Responding to Human Rights Judgments: 2019 to 2020 – new report
Just a few days ago (18 December 2020) I noted the establishment of the Independent Review of the Human Rights Act 1998, to be chaired by Sir Peter Gross. One of the documents the review will, have to consider is the latest report by the Government to the Joint Committee (of the House of Lords and the House of Commons) on how it has been responding to judgements of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Despite its title, it covers a longer period than 2019-2020. Indeed, it provides important background on how the European Convention on Human Rights impacts on the UK.
What strikes me is, that while there have undoubtedly been a small number of controversial cases that have gone to the ECtHR over the last 20 years, the overall impact has been much more limited than many of the stories in the print media might suggest.
It is striking to see that the numbers of cases against the UK Government is actually very small – and many of the cases started are dismissed as disclosing no cause of action.
In the small number of cases which go against the UK Government, the outcomes of the Court seem to me sensible and balanced. (The low numbers may reflect the fact that, as a result of the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, it is easier to argue Convention issues in the UK courts than it used to be.)
Even where cases are taken in the UK Courts, the numbers of declarations of incompatibility made by the UK courts are also very small, and most being dealt with by changes to regulations rather than major legislative changes.
The report is available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/responding-to-human-rights-judgments-2019-to-2020
Review of the Human Rights Act 1998
In its Election Manifesto for 2019 the Conservative Party announced that it wished to review the operation of the Human Rights Act 1998.
For a number of years, some politicians had been argung for a repeal of the act and its possible replacement with a ‘British Bill of Rights’. That idea never gained broad political support and seems to have fallen away. Certainly the announcement, on December 7 2020, of the current review states, in terms, that the Government remains committed to the European Convention on Human Rights.
According to the official announcement, the new review – chaired by retired Court of Appeal judge, Sir Peter Gross – has the following tasks. It will consider:
- The relationship between the domestic courts and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). This includes how the duty to ‘take into account’ of ECtHR case law has been applied in practice, and whether dialogue between our domestic courts and the ECtHR works effectively and if there is room for improvement.
- The impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, executive and Parliament, and whether domestic courts are being unduly drawn into areas of policy.
- The implications of the way in which the Human Rights Act applies outside the territory of the UK and whether there is a case for change.
The review is stated to be limited to looking at the structural framework of the Human Rights Act, rather than the rights themselves.
The announcement of the review also says that the new review ‘runs alongside’ the independent review of Judicial Review and ‘is part of the government’s work to deliver the commitment in the Manifesto to look at the broader aspects of the constitution and the relationship between the Government, Parliament and the courts’.
It seems that these 2 reviews, taken with ‘others to be announced in due course’ will deliver the ‘Commission on Constitution, Democracy, and Rights’ which the Government said it wished to establish. It is not at all clear whether there will be a separate Commission, or whether these separate reviews will, in some way, be welded together into some kind of final statement of policy. I would have thought that a distinct Commission would be essential to ensure that the outcomes from specific reviews were coherent.
The announcement of the HRA review is at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-launches-independent-review-of-the-human-rights-act
I noted the review of judicial review at https://martinpartington.com/2020/08/07/independent-review-of-administrative-law/. See also https://martinpartington.com/2020/11/04/collection-of-responses-to-the-independent-review-of-administrative-law-iral/
The Fixed-term Parliaments Act: should it be amended or repealed?
A really interesting discussion about the proposed repeal of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, noting that there are more issues involved than might at first appear.
A parliamentary committee has been established to review the effectiveness of the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011. Rather than wait for its conclusions, the government has published a draft bill designed to return control of the timing of general elections to the executive. Robert Hazell examines the issues the committee will have to consider, and proffers some possible improvements to the status quo.
On 1 December the government published its draft bill to repeal the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 (FTPA). This would implement the commitment in the Conservative 2019 manifesto, which pledged: ‘We will get rid of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act – it has led to paralysis when the country needed decisive action’. The bill would revert to the previous system, and restore the prerogative power of dissolution. As the government’s Foreword explains:
The Bill makes express provision to revive the prerogative power to dissolve Parliament. This means once…
View original post 2,021 more words
Launch of the Administrative Justice Council Newsletter
Useful summary of just published newsletter from the Administrative Justice Council.
Launch of the Administrative Justice Council Newsletter
Starting November 2020, the Administrative Justice Council (‘AJC’) has launched a new tri-annual newsletter which will highlight the current work of the AJC and its members.
The first edition of the newsletter includes a review of the AJC’s recent Windrush Scandal webinar on 29 September, its responses to recent consultations regarding the future of legal aid and the Independent Review of Administrative Law, together with details regarding its survey on providing welfare benefit advice during the Covid-19 pandemic.
The first edition of the newsletter is available here. Those who wish to receive the updates should contact ajc@justice.co.uk.
Collection of responses to the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL)
Given the importance of judicial review, it seems strange that the Independent Review of JR, chaired by Lord Faulks, decided it would not publish submissions it received to the Consultation it launched. This blog from the UK Institute for Administrative Justice very usefully provides a list of those submissions of which it is aware, with links to them.
Given the decision of the Independent Review of Administrative Law (IRAL) not to make publicly available responses received as part of its call for evidence, UKAJI has decided to bring together in one place IRAL responses which have been made public. Should you wish to include an IRAL responses on this page, please contact Lee Marsons on lm17598@essex.ac.uk.
- The Administrative Justice Council (AJC)published its response to the IRAL
- The Administrative Law Bar Association (ALBA)published its response to the IRAL.
- Matrix Chamberspublished its response to the IRAL.
- Paul Daly (University of Ottawa)published his response to the IRAL.
- Young Legal Aid Lawyerspublished its response to the IRAL.
- The Public Law Projectpublishedits submission to the Independent Review of Administrative Law.
- Oxford Human Rights Hubpublished its response to the IRAL.
- British Institute of Human Rightspublished its response to the IRAL
View original post 231 more words
Sentencing Act 2020 given Royal Assent
On 22 October 2020, the Sentencing Act 2020 received the Royal Assent. A commencement date has not yet been set, but once it is, the Sentencing Code – which the Act contains – will come into force.
I have considered the content of the Code at https://martinpartington.com/2020/07/21/enacting-the-sentencing-code/
This is a significant achievement, undertaken by the Law Commission, which hopefully will bring greater clarity to the rules which the courts must apply when they sentence those convicted of crimes.
A press notice is at https://www.gov.uk/government/news/sentencing-code-granted-royal-assent
The ethics of pro bono
Very interesting reflections on ethics and pro bono law work by the leading commentator on the regulation of the legal professions
A second nation-wide lockdown is now less than 48 hours away.Many of our fellow citizens will as a consequence face unexpected and unwelcome legal issues, and I suspect many of their needs will be met through pro bono provision.
I was therefore honoured and delighted to offer some opening thoughts this morning to a very important and timely seminar hosted by LawWorks and the University of Bristol as part of Pro Bono Week.I was invited to share my reflections on the two-year Independent Review of Legal Services Regulation that I concluded in June and the associated landscape of legal professional ethics. Here are those reflections (also available as a PDF).
View original post 1,084 more words
Covid-19 and the English Legal System (15) – Criminal Justice in existential crisis?
On Friday 30 October 2020 a research consultancy, Crest, published a report Impact and legacy of Covid-19 on the CJS: Modelling overview. Using existing data to model future developments, the report set out what it regarded as the possible impact of Covid-19 on the Criminal Justice System.
The rather sober title of the report was not matched by the press release Crest drafted to draw attention to its study. This was headed “A perfect storm: why the criminal justice system is facing an existential crisis”. This apocalytic vision certainly caught the eye of some journalists – which is of course the reason why I am now writing about it now.
And the report is a really important one, which underscores the urgent need for the Government to get on with the appointment and work of the promised Royal Commission on the Criminal Justice system. (See https://martinpartington.com/2020/07/13/royal-commission-on-the-criminal-justice-system-details-awaited/)
The report starts by reminding readers that, even before Covid-19, the CJS was facing a number of long-standing problems: decreasing charge rates, worsening court timeliness and an estimated backlog in the courts of c.104K
cases, prisons and probation operating at full capacity. Covid-19 has added to those pressures. The report also predicts a future of increased pressure, the consequence of the likely rise in long term unemployment due to the economic impact of Covid, leading to more crime, and the 20,000 increase in police officer numbers, leading to more detection and the need to process more people through the system.
The research team’s modelling suggests, that without any action, the Crown Court backlog is projected to increase from c.45.5K in 2019 in to c.195.5K (x4) in 2024. and the magistrates’ court backlog is projected to increase from c.58.6K in 2019 to 580.3K (x10) in 2024.
Current responses by Government – e.g. making more courts covid-safe and opening Nightingale Courts in a number of town – just do not cut the mustard, in Crest’s view. Much more dramatic action is needed.
The principal criticism contained in the report is that there is currently no ‘whole-system’ view of the challenges facing the CJS. Different parts of the system work in isolation from other parts.
For example: the 20K police uplift will lead to a rise in pressure on the court backlogs; if the courts increase their outflow in sentenced cases, there will be a rise in pressure on prisons and probation.
Furthermore, assuming equilibrium is achieved in courts, suspended sentence orders are projected to increase by 24%, post-release supervision caseload will increase by 30% and community sentence orders are projected to increase by 14% by 2024. This will put extreme pressure on a probation service which was already underperforming.
There is, in the report’s view, inadequate recognition within Government of the interdependencies of each part of the criminal justice system.
The Crest report states that
“to bring the backlog back to pre-Covid levels will require a change in more than just capacity.
Options include:
● increasing the speed with which cases are dealt with: e.g. increasing the efficiency of listing, decreasing victim attrition, decreasing cracked trials etc.
● decreasing the amount of cases entering the court system by increasing effective out of court disposals
● decreasing the amount of police recorded crime originally entering the CJS through effective crime prevention programmes.”
I think some would argue that this list of options is not an original one. All these ideas have been discussed within the CJS, and achieving the outcomes suggested in the report is not easy. But what this report has very effectively done is highlight precisely the challenges that the now increasingly delayed Royal Commission must address. It should be a matter of urgency for the Government to get the Commission up and running.
The Crest Report is available at https://www.crestadvisory.com/post/covid-19-and-the-criminal-justice-system
Covid 19 and the English Legal System (14) – Family Justice
As with all parts of the English Legal system, the family justice system has had to cope with the effects of Covid-19. A new report from the Nuffield Justice Family Justice Observatory takes a fresh look at how the system has been coping – in particular with the use of remote (where both parties are not in court) and hybrid (where one party is in court) hearings. It is based on a survey of 1300 people involved in family law cases, undertaken in September 2020. It is a follow-up to their first snapshot survey undertaken in April 2020. (see https://martinpartington.com/2020/07/07/covid-19-and-the-english-legal-system-10-family-justice/)
This second survey and accompanying report shows that “most professionals (86%) felt that things were working more smoothly and some reported benefits to working remotely, for both parties and themselves.” However, “[t]hey shared concerns about the difficulties of being sufficiently empathetic, supportive and attuned to lay parties when conducting hearings remotely’. Nonetheless “more than three quarters (78%) felt that fairness and justice had been achieved in the cases they were involved with most or all of the time”.
When it came to how parents and relatives themselves felt. “a majority… (88%) reported having concerns about the way their case was dealt with, and two thirds (66%) felt that their case had not been dealt with well. Two in five (40%) said they had not understood what had happened during the hearing”.
As might be anticipated, there were complaints about problems with connectivity. And there was a feeling that for remote hearings telephone links were not as satisfactory as video links.
The President of the Family Division, Sir Andrew Macfarlane has welcomed the report and undertaken to ensure that the issues raised are addressed.
One specific point made by the Nuffield authors is that they do not expect any early change to practices currently in use to deal with the implications of Covid 19. Because of the urgency of many of the issues which which the family court has to deal, it is essential that all those involved continue to work to improve what is currently happening. Of course, the longer this goes on, the more evidence can be obtained about what works well in the new system as well as what does not work well. I am sure that, after Covid-19, the system as a whole will not return to its pre-pandemic state.
The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory Report and Consultation are at https://www.nuffieldfjo.org.uk/resource/remote-hearings-september-2020.
Sir Andrew Macfalane’s comments are at: https://www.judiciary.uk/announcements/remote-hearings-in-the-family-justice-system-follow-up-consultation-report/
Martin Partington: Introduction to the English Legal System 15th ed 2021
Oxford University Press Learning Link Resources
Martin Partington: Spotlight on the Justice System 