Category: ECHR

Reflections on Your Human Rights: Know them. Engage them. Defend them.

Constitutional Change, Democracy, ECHR, Engagement, Freedom of Expression, Global Justice Academy, Human rights, Human Rights Act, UK

On 23 and 24 February 2022, the Global Justice Academy, together with the Strathclyde Centre for the Study of Human Rights Law and Newcastle Forum for Human Rights and Social Justice, and other partners in the Northern UK Human Rights Network, held two webinars that gathered human rights experts to provide insights to the questions set out in the Ministry of Justice Human Rights Act Reform Consultation. The idea behind the webinars was to help the public — especially those who are not experts but are interested in protecting human rights — to respond to the Consultation, which puts forward ideas contrary to the Human Rights Act and may have devastating effects on human rights.

This GJA blog post presents the common themes and shared concerns that get to the heart of why experts find the Consultation proposals problematic and regressive. The post contains four parts, each focused on a central issue raised by the expert panellists.

The mismatches between the IHRAR and the Consultation

In 2019, the Conservative Party claimed the necessity to update the Human Rights Act (HRA) to modern times. The Secretary of Justice then set the terms for the Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR), which commenced in December 2020. The IHRAR examined independent expert opinions and many submissions from civil society, ultimately completing its work in October 2021. The IHRAR recommended some changes but overall concluded that the HRA led to positive outcomes to human rights protection in the UK. However, the Ministry of Justice only published the IHRAR report in December 2021 together with the Consultation document, which no longer proposed to update the HRA but rather substitute it for a ‘Modern Bill of Rights’. Human rights experts are sceptical of the government’s claims to legitimacy of the Consultation as a follow on to the expert panel. Experts understand that the Consultation does not follow the IHRAR as it ignored several IHRAR recommendations and introduced a series of new issues that will significantly diminish human rights protection.

 

Priority of freedom of expression when in conflict with the right to respect for private and family life

One of the Consultation proposals is to create a legal provision to direct courts to prioritise the right to freedom of expression when in conflict with the right to respect for private and family life. The Consultation outlines that the European Court of Human Rights (or Strasbourg Court) has shown priority to privacy over freedom of expression, which has had a negative repercussion on the protection of rights related to the press. However, human rights experts disagree with this observation. Experts concluded that both the UK Supreme Court and the Strasbourg Court treat freedom of expression and the right to privacy equally when in conflict, without generally prioritising one over the other. The current provision of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), which contains the right to freedom of expression, has been effective in protecting journalists and their sources. Although it is important to widen the protection of rights related to the press, the way to do so is to enhance the HRA provisions instead of substituting them.

 

The permission stage and access to justice

One central issue in the Consultation is the belief that ‘frivolous or spurious’ human rights claims, which do not ‘merit court time and public resources’, has undermined public confidence in human rights.[1] The Consultation aims to create a permission stage for human rights claims that requires demonstration of ‘significant disadvantage’, or, exceptionally, a matter of ‘overriding public importance’, for human rights claims to be brought before UK courts.[2] Human rights experts strongly disagree with adding a permission stage. Article 34 of the Convention, incorporated into the UK by the HRA, together with extensive legal texts, have already established who is a victim and who can be a human rights claimant. Further requirements for initiating human rights actions would restrict judicial protection of rights. The permission stage proposal closely relates to the (deeply) problematic question 10 of the Consultation, which states that courts should only focus on ‘genuine human rights abuses’, perpetuating the false perception that many human rights claims are not genuine.[3] Human rights experts fear that the vague and potentially discriminatory ‘genuine’ standard for human rights abuse and the unnecessary permission stage will diminish human rights protections, especially for those in vulnerable situations.

 

The mischaracterised relationship between the UK Supreme Court and the European Court of Human Rights

A major theme throughout the Consultation — which some experts believe is the central political motivation leading to the Consultation— is the relationship between the UK Supreme Court and the Strasbourg Court. The Consultation presumes that the Strasbourg Court has been improperly intervening in the UK jurisdiction. On the basis of this unsupported presumption, the Consultation proposals point to the government’s desire to distance UK law from the Strasbourg Court. Nevertheless, the experts highlighted that the government’s desired distance between jurisdictions, together with the regressive protection of rights, will backfire. The Consultation was clear that the UK will not withdraw from the Convention or the Strasbourg Court. Thus, if human rights claimants are unsuccessful in bringing their cases to UK courts because their claims are not considered ‘genuine’, they can still go to the Strasbourg Court for their claims to be heard. This possible scenario would weaken UK human rights protections as domestic courts would not have the first say in interpreting ECHR cases in the UK though the UK would remain bound to give effect to eventual Strasbourg’s judgments that find the UK in breach of the Convention rights.

Ultimately, the webinar offered insight and assistance to people developing their responses to the Ministry of Justice Consultation. Although embedded in a language of protection of rights, the Consultation’s proposals will produce harmful effects for human rights in reality. Therefore, the webinar highlighted that it is important that as many people as possible engage and respond to the Consultation until its deadline on 8 March 2022 in order to oppose Consultation’s proposals and fight against the undermining of human rights.

 

The Global Justice Academy’s response to the consultation can be found here:  March 2022 – GJA – Consultation Response – HRA Reform

This post is authored by Helena de Oliveira Augusto. Helena is currently undertaking the Human Rights LLM at the University of Edinburgh. Helena is from Brazil, where she completed a Bachelor of Laws degree at the Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo.

 

 

[1] Ministry of Justice, Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Rights – A consultation to reform the Human Rights Act 1998, available at <https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1040409/human-rights-reform-consultation.pdf> accessed at 27 February 2022, p. 65

[2] Ibid p. 65

[3] Ibid p. 66

, ,

Your Human Rights: Know them. Engage them. Defend them

Constitutional Change, Constitutional Law, ECHR, Human rights, Human Rights Act, Knowledge Exchange, Law and Legal, Uncategorized, United Kingdom

On 23 and 24 February, the Global Justice Academy (GJA), Strathclyde Centre for the Study of Human Rights Law and Newcastle Forum for Human Rights and Social Justice, along with other partners in the Northern UK Human Rights Network, hosted a sandpit webinar on responding to the Ministry of Justice Human Rights Act Reform Consultation. The events brought together experts across public law, international law and human rights to offer concise insight on the key issues raised by the Ministry of Justice consultation on human rights reform.

 

 

Human rights experts’ preliminary views of the consultation paper are that the UK government aims to dismantle important human rights protections. The events were designed to assist individuals with different levels of engagement with human rights to distil the main legal tensions presented in the consultation paper and respond to the questions posed therein. The underpinning purpose is to assist those who have little time or experience responding to government consultations to develop their own responses by the consultation deadline of 8 March 2022.

 

Speakers included:

  • Ed Bates, Leicester University
  • Helen Fenwick, Durham University
  • Elisenda Casanas Adam, Univeristy of Edinburgh
  • Hélène Tyrrell ,Newcastle University
  • Conall Mallory, Newcastle University
  • Lynsey Mitchell, University of Strathclyde
  • Lewis Graham, Wadham College, Oxford University
  • Dimitrios Kagiaros, Durham University
  • Nicole Busby, University of Glasgow
  • Elizabeth O’Loughlin, Durham University
  • Douglas Jack, University of Strathclyde
  • Alison Seaman, University of Edinburgh

The recording of day 2 can be found HERE.

If you would like to develop your own response using the working document developed by the speakers and other contributing colleagues, it can be accessed here: March 2022 – Consultation Response – Mod Bill of HR – Shareable. We encourage you to build on our work and add your own thoughts. In a democratic society it is essential that we use our voices to let the government know our views.

The Human Rights Act has protected the people of the UK for two decades. Use your voice to let the Ministry of Justice know that we will not give it up without a fight.

Useful documents:

  • Ministry of Justice, Human Rights Act Reform: A Modern Bill of Human Rights, consultation paper
  • Independent Human Rights Act Review, Final Report
  • Joint statement, Amnesty International Scotland, the Human Rights Consortium Scotland, JustRight Scotland, Making Rights Real, and the Scottish Human Rights Commission
  • Scottish Government Response to consultation paper
, , , , ,

Interpretive Convergence at the European Court of Human Rights: Strength in numbers or a cause for concern

Case Law, ECHR, Europe, Global Justice Academy, Human rights, International Law, Law and Legal, Uncategorized


On 25 January, the Global Justice Academy hosted its first event of the new year, ‘Interpretive Convergence at the European Court of Human Rights: Strength in numbers or a cause for concern?’. In this seminar, Dr Conall Mallory, Senior Lecturer at the University of Newcastle School of Law, presented his current research on the voting patterns of the judges within the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). In particular, his research scrutinizes judgments of the ECtHR that seem to often be unanimous with infrequent dissents. Drawing on extensive quantitative data analysis he furthermore explores potential wide-ranging implications on the authority of the court, the cohesion of Convention rights and the credibility of the judges.

It is widely acknowledged that the provisions of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) are peppered with grey language that requires the judges to interpret the Convention’s specifications. The fact that the 17 grand chamber judges, deriving from various cultural, legal, educational, professional and linguistic backgrounds unanimously agree on the interpretation of highly contentious human rights provisions, motivated Dr Mallory to further investigate the judges’ convergence. In the two ECtHR judgments Banković v Belgium and Al-Skeini v United Kingdom which were both concerned with the extraterritorial application of human rights law, the Court in both cases voted unanimously. However, the second case substantially deviated from the principles set out in its previous judgment.

Analysing approximately 400 Grand Chamber judgments between 1998 and 2021, Dr Mallory considered each judge’s individual vote on individual issues. He found that almost every time there was coherence across the judges’ votes. The judges took differing stances in only 10% of the votes on individual questions on whether a Member State had violated an article of the Convention.

Image credit: ECHR

Scholars before Dr Mallory have examined the motivation and incentives behind judges’ decision-making process in the courtroom. These previous studies revealed that judges tend to vote strategically, whether for individual benefits, to embed personal ideologies in judgments, or to pursue broader goals serving stakeholders. However, Dr Mallory’s research is focused more on the general legal culture of the Court and the implications for the Court as a whole. He suggests that by predominantly voting unanimously the judges aim to seek sociological legitimacy to remain a credible force in the European human rights adjudication. Contrary to normative and legal legitimacy, sociological legitimacy is concerned with the external perception of the court. In order to secure its authoritative and influential status the court attempts to project legitimacy in a manner that is compatible with the objectives of stakeholders.

In international law, sociological legitimacy is characterized by judicial constraint, consistency, coherence, and fair and unbiased decision making. The convergence of the judges voting pattern in Dr Mallory’s data implies that the court’s strategy is to adhere to those standards through voting in agreement. Notably, Dr Mallory was also able to identify voting patterns regarding the affected context of the violation. Namely, the Court disagrees more when voting on potential violations of the right to privacy and freedom of expression.

Dr Mallory concluded his talk by addressing the question whether this interpretative convergence is a cause for concern. In his opinion, the findings are not as alarming as one might think at the first glance. However, the voting patterns may suggest a sense of group thinking in the courtroom which may lead judges to develop a personal aversion for dissenting. This should be considered seriously, as the Court’s apparent strategy in striving for sociological legitimacy through convergent voting may create cascade conformity – meaning that judges who would normally disagree abandon their conviction and follow suit with the other judges. Returning to the initial consideration of the divergent rulings in Banković v Belgium and Al-Skeini v United Kingdom, Dr Mallory observed that the main problem is the fact that the court, depending on the composition of judges, may deviate so fundamentally in its judgments that it will fail to offer reliability and consistency.

 

 

This post was written by Juliane Müller. Juliane is currently reading the LLM in International Law at the University of Edinburgh. She is from Germany, where she completed her LLM in Law at the University of Mannheim. Juliane is also an Ambassador for the Global Justice Academy.

, , , , ,

Free Speech Protection for ‘Public Watchdogs’ in the European Court of Human Rights

Eastern Europe, ECHR, Freedom of Expression, Global Justice Academy, Human rights, Hungary, Newspost

For the second Global Justice Academy event of the current academic semester, Dr Dimitrios Kagiaros, Assistant Professor in Public Law and Human Rights at Durham Law School, presented his current research exploring the fundamental principles of freedom of expression under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). In particular, his work scrutinizes the meaning of the term ‘public watchdog’, which is a term applied to certain speakers (eg the press) who carry out the function of keeping the public informed on matters of public interest. The European Court of Human Rights offers such speakers added protection under the Article 10 framework.

Until recently, the courts identified only the press and NGO’s as those who would be eligible for this protected status, but after a 2016 Grand Chamber decision in Magyar Helsinki Bizottság v Hungary the status was further extended to academics, authors of public literature, bloggers and popular social media users. In this case, the claimant was an NGO who was denied official information from the state police and challenged this under Article 10 of the ECHR. Dr Kagiaros explained what this extension of watchdog status means for rights and duties attributed to not only speakers, but also to the public who benefits from access to information and the state in terms of its obligations towards these public watchdogs.

According to the Court’s case law on public watchdogs and the Magyar Helsinki Bizottság ruling, public watchdog status creates a negative obligation on the state to refrain from taking any action which would obstruct the watchdog of carrying out its function. It also includes positive obligations on the state to adopt a specific legal framework to protect public watchdogs and also to release official information to them, under circumstances, following a request . The decision also clarified that Article 10 places duties on public watchdogs to act responsibly when disseminating information which could be in the public interest. Increasingly, these duties are attributed to actors such as bloggers and popular social media users which Kagiaros argues that in today’s social media culture is too broad of a concept to understand who exactly would be eligible for public watchdog protection and also who, as rights-bearers, should be obliged to fulfil certain duties when exercising their right to free speech. Kagiaros says these legal obligations and broadly identified eligible actors must be better specified. To that end, he suggests that rather than limiting the protection offered to public watchdogs to specific groups (eg, academics, journalists, NGOs) the Court should carry out a functional test when presented with a case relating to speakers disseminating information in the public interest.

This research is particularly relevant within today’s social media climate and the frequent use of mobile phones to capture or record instances of everyday state injustice, like police brutality. Social media platforms have become an accessible space for receiving information and imparting information, which means determining who is a mere ‘ordinary speaker’ or a ‘public watchdog’ is becoming more complex. Along with this complexity is the matter of prioritising speech and how and what the courts consider information which is of public concern. Kagiaros emphasises the importance of protecting the act of imparting information which is of public interest as this is a prerequisite for a well-functioning democracy. These considerations become even more urgent in the context of transparency when dealing with matters such as climate change or interference with elections.

Kagiaros’ lecture points to the important role played by certain public and private actors to draw attention to public wrongdoings, particularly of public officials, and the need to protect those who come forward with this information that is important to enable meaningful democratic participation. As explained by the court, Article 10 of the ECHR is the bedrock of democracy. So, in order to protect the person’s right to freedom of speech and the public’s right to receive information, we must ensure an effective free speech legal framework to protect those who impart information of general concern.

 

 

Photo of Judi MartinThis news item was written by Judi Martin. Judi is currently reading the LLM in Human Rights at the University of Edinburgh. She is from Ireland where she completed her BA in History at Trinity College Dublin.

 

, , , ,