header-logo header-logo

02 September 2011
Issue: 7479 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

Deputy PM is right on

Courts must rise above human rights “paranoia” says Clegg

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg has mounted a staunch defence of the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA 1998) and the decisions of the courts, ahead of the UK taking over the chairmanship of the Council of Europe in November.

Writing in The Guardian last week, Clegg said incorporating the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic law had been “a hugely positive step”, reducing delays for litigants and sending a message about the value the UK places on human rights.

A future Bill of Rights should be used to “deepen our commitment” to the protections of HRA 1998 and to protect “other British liberties, such as the right to jury trial”. The government would use its chairmanship to seek reforms to “improve the timeliness and consistency” of the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) decision-making.

A myth had taken root that human rights were “a charter for greedy lawyers and meddlesome bureaucrats”, he wrote, blaming “overcautious lawyers and officials” for creating a “culture of legal paranoia”.

Clegg also listed some of the courts’ achievements, including preventing local authorities from snooping on families and upholding the rights of elderly married couples to be cared for together in care homes.

Prime Minister David Cameron has frequently called for HRA 1998 to be repealed, while MPs across the parties have expressed fury at a ECtHR ruling that Britain’s blanket ban on prisoners voting is unlawful.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said: “This is a welcome intervention from the deputy prime minister and certainly not before time.

“The coalition was stitched together on a civil liberties ticket. You can’t talk human rights in the Arab spring whilst trashing them at home all year round.”

See further, the recent NLJ series on human rights by Roger Smith, director of Justice:

The State of Human Rights (1), (2), (3), (4)

Issue: 7479 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll