Liberty, the Human Rights Act and Dominic Raab

In the most recent cabinet reshuffle, Dominic Raab was demoted as Foreign Secretary and placed into the role of Justice Secretary, Deputy Prime Minister and Lord Chancellor. This move has caused great concern from human rights groups, as Raab historically stands firmly against the Human Rights Act (HRA) and has expressed that he doesn’t “believe in economic and social rights.”

These concerns are well-founded, and at the recent Conservative Party Conference, Raab called the HRA “nonsense” and vowed to introduce a “mechanism” allowing the government to bring in legislation to “correct” court judgements deemed to be “incorrect”.

Alongside the Policing Bill, the Judicial Review Bill and the Elections Bill, this stands to be another attack on citizens’ ability to hold power to account and further erode individuals’ access to justice.

The Human Rights Act: Securing human rights and holding power to account

The Human Rights Act was introduced back in 1998 and sets out the rights of those in the UK, with a list of 16 protections. This includes the right to life, liberty, freedom, and thought, the right to free speech and protest, and the right to a fair trial, to name but a few.

The legislation also outlines the legal duties of those within government, police and local councils to respect and uphold people’s rights, treating all with fairness and dignity. Ultimately, it sets out the framework with which power can be held to account.

Speaking about the importance of the HRA in protecting citizens and their rights, Charlie Whelton, Policy and Campaigns Officer at Liberty, said: “The Human Rights Act helped families of those who died in the Hillsborough disaster to secure justice for their loved ones. It has enabled disabled people to challenge the removal of their benefit payments. It has been used by families to win investigations into the deaths of their family members after poor treatment and neglect, and it helped LGBT veterans get their medals back after they were kicked out of the armed forces.”

Adding: “The Human Rights Act has made many people’s lives better, allowing ordinary people to challenge governments and public authorities when they get it wrong. No one should be above the law – but this statement, along with the Policing Bill, the Judicial Review Bill and the Elections Bill, shows a Government that is actively planning to erode our ability to access justice and stand up to power – in the streets, in the courts, or in the polling booth.”

Back in 2020, Raab’s predecessor, Robert Buckland MP, set up a review into the HRA to assess the relationship between the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights. The review, which will report back to Raab this year, is also evaluating the impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, executive and Parliament, as well as the applications of the HRA outside of UK territory.

The Conservatives close in

Dominic Raab, the recently appointed justice secretary, trained as a solicitor at Linklaters, was seconded to Liberty, the human rights organisation, and even worked on war crimes at the Hague. Despite all of this, Raab shows great disdain for the HRA, and back in 2009, he penned the book ‘The Assault on Liberty: What Went Wrong with Rights’, which frames human rights as a danger to liberty and freedom. This is, of course, deeply concerning when coupled with his recent pledge at the Conservative Party Conference. 

Raab announced plans to “overhaul” the Act before the next general election, calling it “nonsense,” which he said will “restore some common sense to our justice system.” In his evidence for why it should be overhauled, he used the example of “a drug dealer convicted of beating his ex-partner,” who hadn’t paid maintenance for his daughter, successfully claiming “the right to family life to avoid deportation.” Commenting on this, he said: “It is absolutely perverse that someone guilty of domestic abuse could claim the right to family life to trump the public’s interest in deporting him from this country.”

Using this decision, from way back in 2011, as an example of why the HRA should be overhauled has been deemed “cynical” by Gracie Bradley, the director of Liberty. Bradley outlined the irony of using the example of violence against women and domestic abuse as a “justification for overhauling the Human Rights Act,” when the Act itself has been”instrumental” in ensuring women’s rights. Moreover, as Nicholas Reed Langen at The Justice Gap outlines, the immigration rules that prevented deportation in the case Raab referenced have been overhauled. As such, the example is not relevant to his argument.

Further to his comments, when speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Raab said: “We want the Supreme Court to have a last word on interpreting the laws of the land, not the Strasbourg court. He added that he would “protect and preserve the prerogatives of [the British] parliament from being whittled away by judicial legislation, abroad or indeed at home.”

He outlined: “We will get into the habit of legislating on a more periodic basis and thinking about the mechanism for that,” he said. “Where there have been judgments that – albeit properly and duly delivered by the courts – we think are wrong, the right thing is for parliament to legislate to correct them.”

Commenting on the implications of Raab’s proposals, one legal expert from Cambridge University said there are “profound constitutional concerns” while EU experts have argued that such a move could “suspend the operation” of the EU and UK Cooperation Agreement.

A bleak outlook

The proposals made by Raab echo the Conservative’s long-standing and entrenched opposition to the HRA, and if plans go ahead, it will make good on the Conservative’s, albeit vague, manifesto pledge, to examine the “relationship between the government, parliament and the courts”. Yet, at a time when the UK government is curtailing citizens rights on a mass scale, whether it’s the Policing Bill or the Judicial Review Bill, Raab’s words should strike fear into the hearts of many.

Speaking about the grave implications of Raab’s words, Amnesty International UK’s head of policy and government affairs, Allan Hogarth, said: “It’s extremely worrying to have it confirmed just how hell-bent the new Justice Secretary is on weakening vital human rights protections.”

He added: “As well as the familiar drum beat of promises to rein in the influence of the European Convention of Human Rights, Dominic Raab appears determined to scrap this vital tool that protects the rights of us all.

Elsewhere, speaking to LBC,  Jolyon Maugham director of the Good Law Project, said that giving ministers the ability to reverse court rulings is “profoundly alarming.”

Meanwhile, from the opposition, Shadow Justice Secretary David Lammy commented: “Scrapping human rights protections because you don’t like abiding by the law, all while the justice system crumbles: the new Justice Secretary shows his true colours.”

Freedom From Torture chief executive Sonya Sceats has also made an interesting point that Raab’s comments raise questions about whether the ban on torture is now at risk. She states that this “reflects an enduring government agenda” to “shut down accountability for torture and other serious abuses committed by or with the complicity of our military and security agencies.”

She also made reference to the Overseas Operation Bill that the government proposed earlier this year: “Earlier this year ministers tried to decriminalise torture by our troops abroad, but they were defeated by a coalition of torture survivors, military top brass and principled Britons from all walks of life. Now they are at it again, trying to keep torture cases out of the Strasbourg court, which Britain helped to build as a safeguard against the return of authoritarianism in Europe.”

Ultimately, when it comes to eroding the HRA, what rings loud and clear is that this is a further attempt by the Conservatives to curtail rights, bolster government powers and undermine equality. This is another step into the abyss and one step from which the UK is unlikely to return.