHL 38, [2009] 1 A.C. 173 [33] (appeal taken from N. Ir.) (“ ‘Convention rights’ within the meaning of the 1998 Act are domestic and not international rights.”); 512 Parl. Deb., H.L. (1997) 512 (U.K.) (comments of Lord Kingsland); Lewis, Jonathan, The European Ceiling on Human Rights, Pub. L. 720, 724–25 (2007); Wright, Jane, Interpreting Section 2 of the Human Rights Act 1998: Towards an Indigenous Jurisprudence of Human Rights, Pub. L. 595, 599 (2009).Google Scholar

47 Human Rights Act, 1998, c. 42, § 1 (U.K.) (“In this Act ‘the Convention rights’ means the rights and fundamental freedoms set out in—(a) Articles 2 to 12 and 14 of the Convention, (b) Articles 1 to 3 of the First Protocol, and (c) Article 1 of the Thirteenth Protocol.”).Google Scholar

48 See Wicks, Elizabeth, Taking Account of Strasbourg?: The British Judiciary's Approach to Interpreting Convention Rights, 11 Eur. Pub. L. 405, 426 (2005).Google Scholar

49 Human Rights Act § 2(1)Google Scholar

50 583 Parl. Deb., H.L. (1997) 512 (U.K.).Google Scholar

51 Id. See also 584 Parl. Deb., H.L. (1998) 1268 (U.K.) (comments of Lord Kingsland).Google Scholar

52 583 Parl. Deb., H.L. (1997) 512–15 (U.K.).Google Scholar

53 Id. at 514 (comments of Lord Irvine).Google Scholar

54 Id. at 512. See also 584 Parl. Deb., H.L. (1998) 1268–69 (U.K.) (comments of Lord Lester).Google Scholar

55 583, Parl. Deb., H.L. (1997) 515 (U.K.). See also 584 Parl. Deb., H.L. (1998) 1269 (U.K.) (comments of Lord Lester).Google Scholar

56 See 313 Parl. Deb., H.L. (1998) 388 (U.K.).Google Scholar

57 See id. at 413.Google Scholar

58 584 Parl. Deb., H.L. (1998) 1271 (U.K.) (comments of Lord Irvine).Google Scholar

59 582 Parl. Deb., H.L. (1997) 1263 (U.K.).Google Scholar

60 Bindman, Geoffrey, Britain Should Be Proud of the Human Rights Act—and Protect It, The Guardian (August 29, 2011), http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/aug/29/human-rights-act-protect. See also Norman, Jesse & Oborne, Peter, Churchill's Legacy: The Conservative Case for the Human Rights Act 32–34 (2009).Google Scholar

61 Amos, Merris, Problems with the Human Rights Act 1998 and How to Remedy Them: Is a Bill of Rights the Answer?, 72 Mod. L. Rev. 883, 898 (2009). See also Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 1, at para. 45.Google Scholar

62 This term was coined by Jonathan Lewis when referring to R v. Ex parte Quark Fishing Ltd., [2005] UKHL 57, [2006] 1 A.C. 529 [34] (appeal taken from Eng.). See Lewis, supra note 46, at 720.Google Scholar

63 In re McCaughey, [2011] UKSC 20, [2012] 1 A.C. 725 [59] (appeal taken from N. Ir.).Google Scholar

64 R (Alconbury Devs. Ltd.) v. Sec'y of State for the Env't, Transp. & the Regions, [2001] UKHL 23, [2003] 2 A.C. 295.Google Scholar

65 Id. at para. 26.Google Scholar

66 See Lewis, , supra note 46, at 726.Google Scholar

67 R (Ullah) v. Special Adjudicator, [2004] UKHL 26, [2004] 2 A.C. 323 (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

68 Id. at para. 20.Google Scholar

70 Id. See also Ambrose v. Harris, [2011] UKSC 43, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 2435 [16–20], [86].Google Scholar

71 Ambrose [2011] UKSC 43, [19]. See also McGowan v. B, [2011] UKSC 54, [2011] 1 W.L.R. 3121 [77], [97] (appeal taken from Scot.); R (Animal Defenders Int'l) v. Sec'y of State for Culture, Media & Sport, [2008] UKHL 15, [2008] 1 A.C. 1312 [53] (appeal taken from Eng.); R (Gentle) v. Prime Minister, [2008] UKHL 20, [2008] 1 A.C. 1356 [56] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

72 N v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep., [2005] UKHL 31, [2005] 2 A.C. 296 [25] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

73 See Roger Masterman, Aspiration or Foundation? The Status of the Strasbourg Jurisprudence and the ‘Convention Rights’ in Domestic Law, in Judicial Reasoning Under the UK Human Rights Act 57, 7778 (Helen Fenwick et al. eds., 2007).Google Scholar

74 Hale, Brenda, Argentoratum Locutum: Is Strasbourg or the Supreme Court Supreme?, 12 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 65, 76 (2012).Google Scholar

75 See infra text between note 96 and note 105.Google Scholar

76 R (Ullah) v. Special Adjudicator, [2004] UKHL 26, [2004] 2 A.C. 323 [20] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

78 Id. See also Al-Skeini v. Sec'y of State for Def., [2007] UKHL 26, [2008] 1 A.C. 153 [105] (appeal taken from Eng.) (Lord Brown affirming Lord Bingham's judgment in Ullah); R v. Ex parte LS, [2004] UKHL 39, [2004] 1 W.L.R. 2196 [27] (appeal taken from Eng.)(same); Huang v. Sec'y of State for the Home Dep., [2007] UKHL 11, [2007] 2 A.C. 167 [18] (appeal taken from Eng.) (same); R (Animal Defenders Int'l) v. Sec'y of State for Culture, Media & Sport, [2008] UKHL 15, [2008] 1 A.C. 1312 [37], [53] (appeal taken from Eng.) (same); In re P, [2008] UKHL 38, [2009] 1 A.C. 173 [36] (appeal taken from N. Ir.) (“Other reasons for following Strasbourg are ordinary respect for the decision of a foreign court on the same point and the general desirability of a uniform interpretation of the Convention in all Member States.”); R (A) v. B, [2009] UKSC 12, [2010] 2 A.C. 1 [30] (appeal taken from Eng.) (declining to go beyond the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court); R (Smith) v. Sec'y of State for Defence, [2010] UKSC 29, [2011] 1 A.C. 1 [147] (appeal taken from Eng.) (“My second principal reason for not holding the UK's armed forces abroad to be within the state's article 1 jurisdiction is that this would be to go further than the ECtHR has yet gone, …”); Rabone v. Pennine Care NHS Found. Trust, [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 A.C. 72 [113] (appeal taken from Eng.) (“[I]t is for Strasbourg alone definitively to interpret the Convention and determine what rights are guaranteed by it and ‘the meaning of the Convention should be uniform throughout the states party to it.‘ ”).Google Scholar

79 313 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (1998) 402 (U.K.) (statement of G. Hoon).Google Scholar

80 Costa, Jean-Paul, On the Legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights' Judgments, 7 Eur. Const. L.R. 173, 177 (2011) (emphasis added); see also Arden, Mary, Peaceful or Problematic? The Relationship Between National Supreme Courts and Supranational Courts in Europe, 1 Y.B. of Eur. L. 3, 14 (2010).Google Scholar

81 See Gerards, Janneke, Samenloop van Nationale en Europese Grondrechtenbepalingen, 3 Tijdschrift voor Constitutioneel Recht [TvCR] 224, 249 (2010); Lewis, supra note 46, at 737; Klug, Francesca, Follow or lead? The Human Rights Act and the European Court of Human Rights, 6 Eur. Hum. Rts. L.R. 621, 625 (2010); Warbrick, Colin, The European Convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act: The View from the Outside, in Judicial Reasoning Under the UK Human Rights Act, 25, 2931 (Helen Fenwick, Gavin Phillipson & Roger Masterman eds., 2007).Google Scholar

82 See supra note 46 and accompanying text; In re McCaughey, [2011] UKSC 20, [2012] 1 A.C. 725 [75] (appeal taken from N. Ir.).Google Scholar

83 See Lewis, , supra note 46, at 736; Amos, Merris, The Principle of Comity and the Relationship Between British Courts and the European Court of Human Rights, 28 Y.B. of Eur. L. 503, 514–15 (2009); Rainsbury, Tom, Their Lordships' Timorous Souls, 1 UCL Hum. Rts. Rev. 32, 34 (2008); Gerards, , supra note 78, at 247; Hale, supra note 74, at 69; Irvine, Alexander, A British Interpretation of Convention Rights, 2012 Pub. L. 237, 251 (2012).Google Scholar

84 See Gerards, , supra note 81, at 247.Google Scholar

85 See Rainsbury, , supra note 83, at 37.Google Scholar

86 R (Ullah) v. Special Adjudicator, [2004] UKHL 26, [2004] 2 A.C. 323 [20] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

87 See R (Alconbury Devs. Ltd.) v. Sec'y of State for Env't, Transp & the Regions, [2001] UKHL 23, [2003] 2 A.C. 295 [26]; see also R (Amin) v. Sec'y of State for Home Dep't, [2003] UKHL 51, [2004] 1 A.C. 653 [44] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

88 See Gerards, supra note 81, at 232–33.Google Scholar

89 Only following Strasbourg “in absence of special circumstances.” Voermans, Wim, Protection of European Human Rights by Highest Courts in Europe. The Art of Triangulation, in Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction Between the European and the National Courts, 365, 375–77 (Patricia Popelier, Catherine Van de Heyning & Piet Van Nuffel eds., 2011).Google Scholar

90 See Kay v. London Borough of Lambeth, [2006] UKHL 10, [2006] 2 A.C. 465 [28] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

91 See Sec'y of State for Home Dep't v. AF, [2009] UKHL 28, [2010] 2 A.C. 269 [70] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

92 Similarly, former Dutch Strasbourg Judge Martens: Lindo, Caroline, Onze Straatsburgse rechter over het EVRM, 15 Nederlands Juristenblad [NJB] 465, 470 (1991).Google Scholar

93 See id. Google Scholar

94 See R v. Horncastle, [2009] UKSC 14, [2010] 2 A.C. 373 (appeal taken from Eng.). Responding to Al-Khawaja v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. Nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, (Jan. 20, 2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

95 See Irvine, supra note 83, at 245.Google Scholar

96 Al-Skeini v. Sec'y of State for Def., [2007] UKHL 26, [2008] 1 A.C. 153 [106] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

97 Id. (discussing the reach of Art 1 ECHR); see also Rabone v. Pennine Care NHS Trust, [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 A.C. 72 [112–13] (appeal taken from Eng.); Ambrose v. Harris, [2011] UKSC 43, [19] (appeal taken from Scot.).Google Scholar

98 See id.; Sec'y of State for Home Dept. v. JJ, [2007] UKHL 45, [2008] 1 A.C. 385 [106] (appeal taken from Eng.); Hale, supra note74, at 76; Sales, Philip, Strasbourg Jurisprudence and the Human Rights Act: A Response to Lord Irvine, 2 Pub. L. 253, 263 (2012).Google Scholar

99 See In re P, [2008] UKHL 38, [2009] A.C. 173 [50] (appeal taken from N. Ir.); Ambrose v. Harris, [2011] UKSC 43, [126–30] (appeal taken from Scot.).Google Scholar

100 See also Masterman, , supra notes 73, 78.Google Scholar

101 See supra notes42–45 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

102 See Masterman, Roger, Taking the Strasbourg Jurisprudence into Account: Developing a “Municipal Law of Human Rights” Under the Human Rights Act, 54 Int'l & Comp. L.Q. 907, 911 (2005); Martens, Sibrand Karel, Incorporating the European Convention: The Role of the Judiciary, [1998] Eur. Hum. Rts. L.R. 5, 14 (1998).Google Scholar

103 Costa, supra note 80, 179–80.Google Scholar

104 See Ambrose v. Harris, [2011] UKSC 43 [129] (appeal taken from Scot.).Google Scholar

105 See Gerards, , supra note 81, at 250.Google Scholar

106 See EM v. Sec'y of State for Home Dep't Appellate Comm., [2008] UKHL 64, [2009] 1 A.C. 1198 (appeal taken from Eng.); Ex Parte Adam, [2005] UKHL 66, [2006] 1 A.C. 396 (appeal taken from Eng.); Hale, supra note 74, at 71–72; Klug, supra note 81, at 627.Google Scholar

107 For the structural concept, see Letsas, George, A Theory of Interpretation of the European Convention on Human Rights 80–119 (2007).Google Scholar

108 See Ryssdal, Rolv, The Coming of Age of the European Convention of Human Rights, 18 Eur. Hum. Rts. L.R., 24 (1996); Costa supra note 80, 179–80; Warbrick, supra note 81, at 30.Google Scholar

109 See Greer, Steven, The Margin of Appreciation: Interpretation and Discretion under the European Convention on Human Rights 34 (2000); Letsas, supra note 107, at 90.Google Scholar

110 Greer, supra note 109, at 32.Google Scholar

111 See In re P, [2008] UKHL 38, [2009] 1 A.C. 173 [31–36, 118, 126–29] (appeal taken from N. Ir.); R (Begum) v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School, [2006] UKHL 15, [2007] 1 AC. 100 [63] (appeal taken from Eng.); AXA Gen. Ins. Ltd. V. Lord Advocate, [2011] UKSC 46, [2012] 1 A.C. 868 [32] (appeal taken from Scot.); Hale, supra note 74, at 76.Google Scholar

112 See In re P, [2008] UKHL 38, [2009] 1 A.C. 173 [120] (appeal taken from N. Ir.).Google Scholar

113 See Dominic Grieve, Attorney General: European Convention on Human Rights—Current Challenges, (Oct., 24 2010), https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/european-convention-on-human-rights-current-challenges.Google Scholar

114 See Cour d' Arbitrage [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision no. 152/2005, Oct. 5, 2005 [B.5] (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision no. 20/2011, Feb. 3, 2011 [para B.7] (Belg.); Cour Constitutionnelle [CC] [Constitutional Court] decision no. 96/2011, May 31, 2011 [B.11] (Belg.).Google Scholar

115 See Ex Parte Kebeline, [1999] UKHL 43, [2000] 2 A.C. 326 (appeal taken from Eng.); Ghaidan v. Godin-Mendoza, [2004] UKHL 30, [2004] 2 A.C. 557 [23] (appeal taken from Eng.); AXA Gen. Ins. Ltd. v. Lord Advocate, [2011] UKSC 46, [2012] 1 A.C. 868 [131, 134] (appeal taken from Scot.).Google Scholar

116 See infra note 200 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

117 See R (Alconbury Devs. Ltd.) v. Sec'y of State for Env't, Transp & the Regions, [2001] UKHL 23, [2003] 2 A.C. 295 [26]; R (Ullah) v. Special Adjudicator, [2004] UKHL 26, [2004] 2 A.C. 323 [20] (appeal taken from Eng.); R (Quila) v. Sec'y of State for Home Dept., [2011] UKSC 45, [2012] 1 A.C. 621 [43] (appeal taken from Eng.);Hale, supra note 74, at 70; Arden, supra note 32, at 25.Google Scholar

118 See R (Quila) v. Sec'y of State for Home Dept., [2011] UKSC 45, [2012] 1 A.C. 621 [43] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

119 583 Parl. Deb., H.L. (5th ser.) (1997) 514 (U.K.) (statement of Lord Irvine); Irvine, supra note 83, at 242.Google Scholar

120 See Doherty v. Birmingham, [2008] UKHL 57, [2009] 1 A.C. 367 [20] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

121 Ambrose v. Harris, [2011] UKSC 43, [128–30] (appeal taken from Scot.); see also Irvine, supra note 83, at 249–50; Rabone v. Pennine Care NHS Trust, [2012] UKSC 2, [2012] 2 A.C. 72 [112] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

122 See R (Alconbury Devs. Ltd.) v. Sec'y of State for Env't, Transp & the Regions, [2001] UKHL 23, [2003] 2 A.C. 295 [26].Google Scholar

123 Manchester City Council v. Pinnock, [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 A.C. 104 [48] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

124 See Cadder v. Advocate, [2010] UKSC 43 [45]; R. v. Lyons, [2002] UKHL 44, [2003] 1 A.C. 976 [46] (appeal taken from Eng.); see also Arden, note 32, at 25.Google Scholar

125 See R. v. Boyd, [2002] UKHL 31, [2003] 1 A.C. 734 (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

126 See Morris v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. No. 38784/97, 2002-I Eur. Ct. H.R (2002).Google Scholar

127 See Cooper v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. No. 48843/99, 2003-XII Eur. Ct. H.R. (2003).Google Scholar

128 Bratza, Nicolas, The Relationship Between the UK Courts and Strasbourg, [2011] Eur. Hum. Rts. L.R. 505, 509 (2011). As was Osman v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. No. 23452/94, 1998-VIII Eur. Ct. H.R (1998), which was corrected by Z v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. No. 29392/95, 2001-V Eur. Ct. H.R (2001).Google Scholar

129 R. v. Lyons, [2002] UKHL 44, [2003] 1 A.C. 976 [46] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

130 See Al-Khawaja v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. Nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, (Jan. 20, 2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

131 R v. Horncastle, [2009] UKSC 14, [2010] 2 A.C. 373 [10–11] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

132 See Al-Khawaja v. United Kingdom, ECHR App. Nos. 26766/05 and 22228/06, (Jan. 20, 2009), http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/.Google Scholar

133 Id., at para. 2 (Concurring opinion Jugde Bratza).Google Scholar

134 Id.; see also House of Lords, House of Commons, Oral Evidence Taken Before the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Human Rights Judgments 6 (2011–12), http://www.parliament.uk/documents/joint-committees/human-rights/JCHR_Transcript_13_March_2012_UNCORRECTED.pdf.Google Scholar

135 Hale, supra note 74, at 76.Google Scholar

136 Sec'y of State for Home Dep't v. AF, [2009] UKHL 28, [2010] 2 A.C. 269 [70] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

137 Id. Google Scholar

138 Id., at para. 98, 108; see also Kerr, Lord Brian, The Modest Underworker of Strasbourg?, Clifford Chance Lecture (Jan. 25, 2012), available at http://www.supremecourt.gov.uk/docs/speech_120125.pdf.Google Scholar

139 Bowcott, Owen, Senior Judge Warns over Deportation of Terror Suspects to Torture States, The Guardian (Mar. 4, 2013), http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/mar/05/lord-neuberger-deportation-terror-suspects.Google Scholar

140 Manchester City Council v. Pinnock, [2010] UKSC 45, [2011] 2 A.C. 104 [48] (appeal taken from Eng.); see also Sales, supra note 98, at 256–257.Google Scholar

141 R (Alconbury Devs. Ltd.) v. Sec'y of State for Env't, Transp & the Regions, [2001] UKHL 23, [2003] 2 A.C. 295 [76]; see also R (Animal Defenders Int'l) v. Sec'y of State for Culture, Media and Sport, [2008] UKHL 15, [2008] 1 A.C. 1312 [44–45] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

142 See Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfGE - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1481/04, 2004 Entscheidungen Des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 3407 (Oct. 14, 2004), http://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/list.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en; see also Krisch, supra note 33, at 183–84; Hoffmeister, Frank, Germany: Status of European Convention on Human Rights in Domestic Law, 4 Int'l J. of Const. L. 722, 722–31 (2006).Google Scholar

143 See Poitrimol v. France, ECHR App. No. 14032/88, A277-A Eur. Ct. H.R. (1993); Omar v. France, ECHR App. No. 24767/94, 1998-V Eur. Ct. H.R 82 (1998); Guérin v. France, ECHR App. No. 25201/94, 1998-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 82 (1998); Régis De Gouttes, Le Juge Judiciaire Français et la Convention Européenne des Droits de l'Homme: Avancées et Réticences, in Quelle Europe pour les Droits de l'Homme?, 217, 232–34 (Paul Tavernier ed., 1996); Martens, Sibrand Karel, Het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens en de Nationale Rechter, 25 NJCM-Bulletin 753, 758 (2000).Google Scholar

144 See Krisch, , supra note 33.Google Scholar

145 Al Rawi v. Sec. Serv., [2011] UKSC 34, [2012] 1 A.C. 531 [68] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

146 Masterman, , supra note 102, at 926.Google Scholar

147 Id., at 925.Google Scholar

148 See Ex Parte Daly, [2001] UKHL 26, [2001] 2 A.C. 532 [23].Google Scholar

149 Wicks, , supra note 48, at 425–26.Google Scholar

150 According to Lord Irvine UK courts even have a constitutional duty to do so: Irvine, supra note 83, at83 248.Google Scholar

151 Similarly, Report to the Joint Committee on Human Rights on the Government Response to Human Rights Judgments, Responding to Human Rights Judgments 9 (2011–12), available at https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/217308/responding-human-rights-judgments.pdf.Google Scholar

152 See id.; Bratza, supra note 128, at 512.Google Scholar

153 Although the Convention had already been used to some extent by judges in the UK prior to the HRA, see Clapham, , supra note 42, at 95–117.Google Scholar

154 Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 151, at 8–9. See also Irvine, supra note 83, at 246–247.Google Scholar

155 Francesca Klug and Helen Wildbore, Response on Commission on a Bill of Rights Discussion Paper: ‘Do We Need a UK Bill of Rights?‘ 5, 2011, available at http://www2.lse.ac.uk/humanRights/articlesAndTranscripts/2011/HRFCBoRDiscussion.pdf.Google Scholar

156 Comm'n on a Bill of Rights, Minutes of the Meeting of the Commission on a Bill of Rights (Dec. 14, 2011), available at http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/cbr/meeting-minutes-141211.pdf.Google Scholar

157 Ministry of Justice, Rights and Responsibilities: Developing our Constitutional Framework 35–37 (2009), available at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm75/7577/7577.pdf.Google Scholar

158 Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 1, at para. 130.Google Scholar

159 Comm'n a Bill of Rights, supra note 156, at 8, 12; Grieve, Dominic, Can the Bill of Rights do Better than the Human Rights Act?, Honourable Society of the Middle Temple Hall (Nov. 30, 2009), available at http://www.dominicgrieve.org.uk/news/can-bill-rights-do-better-human-rights-act.Google Scholar

160 Vernon Bogdanor, Human rights and the New British Constitution (2009), available at http://www.justice.org.uk/data/files/resources/170/Human-Rights-and-the-New-British-Constitution.pdf.Google Scholar

161 Comm'n on a Bill of Rights, supra note 156.Google Scholar

162 The Strasbourg Court lets its case law be influenced by the fundamental rights practices of national states. See, e.g. Gerards, Janneke, Rechtsvinding door het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens [Judicial Construction by the European Court of Human Rights], 31 NJCM-Bulletin 93, 116 (2006), available at https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/13058/rechtsvinding%20door%20het%20europees%20hof%20voor%20de%20rechten%20van%20de%20m.pdf?sequence=2.Google Scholar

163 Univ. Cambridge Ctr. Publ. Law, Response to Commission on a Bill of Rights Discussion Paper: Do we Need a UK Bill of Rights? 3 (2011), available at http://www.law.cam.ac.uk/faculty-resources/10009406.pdf.Google Scholar

164 E.g., the absolute constitutional right to the confidentiality of mail conflicting with positive obligations in Strasbourg case law: Cour d'arbitrage [Constitutional Court] application no 202/2004, Dec. 21, 2004, http://www.const-court.be (Belg.).Google Scholar

165 Comm'n on a Bill of Rights, supra note 156, at 10.Google Scholar

166 Cameron, , supra note 3. See also Herbert, , supra note 29; Secretary of State for Justice and Lord Chancellor, The Governance of Britain, para. 210 (2007), available at http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/cm71/7170/7170.pdf; 462 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (2007) 820 (U.K.) (statement of David Cameron).Google Scholar

167 See infra text between note 199 and note 202, on margin of appreciation, and infra the text between note 193 and note 198, on judicial dialogue.Google Scholar

168 Joint Committee on Human Rights, supra note 1, at 69–71; Commission on a Bill of Rights, supra note 156, at 8.Google Scholar

169 Comm'n on a Bill of Rights, supra note 156, at 10; Herbert, , supra note 29; Grieve, , supra note 159; Cameron, , supra note 3.Google Scholar

170 Grieve, Dominic, It's the Interpretation of the Human Rights Act that's the Problem - Not the ECHR Itself, Conservative Home Platform (Apr. 14, 2009), available at http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2009/04/dominic-grieve-2.html.Google Scholar

171 Cameron, Iain, Competing Rights?, in The Protection of Fundamental Rights in the EU After Lisbon 181, 190–91 (Stefan Vogenauer ed., 2013).Google Scholar

172 Kavanagh, , supra note 40, at 310–337.Google Scholar

173 Pinto-Duschinsky, supra note 29, at 60.Google Scholar

174 R v. Horncastle, [2009] UKSC 14, [2010] 2 A.C. 373 [10–11] (appeal taken from Eng.).Google Scholar

175 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - Federal Constitutional Court], Case No. 2 BvR 1481/04, paras. 47, 6263 (Oct. 14, 2004), http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/rs20041014_2bvr148104.html; Hoffmeister, , supra note 142.Google Scholar

176 Lambrecht, , supra note 33.Google Scholar

177 Arnold, Rainer, Germany: The Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in the Context of the European Integration, in Human Rights Protection in the European Legal Order: The Interaction Between the European and the National Courts 237, 257–59 (Patricia Popelier, Catherine Van de Heyning & Piet Van Nuffel eds., 2011).Google Scholar

178 See infra text between note 199 and note 202.Google Scholar

179 See infra text between note 193 and note 198.Google Scholar

180 See supra text between note 86 and note95.Google Scholar

181 See supra text between note 70 and note 75; Ambrose, [2011] UKSC 43, [19] (U.K.); McGowan, [2011] UKSC 54, [77, 97] (U.K.).Google Scholar

182 Grieve, supra note 159.Google Scholar

183 Prime Minister David Cameron, Rebuilding Trust in Politics at University of East London (Feb. 8, 2010); Herbert, supra note 29; Klug, supra note 21, at 422.Google Scholar

184 Clayton, Richard, Judicial Deference and “Democratic Dialogue”: The Legitimacy of Judicial Intervention Under the Human Rights Act 1998, Pub. L. 33, 34 (2004).Google Scholar

185 Costa, supra note 80, at 177; M.S.S. v. Belgium and Greece, ECHR App. No. 30696/09, 53 Eur. Ct. H.R. 2 (2011) (concurring opinion of Judge Villiger) (referring to Handyside v U.K., ECHR App. No. 5493/72, 1 Eur. H.R. Rep. 737, para. 48, (1976)).Google Scholar

187 See supra text between note 82 and note 85.Google Scholar

188 Joint Comm. on Human Rights, A Bill of Rights for the UK?, 2007–8, H.C. 150-II, at 144 (U.K.), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/jt200708/jtselect/jtrights/165/165ii.pdf.Google Scholar

189 Anthony Lester and Kate Beattie, Human rights and the British Constitution, in The Changing Constitution 59, 77 (Jeffrey Jowell & Dawn Oliver eds., 2007).Google Scholar

190 Id. Section 6 HRA makes it unlawful for a public authority, including a court, to act incompatible with a Convention right.Google Scholar

191 See supra text between note 86 and note 95.Google Scholar

192 E.g., in relation to Germany: Arnold, supra note 177, at 257–259.Google Scholar

193 See supra text between note 122 and note 144.Google Scholar

194 See Arden, supra note 80, at 4.Google Scholar

196 Catherine Van de Heyning, No Place Like Home: Discretionary Space for the Domestic Protection of Fundamental Rights, in Human rights protection in the European legal order: The interaction between the European and the national courts 65, 95 (Patricia Popelier, Catherine Van de Heyning & Piet Van Nuffel eds., 2011).Google Scholar

197 See also Arden, supra note 80, at 9.Google Scholar

198 Id. at 4–5. See also Bratza, supra note 128 and P, [2008] UKHL 38, [36] (U.K.), http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldjudgmt/jd080618/inrep.pdf.Google Scholar

199 464 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (2007) 76 (U.K.) (Statement of Herbert); 467 Parl. Deb., H.C. (6th ser.) (2007) 218 (U.K.) (Statement of Herbert); Cameron, supra note 3; Grieve, supra note 170.Google Scholar

200 Spielmann, Dean, Allowing the Right Margin the European Court of Human Rights and the National Margin of Appreciation Doctrine: Waiver or Subsidiarity of European Review? 23–24 (CELS Working Paper Series, 2012) available at http://www.cels.law.cam.ac.uk/cels_lunchtime_seminars/Spielmann%20-%20margin%20of%20appreciation%20cover.pdf; Z a.o. v. UK, ECHR App. No. 29392/95, 2001-V Eur. Ct. H.R. 103, para. 101; Roche v. UK, ECHR App. No. 32555/96, 42 Eur. Ct. H.R. 30, para. 120 (2005); A a.o. v. UK, ECHR App. No. 3455/05, 49 Eur. H.R. Rep. 29, para. 174 (2009); MGN Limited v. UK, ECHR App. No. 39401/04, 2011 Eur. Ct. H.R. 66, para. 150; Palomo Sanchez a.o. v. Spain, ECHR App. Nos. 28955/06, 28957/06 and 28964/06, para. 57 (Sept. 12, 2011); Axel Springer AG v. Germany, ECHR App. No. 39954/08, para. 88 (Feb. 7, 2012); von Hannover v. Germany (No. 2), ECHR App. Nos. 40660/08 and 60641/08, para. 107 (Feb. 7, 2012).Google Scholar

201 Goold, Benjamin, Liora Lazarus and Gabriel Swiney, Public Protection, Proportionality, and the Search for Balance (2007).Google Scholar

202 Id. at iii.Google Scholar

You have Access
1
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Bringing Rights More Home: Can a Home-grown UK Bill of Rights Lessen the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Bringing Rights More Home: Can a Home-grown UK Bill of Rights Lessen the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Bringing Rights More Home: Can a Home-grown UK Bill of Rights Lessen the Influence of the European Court of Human Rights?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *