Rights in context

Why are human rights referred to as “soft law”

* it is not always possible to enforce human rights os they are referred to as “soft law”

Why are civil liberties referred to as “hard law’

They are the rights of individuals that are legally enforceable and represent “hard law”

How are human rights protected in the UK if there is no constitution ?

* Constitutionally significant landmark events
* Common law cases
* Acts of parliament

What type of rights do citizens in the Uk tend to have?

Because we have no constitution we have negative/residual rights- everything that is not forbidden belongs to our rights.

What did manga carter establish in 1215?

* Right to a free and fair trial

What did the Bill of rights 1689 establish ?

a constitutional monarchy bound by law

What did Somerset V Stewart 1772 establish?

Elimination of slavery - set the precedent

What did Erick V carringotn 1765 establish ?

Government can only act acceding to thr law protecting the rights of citizens from despotic rule

What did the representation of the peoples act 1928 establish ?

Universal suffrage

Why has their been a development in rights based culture since 1997?

* Blairs government
* rather than relying on common law and constitutional conventions- there has been a reader emphasis on the codification of what the positive rights of citizens are
* Terrorism

What did the HRA 1998 do?

* incorporated ECHR into British law
* British citizens now posses a clear statement of their civil liberties which is enforceable in UK courts

Why was the HRA so significant ?

* establishes positive rights
* Before HRA liberties were grounded in specific statute and case law.

What did the freedom of information act 2000 establish ?

* established a “right of acccess” to information held by public bodies as long as it doesn’t breach national security
* Allows public to know how public bodies operate eg the NHS

What scandal arose from the freedom of information act ?

MPs expense scandal 2009

What did the equality act 2010 establish

Established equality before the law for all citizens

Consolidated existing legislation

Acts passed to protect rights as a result of terrorist attacks?

* 2005 serious organised crime and police act- limited right to protest outside of parliament
* Terrorism act 2006- extended terrorist suspects could be held without charge for 28 days
* 2016- investigatory powers act- authorises retention of personal electronic data

Examples of the HRA protecting individual rights over collective rights:

* 2004- judges deemed that according to HRA the way the gov detained foreign terrorist suspects was discrimatory and gov was forced to release belmarsh prisoners.
* Abu Qatar- courts stopped him from being deported for 8 years due to the evidence that was found against him being obtained under torture which went against a fair and free trial of the HRA.

How was the HRA protected civil rights:

* Provided judges with power in protecting civil liberties
* Rights are clear to citizens

How is the HRA flawed?

* can be suspended/repealed
* Doesn’t represent higher law that we would have if there was a codified constitution
* Parliament remains the supreme law making body and can still enact legislation that conflicts with the ECHR.→ no parliament can bind its successor
* Even after belsmarsh detainers were released→ blair passed legislation quickly to ensure they were under close surveillance

Judges have less power to protect rights that in the US ( consitution)

Can’t strike down legislation

Pressure groups highly influential in making public aware of corroding rights.

Examples of parliament protecting rights:

* 2010 coalition committed to repealing identity cards
* 2008 browns attempt to increase the days of detention to 48 days was defeated in HOL and legislation shelved

The fact that so few acts have been opposed to ( identity cards) suggests the public don’t mind giving up some rights for their protection.

What did the ECHR declare was “unlawful” in 2021 relating to mass surveillance ?

In May 2021 the ECHR declared government powers to interject private communication “unlawful”

What does the civil liberties group “3 million” advocate for?

equal voting rights in the devolved regions- Scotland permits all EU residents regardless of settled status to vote in local elections whilst England does not

Who has campaigned against the 2022 Police, Crime and Sentencing act?

Friends of the earth

Which pressure group called Vaccine Passports/Vaccine mandates “coercive” and “punitive”?

Liberty

Who has campaigned against the governments use of emergency powers and the emergency measures during the pandemic ?

Big Brother Watch

How many signed a petition to make verified ID a requirement for opening a social media account in 2021 ?

700,000

What are the two goals of the electoral reform society ?

1. To have public authorities in the UK elected by proportional representation and specifically by the single member transferable vote in multi member constituencies
2. That the democratic institutions of the UK, its nations and regions and other constituent parts work in ways that lead to its ends having high levels of trust in them.

Why have opposition parties and civil liberties groups opposed legislation requiring voting ID?

* Voting fraud is very rare
* Will affect marginalised groups

why does the electoral reform society oppose voting ID laws?

* Those who can’t afford to go on holiday/travel are less likely to be able to vote

In the 2019 GE how many out of 58 million votes were electoral fraud?

33

What percentage of people believe voting at a polling station is safe from fraud and abuse?

90%

What policy passed despite Liberty advocating against Covid passports ?

Nichola Sturgeon enforced vaccine passports for entry to nightclubs and indoor live events (England was planning to adopt same policy but did a U-turn a few days after it was announced)

What are the 3 aims of 3million (the group)?

1. Defend rights of EU citizens to live, work, study and vote in the UK
2. Protect EU Citizens rights through advocacy in the UK and EU institutions
3. Ensure EU citizens know their rights and are empowered to stand up to them

What did AA V Secretary for the home department rule 2022 rule?

That Convicted Nigerian Drug dealer could remain in the UK due to being in a relationship with a British Citizen and having a daughter with her. (Right to private life in the HRA)- went against wishes of government

What did ZXC v Bloomberg 2022 rule?

* That the media outlet Bloomberg gad been wrong to publish details about an American Businessman who was under suspicion of criminal activity
* Court ruled that Bloomberg had breached ZXC’s privacy and ordered it to pay him £25,000

Under a British bill of human rights what obligations would have been limited?

Positive obligations

What is a “positive obligation”?

A ruling that requires a public body to take a particular course of action

What did MS (Pakistan) V Secretary of State for the home department (2020) rule?

* Justices ruled that the state has a duty to protect victims of human trafficking

What would Judges have reduced influence in, if the British bill of HR was passed?

Secondary legislation

What can judges currently do with secondary legislation and what would they only be able to do after the British bill of HR?

* They can currently Strike down secondary legislation
* After the British bill of HR they would only be able to declare it incompatible

What would the British bill of HR make it difficult for people to do?

Bring human rights cases to court

What would judges not have to consider when making rulings under the British bill of human rights?

Precedents from the ECHR when making rulings

What are 4 arguments for the British bill of HR?

1. Returns power over human rights issues to Politicians - reinforces parliamentary sovereignty
2. Would emphasis collective rights over individual- make UK safer by deporting non British nationals with criminal convictions + would strengthen press freedom crucial to a liberal democracy
3. ECHR is outdated
4. Would reduce the amount of HR cases that reach the courts- decisions can be made more quickly

What are 4 arguments against the British Bill of Human rights ?

1. Conservatives want to limit the influence of Judges in checking executive power- makes it more difficult to impose positive obligations and strike down secondary legislation- role of independent judiciary is to scrutinise the government
2. ECHR has been tried and tested and provisions are flexible enough to grant new rights
3. Reducing HR cases is unnecessary- 25% of SC cases involve HR- would narrow access to justice
4. Many immigrants will find themselves disadvantaged in British courts- falls short of upholding universal human rights