Scrapping the Human Rights Acts – a good idea?

Now the dust has settled from the General Election, the government has turned its attention to a commitment made in their manifesto to scrap the Human Rights Act, replacing it with a ‘British Bill of Rights’. Do you and your staff think that this is a good idea?

In the aftermath of the horrors of the Second World War, nations came together to say ‘never again’. The United Nations was established and a simple set of universal standards of decency for mankind agreed - the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These standards were intended to protect the individual from the state, to uphold the rights of minorities and to provide support for the vulnerable. We helped write these standards.

The intention was to enshrine these standards in regional treaties such as the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and then be given legal effect in every country. In the UK this was achieved when Labour enacted the Human Rights Act (HRA) in 1998, which currently implements the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. The HRA protects everyone’s rights to life, to not be treated inhumanely, to liberty, to freedom of expression and fair trial, and the right not to be discriminated against, for example. It heralded a new approach to the protection of the most vulnerable in our society, including child victims of trafficking, women subject to domestic and sexual violence, those with disabilities and victims of crime.

The Queen’s Speech in May stopped short of a legislative plan to scrap the Human Rights Act, but it did confirm government plans to present proposals for reform. The new Justice Secretary Michael Gove has chosen to push forward with a consultation on the legislation rather than scrapping the HRA immediately, so it can address some of the criticism that has been levelled at the move. The proposals have been criticised by Labour and the Liberal Democrats, as well as by human rights organisations. Acting Labour leader Harriet Harman, for example, has criticised proposals to scrap the HRA, saying that this will threaten “basic rights at work”. Many people are concerned about what the results mean for the future protection of universal human rights here at home.

Human Rights, and particularly the European Court of Human Rights, has had a bad press in the UK. The notion of humans having ‘rights’ has been the target of much abuse and derision. Misreporting of the Human Rights Act is rife – and in some tabloids, wilful misinterpretation has taken place to achieve paper-selling headlines. A Daily Mail story headlined ‘The war criminals we cannot deport because of their human rights’ suggested that the Human Rights Act, and not, as is actually the case, a loophole in the UK’s implementation of international law, was to blame for genocide suspects living with impunity in the UK. Many myths and misunderstandings have sprung up on the Human Rights Act and below are just a few examples that might help separate out fact from fiction.

"The HRA is a charter for criminals and terrorists – it does nothing for victims"

The HRA protects the rights of everyone. The protection of victims of crime and human rights abuses lies at the heart of human rights law and the Act puts positive obligations on the state to protect victims. The HRA requires serious offences like murder, terrorism and rape to be investigated by the police, and requires the state to take practical steps to protect people whose rights are threatened by others. The Act specifically states that those suspected of or convicted of crimes can be deprived of their liberty. Human rights law has given bereaved relatives the right to an independent public investigation into the circumstances surrounding the death of their loved ones, and the right to be involved in the investigation.

"Prisoners have the right to access hardcore pornography because of human rights"

In 2001 there were numerous media reports that the serial killer Dennis Nilsen was using human rights law to demand access to hardcore pornography in prison. Since then it has been widely reported that human rights law gives prisoners access to hardcore pornography. However, while Dennis Nilsen tried to claim he was entitled to hardcore pornography under human rights law, the court denied him permission even to bring the claim, on the basis there was no arguable case that his human rights had been breached.

"Police can’t put up ‘Wanted’ posters of dangerous criminals on the run because of their human rights"

Since 2007 there have been reports that police are unable to release photographs of dangerous criminals on the run because this would breach their human rights.  However, the HRA itself protects the right to life and imposes an obligation on the State to protect people from serious criminal attack. In some circumstances the Government may actually be under a duty under human rights law to publicise photographs of dangerous convicted criminals, if this would protect others. The right to privacy can be limited for the protection and detection of crime as long as it is necessary and proportionate to do so – seeking to locate dangerous criminals and warn the public is certainly not a breach of human rights law.

"Police gave fried chicken to a burglar because of his ‘human rights’"

In 2006 a suspected car thief fleeing police was besieged on a roof for 20 hours. During the course of the 20-hour stand-off the police negotiating team gave the man Kentucky Fried Chicken. It was widely reported that the police did this in order to protect the man’s ‘well-being and human rights’. There was clearly no human right engaged – there is no human right to KFC, nor indeed to be provided with any food in such a situation. Rather, the police were using general negotiating tactics to encourage him to come down from the roof.

If you are interested in exploding more myths about the HRA, take a look at an article by Liberty, where some of the above text has been taken. You can read the article here

If you are interested in reading more about the consequences of scrapping the Human Rights Act, then you might be interested to read an article in the Guardian newspaper entitled ‘The arguments against the Human Rights Act are coming. They will be false’. You can read the article here

To help separate truth from fiction, Acas has published online guidance on their website on Human Rights and the workplace. You can read the guidance here