Skip to content
Law Society of Scotland
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
Search
Find a Solicitor
Contact us
About us
Sign in
  • For members

    • For members

    • CPD & Training

    • Membership and fees

    • Rules and guidance

    • Regulation and compliance

    • Journal

    • Business support

    • Career growth

    • Member benefits

    • Professional support

    • Lawscot Wellbeing

    • Lawscot Sustainability

  • News and events

    • News and events

    • Law Society news

    • Blogs & opinions

    • CPD & Training

    • Events

  • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying and education

    • Qualifying as a Scottish solicitor

    • Career support and advice

    • Our work with schools

    • Lawscot Foundation

    • Funding your education

    • Social mobility

  • Research and policy

    • Research and policy

    • Research

    • Influencing the law and policy

    • Equality and diversity

    • Our international work

    • Legal Services Review

    • Meet the Policy team

  • For the public

    • For the public

    • What solicitors can do for you

    • Making a complaint

    • Client protection

    • Find a Solicitor

    • Frequently asked questions

    • Your Scottish solicitor

  • About us

    • About us

    • Contact us

    • Who we are

    • Our strategy, reports and plans

    • Help and advice

    • Our standards

    • Work with us

    • Our logo and branding

    • Equality and diversity

  1. Home
  2. For members
  3. Journal Archive
  4. Issues
  5. February 2022
  6. Opinion: Barbara Bolton

Opinion: Barbara Bolton

UK Government Plans for a new Bill of Rights would weaken the protections in the Human Rights Act and put the UK in breach of its international obligations, which should be of grave concern to all
14th February 2022 | Barbara Bolton

Barbara BoltonThe UK Government’s plan to replace the Human Rights Act (“HRA”) with a new Bill of Rights signals an intent to water down human rights protections, erect additional barriers to accessing justice and equivocate on compliance with decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) involving the UK.

If passed, these proposals would be deeply regressive, undermining 20 years of human rights law and policy development across the UK, making it harder for people to enforce their rights, and putting the UK in breach of its international law obligations. This should be of grave concern to us all.

The central aim of the HRA was to bring the protections of the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law, making them directly applicable to public authorities (and others providing public services), and enforceable in our national courts. Under the UK Government’s proposed Bill of Rights, that objective would be severely undermined.

Interpretation of Convention rights by national courts would be explicitly decoupled from that of the ECtHR. National courts would be required to interpret Convention rights in a restrictive manner: abandoning the ECtHR’s “living instrument” approach, which ensures that rights keep pace with societal progress; removing the requirement to take into account decisions of the ECtHR; restricting positive obligations, such as the positive duty to properly investigate deaths involving state entities, which the ECtHR interpreted as part of the right to life; and applying an alternative interpretation of specific rights, including the rights to freedom of expression, private and family life.

Convention rights may technically remain incorporated into national law if listed in a new Bill of Rights. However, if national courts must interpret them distinctly from the ECtHR, the result will be legal conflict, confusion, uncertainty and a likely increase in successful referrals to the ECtHR. The additional proposal of a “democratic shield”, expressly permitting the UK to decline to implement ECtHR decisions against it, would put the UK in clear breach of the Convention and undermine the rule of law.

If the proposals were implemented, people would once again have to pursue claims all the way through the national courts and on to the ECtHR, only for the UK to potentially decline to implement a decision against it.

Additional proposals would add a number of significant hurdles to accessing justice, compounding existing barriers related to the complexity of law and procedure, the cost of securing legal advice and the lack of legal aid. First, a permission stage, requiring pursuers to establish that they had suffered “significant disadvantage” before they could proceed with their claim. Secondly, a requirement to exhaust other potential legal claims before raising a human rights claim. Thirdly, a requirement to demonstrate “clean hands”, where past conduct could be used to preclude someone from accessing a remedy for a breach of their rights, which would undermine a central principle of human rights law – that rights are universal.

It’s important to note that there is little consistency between the proposals and the conclusions, published at the same time, from the Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR), set up by the Secretary of State for Justice in December 2020. Indeed, much of what is now proposed was not put to the IHRAR for consideration nor covered by extensive evidence provided to it during its 12-month review. Other proposals were rejected by the IHRAR, in light of overwhelming evidence that the HRA works well and there is no case for change.

A key concern flagged by many organisations during the IHRAR process was the additional complexity arising from the interrelationship between the HRA and devolution. The HRA is embedded into the Scotland Act, including in relation to limits on the competence of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government. Over 20 years of jurisprudence and practice has evolved in Scotland on the basis of that legal underpinning. Precisely how the HRA could be replaced without unsettling current devolution arrangements is unclear.

Detailed analysis of the UK Government’s wide-ranging proposals is underway, and responses to its current consultation will be forthcoming. However, it is already clear that what is being mooted should be of real concern for all who value human rights and the rule of law. Defending the Human Rights Act will require concerted efforts involving civil society, grassroots communities and the legal community.

As an initial step, responses to the current consultation can be submitted until 8 March.  

The consultation is available on justice.gov.uk

The Author

Barbara Bolton is Head of Legal and Policy at the Scottish Human Rights Commission

Share this article
Add To Favorites
https://lawware.co.uk/

Regulars

  • Book reviews: February 2022
  • Reading for pleasure: February 2022
  • People on the move: February 2022

Perspectives

  • Editorial: Rights of others
  • Profile: Bob Clark
  • Viewpoints: Baronies: the 2021 picture
  • Opinion: Barbara Bolton
  • President's column: February 2022

Features

  • Making the running
  • Climate change: where do we go now?
  • Women in Law: an appeal
  • Inquiries: addressing some questions
  • Legal rights and grey areas
  • Lawyering naked and alone

Briefings

  • Human rights: Gendered passports survive challenge
  • Pensions: Are employers ready for the challenge?
  • Succession: Putting it right: scope of the s 3 remedy
  • Property: When the debtor defaults
  • In-house: Starting an in-house career, in the house!
  • Criminal court: New year, familiar issues
  • Employment: Is a "right to disconnect" on the horizon?
  • Family: Parens patriae: a cross-border issue

In practice

  • EHRC offers race case fund
  • WCAC 2022: Edinburgh hosts the world
  • Ask Ash: Missing those holiday spots
  • Still time to resolve
  • Feedback: find a way to help
  • Tradecraft tips

Online exclusive

  • A less travelled route to the law
  • Putting consumer interests first
  • When COVID met Brexit
  • Message on a bottle

In this issue

  • Is your website doing the business?
  • Business lending: a human process
  • Journal index 2021
  • The Denovo approach: Trust!

Recent Issues

Dec 2023
Nov 2023
Oct 2023
Sept 2023
Search the archive

Additional

Law Society of Scotland
Atria One, 144 Morrison Street
Edinburgh
EH3 8EX
If you’re looking for a solicitor, visit FindaSolicitor.scot
T: +44(0) 131 226 7411
E: lawscot@lawscot.org.uk
About us
  • Contact us
  • Who we are
  • Strategy reports plans
  • Help and advice
  • Our standards
  • Work with us
Useful links
  • Find a Solicitor
  • Sign in
  • CPD & Training
  • Rules and guidance
  • Website terms and conditions
Law Society of Scotland | © 2025
Made by Gecko Agency Limited