How Would a British Bill of Rights Impact Us?

By Maxwell Cooper

The ongoing debate over human rights in the United Kingdom highlights a major disagreement about the balance between individual freedom and the general public interest. Currently, human rights in the UK are managed by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), which brings the rules of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic law.

Critics argue that the HRA protects individual rights too much, sometimes at the expense of wider society - a concern often raised in political debates about immigration control and national sovereignty. Because of this, political figures have proposed replacing or changing the HRA with a new ‘British Bill of Rights’. This article looks at what this change would actually mean in practice, focusing on the power of Parliament, how judges interpret the law, new court rules, and how laws are made.

Shifting Power from Courts to Parliament

A main goal of a British Bill of Rights is to shift final authority over human rights from the courts back to Parliament. Under the current HRA, British courts must interpret laws to fit with European human rights rules whenever possible. Critics argue this gives domestic judges and the European Court of Human Rights too much influence over British government policies.

A British Bill of Rights would change this by telling UK courts to follow the exact laws passed by Parliament rather than European legal rulings. While the UK Supreme Court would still have the final say on domestic cases, it would have to base its decisions on the specific definitions written by politicians.

Senior judges must remain completely neutral, so it is impossible to say exactly how they would view this change. However, legal experts suggest that judges generally prefer clarity. If a new Bill of Rights provides clear, exact guidelines, it could make their jobs simpler and reduce political criticism of the courts. On the other hand, if the new law is vague or poorly written, it could cause even more confusion in the legal system.

The "Significant Disadvantage" Rule

A British Bill of Rights would also likely change the rules for how a person can take a human rights case to court. One major proposal is a new test requiring people to prove they have suffered a "significant disadvantage" before a court will even listen to their case.

This rule has both clear advantages and disadvantages:

• Better Efficiency: Supporters say this rule would stop people from bringing minor or trivial complaints to court. By filtering out smaller cases, court time and public money could be focused on resolving the most serious human rights abuses much faster.
• Harder Access to Justice: Critics worry that this rule would create a barrier for ordinary people. If a person cannot prove their harm meets a high threshold, their case might never be heard, leaving them without protection against unfair government actions.

Could Important Rights Be Forgotten?

A common worry among the public is that rewriting or replacing the HRA might lead to important protections, like the right to a fair trial or freedom of speech, being accidentally left out. Different politicians have suggested different ways to handle this, ranging from a complete rewrite of the law to changing it slowly, one piece at a time.

In reality, the risk of a right being accidentally "forgotten" is extremely low because of the UK's strict law-making process. Before any new Bill of Rights could become law, it would have to go through:

1. Detailed debates and votes by MPs in the House of Commons.
2. Careful checking and legal revisions by experts in the House of Lords.
3. Strict reviews by specialized groups like the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

Because of these safeguards, any change or removal of a right would be a deliberate political choice made after lots of debate, not an accidental mistake.

Conclusion

Ultimately, introducing a British Bill of Rights would be a major shift in how the UK is governed. It is not just a minor legal update, but a change in philosophy designed to give elected politicians more power over human rights decisions instead of judges. While supporters believe this is necessary to protect national sovereignty and the public interest, critics argue it could weaken the vital protections that shield ordinary citizens from the power of the state.