Measures in proposed Bill of Rights would not recognise ECHR injunctions as binding after late-night ruling grounded flight
–
The UK is planning legislation to make it easier to disregard European Court of Human Rights injunctions after the Strasbourg court blocked the first flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda this week.
The move would potentially avoid the disruptive elements of a full-blown British withdrawal from the Court and the underpinning European Convention on Human Rights — a step [Boris Johnson](https://www.ft.com/boris-johnson) recently hinted at. But it would also limit the court’s ability to issue interim orders such as the one that grounded the Rwanda flight.
Dominic Raab, deputy prime minister, said on Thursday he would soon publish details of a Bill of Rights to replace the 1998 Human Rights Act, which incorporates the convention into UK law.
He suggested that the new bill, proposed in the Queen’s Speech last month, could end the need for the UK government to be obliged to comply with such injunctions by the Strasbourg court.
The court’s injunction on Tuesday night in effect halted deportations on the first flight to Rwanda and angered Tory MPs, scuppering a flagship government policy.
The High Court is due to decide on the legality of the [Rwanda](https://www.ft.com/stream/6286bfc6-62a7-3bd7-b1e9-531b3bc72b39) scheme in a judicial review next month. In ruling on one of the passengers on the flight, the ECHR said he should not be deported before the review was complete.
Raab, who is also justice secretary, told the BBC it was not right for the Strasbourg court to intervene but made it clear the UK would not leave the European Convention on Human Rights, which is a central part of treaties such as the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which brought three decades of conflict in Northern Ireland to an end.
He indicated the new Bill of Rights could allow the UK to disregard injunctions issued by the ECHR — known as Rule 39 interim measures — so that in future the orders would only be “advisory” rather than legally binding if British courts have already ruled on the case.
He added such injunctions were previously regarded as “purely advisory”, arguing there was “no basis” in the European Convention for the orders, which he said derive from the rules of procedure that govern the internal workings of the Strasbourg court.
“I think . . . actually those rule 39 interim orders should be advisory only and I think that is something that our Bill of Rights will address squarely,” he said.
The European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg court that polices it are completely separate from the EU and its powerful Court of Justice.
On Thursday Richard Ekins, professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford university, called the Strasbourg court’s intervention “astonishing”.
In a [piece](https://archive.ph/fqFyu) published on the Conservative Home website, Ekins wrote: “The UK would be well within its rights to deny that the [court’s] recent decision about ‘interim measures’ imposes a legal obligation on the UK.”
He added that its decision “has no effect in domestic law”. Jonathan Fisher QC, a member of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, said the ECHR “has overplayed its hand and once again brought into question the appropriateness of the present arrangement”.
He added: “The role of the European Court of Human Rights is to adjudicate on important issues of principle, and not to micromanage cases which are highly fact specific.”
Jane Croft in London
June 16 2022
Undermining European institutions and British human rights just so Britain can be cuntier to refugees. Fantastic, great work, very proportional.
>DM: [Dominic Raab tries to thwart Rwanda flight blockers with new Bill of Rights set to be unveiled next week containing measures to effectively ignore European Court of Human Rights injunctions](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10924969/Rwanda-Dominic-Rabb-pledges-rip-Labours-Human-Rights-Act.html) – ([🪞](https://archive.ph/UJGBl))
>
> * Justice Secretary Dominic Raab wants next week to release a new Bill of Rights
> * He plans to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights
> * Members of the House of Lords are expected to block his controversial plan
> * He said the government will retain the European Convention on Human Rights
I understood that the ECHR gives individuals the right to appeal against action taken against them by their own government through laws which contravene their human rights. It’s the only safeguard that a person – as distinct from an entity or company – has against human rights abuses arising from govt policy and lawmaking. Its job is absolutely to micromanage cases where a govt overreaches its power over an individual.
Removing the right of appeal to the ECHR for immigrants will also remove the right for citizens. There’s obviously a raft of policy coming that will overturn or water down our human rights. The Rwanda policy isn’t about removing immigrants it’s about creating a reason to strip human rights from the British people.
Only the UK should be deciding who enters and remains in the UK.
So the UK will also be breaking the ECHR while pretending it isn’t. That will definitely end well.
Fast becoming the cesspit of Europe. And there is me thinking that 1) vermin should be eradicated instead of electing them into positions of power, and 2) that dodos were extinct. Trumpism is alive and well in the uk.
Oh boy I can’t wait to see how this plan worsens the safety net for British citizens particularly the vulnerable and minority type.
Just legalise no cause euthanasia and let me peacefully leave this country the only way I can, death. If we ever get rid of the Tories it is going to be impossible to fix the damage they’re doing.
They seem to be overcomplicating things, we could just ignore their rulings like most of Europe does…
9 comments
Measures in proposed Bill of Rights would not recognise ECHR injunctions as binding after late-night ruling grounded flight
–
The UK is planning legislation to make it easier to disregard European Court of Human Rights injunctions after the Strasbourg court blocked the first flight of asylum seekers to Rwanda this week.
The move would potentially avoid the disruptive elements of a full-blown British withdrawal from the Court and the underpinning European Convention on Human Rights — a step [Boris Johnson](https://www.ft.com/boris-johnson) recently hinted at. But it would also limit the court’s ability to issue interim orders such as the one that grounded the Rwanda flight.
Dominic Raab, deputy prime minister, said on Thursday he would soon publish details of a Bill of Rights to replace the 1998 Human Rights Act, which incorporates the convention into UK law.
He suggested that the new bill, proposed in the Queen’s Speech last month, could end the need for the UK government to be obliged to comply with such injunctions by the Strasbourg court.
The court’s injunction on Tuesday night in effect halted deportations on the first flight to Rwanda and angered Tory MPs, scuppering a flagship government policy.
The High Court is due to decide on the legality of the [Rwanda](https://www.ft.com/stream/6286bfc6-62a7-3bd7-b1e9-531b3bc72b39) scheme in a judicial review next month. In ruling on one of the passengers on the flight, the ECHR said he should not be deported before the review was complete.
Raab, who is also justice secretary, told the BBC it was not right for the Strasbourg court to intervene but made it clear the UK would not leave the European Convention on Human Rights, which is a central part of treaties such as the 1998 Good Friday Agreement, which brought three decades of conflict in Northern Ireland to an end.
He indicated the new Bill of Rights could allow the UK to disregard injunctions issued by the ECHR — known as Rule 39 interim measures — so that in future the orders would only be “advisory” rather than legally binding if British courts have already ruled on the case.
He added such injunctions were previously regarded as “purely advisory”, arguing there was “no basis” in the European Convention for the orders, which he said derive from the rules of procedure that govern the internal workings of the Strasbourg court.
“I think . . . actually those rule 39 interim orders should be advisory only and I think that is something that our Bill of Rights will address squarely,” he said.
The European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg court that polices it are completely separate from the EU and its powerful Court of Justice.
On Thursday Richard Ekins, professor of law and constitutional government at Oxford university, called the Strasbourg court’s intervention “astonishing”.
In a [piece](https://archive.ph/fqFyu) published on the Conservative Home website, Ekins wrote: “The UK would be well within its rights to deny that the [court’s] recent decision about ‘interim measures’ imposes a legal obligation on the UK.”
He added that its decision “has no effect in domestic law”. Jonathan Fisher QC, a member of the Society of Conservative Lawyers, said the ECHR “has overplayed its hand and once again brought into question the appropriateness of the present arrangement”.
He added: “The role of the European Court of Human Rights is to adjudicate on important issues of principle, and not to micromanage cases which are highly fact specific.”
Jane Croft in London
June 16 2022
Undermining European institutions and British human rights just so Britain can be cuntier to refugees. Fantastic, great work, very proportional.
>Bloomberg: [Raab Vows Bill of Rights to Let UK Ignore Future ECHR Rulings](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-16/raab-vows-bill-of-rights-to-let-uk-ignore-future-echr-rulings) – ([🪞](https://archive.ph/qSbc1#10%))
>
>Raab later said Britain couldn’t ignore the ruling because of the way the UK’s own Human Rights Act is written, but said the government “will address this squarely” with a new Bill of Rights he pledged to publish “shortly.”
–
>DM: [Dominic Raab tries to thwart Rwanda flight blockers with new Bill of Rights set to be unveiled next week containing measures to effectively ignore European Court of Human Rights injunctions](https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10924969/Rwanda-Dominic-Rabb-pledges-rip-Labours-Human-Rights-Act.html) – ([🪞](https://archive.ph/UJGBl))
>
> * Justice Secretary Dominic Raab wants next week to release a new Bill of Rights
> * He plans to ignore injunctions from the European Court of Human Rights
> * Members of the House of Lords are expected to block his controversial plan
> * He said the government will retain the European Convention on Human Rights
–
>Sun: [NEW LAWS Britain to unveil new laws in days after judges blocked PM’s Rwanda migrant plan](https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/18914992/new-bill-of-rights-introduced-rwanda/) – ([🪞](https://archive.ph/pS28w))
>
>BRITAIN will unveil a new Bill of Rights within days after Euro judges blocked the PM’s plan to send migrants to Rwanda.
I understood that the ECHR gives individuals the right to appeal against action taken against them by their own government through laws which contravene their human rights. It’s the only safeguard that a person – as distinct from an entity or company – has against human rights abuses arising from govt policy and lawmaking. Its job is absolutely to micromanage cases where a govt overreaches its power over an individual.
Removing the right of appeal to the ECHR for immigrants will also remove the right for citizens. There’s obviously a raft of policy coming that will overturn or water down our human rights. The Rwanda policy isn’t about removing immigrants it’s about creating a reason to strip human rights from the British people.
Only the UK should be deciding who enters and remains in the UK.
So the UK will also be breaking the ECHR while pretending it isn’t. That will definitely end well.
Fast becoming the cesspit of Europe. And there is me thinking that 1) vermin should be eradicated instead of electing them into positions of power, and 2) that dodos were extinct. Trumpism is alive and well in the uk.
Oh boy I can’t wait to see how this plan worsens the safety net for British citizens particularly the vulnerable and minority type.
Just legalise no cause euthanasia and let me peacefully leave this country the only way I can, death. If we ever get rid of the Tories it is going to be impossible to fix the damage they’re doing.
They seem to be overcomplicating things, we could just ignore their rulings like most of Europe does…
https://www.liberties.eu/en/stories/43-per-cent-echr-judgments-not-implemented/18242
Turns out the UK is one of the few countries which actually abides by them the most of the time.