Britain is to adopt a new bill of rights that sets out a major overhaul of human rights laws granting new powers to Parliament and the UK’s Supreme Court as a replacement for the controversial 1998 Human Rights Act.
The measure is being put before Parliament on Wednesday by deputy prime minister and Justice Secretary Dominic Raab.
It is part of moves to draw a line under legal action challenging the government on the rights of migrants, as well as updating the legal framework around free speech.
The draft bill enshrines in law elements of existing rights like that of a jury trial and reverses European-style privacy laws.
It makes British judges the “ultimate arbiters” on implementing judgments by the European Court of Human Rights, which sits in the French city of Strasbourg.
“The Bill of Rights will strengthen our UK tradition of freedom whilst injecting a healthy dose of common sense into the system” Mr Raab said.
“These reforms will reinforce freedom of speech, enable us to deport more foreign offenders and better protect the public from dangerous criminals.”
The legislation would limit the ability of jailed extremists to challenge moves to establish separation units in prisons, after some claimed the measures it breaches a right to socialise.
It would also seek to restrict the circumstances in which foreign-born people convicted of crimes are able to argue their right to family life trumps public safety, in a bid to prevent their removal from the UK.
They would have to prove that their child would come to overwhelming and unavoidable harm if they were deported under the plans.
It would create a permission stage in court where claimants must show they have suffered significant damage before their case can go ahead, to reduce “trivial” cases.
To boost press freedom and freedom of expression, there will be a stronger test for courts to consider before they can order journalists to disclose their sources.
“We will be clear that free speech has a higher status in the pecking order of rights. That’s particularly important when you’re balancing free speech versus privacy,” Mr Raab said.
He said human rights would be protected by new legislation as courts would additionally be freed of their duty to take into account Strasbourg case law, enabling them to base decisions on UK tradition and law.
“We will be very clear that UK courts … are explicitly free to diverge from [Strasbourg].
“No one is talking about tearing about human rights in this country. We are staying in the European Convention, we are going to reinforce those quintessentially British rights, like free speech.
“But I do think, when it comes to public protection, people want to see a dose of common sense and balance provided, that’s what our reforms will achieve.”
Beth Gardiner-Smith, chief executive of Safe Passage International, a charity that supports refugees to access safe routes to asylum in Europe, said the Bill would “strip us all, including refugees, of our ability to challenge injustice and defend our human rights”.
Steve Crawshaw, director of policy and advocacy at Freedom from Torture, which provides therapeutic care for survivors of torture seeking protection in the UK, described the move as “yet another brazen attempt to concentrate power in the hands of the executive and weaken the public’s ability to hold the powerful to account”.
Mr Raab stepped back from demands from some Conservative MPs to pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Legal challenges whittled down the number of migrants listed for deportation to Rwanda earlier this month to just seven from an expected 130, when the first forced removals of asylum seekers was planned by the government.
The European court then effectively barred the whole operation by granting an interim injunction. Mr Raab’s legislation would mean these orders are not binding on UK courts in future.
Sacha Deshmukh, Amnesty International UK’s chief executive, said the legislation would represent “a giant leap backwards for the rights of ordinary people”.
“Ripping up the Human Rights Act means the public is being stripped of its most powerful tool to challenge wrongdoing by the government and other public bodies.
“This is not about tinkering with rights, it’s about removing them,” he said.
