Bob's Rant : Who Guards Your Rights? The ECHR Withdrawal Debate

Hi, please let me know what you think. Many thanks! Bob M.

What happens when unelected foreign judges can overrule the will of Parliament? This provocative question sits at the heart of the debate surrounding the UK's membership in the European Convention on Human Rights.

The argument for withdrawal from the ECHR builds upon five key pillars: restoring parliamentary sovereignty, enhancing democratic accountability, addressing immigration challenges, increasing legislative flexibility, and creating a bespoke British human rights framework. The Strasbourg court's rulings have repeatedly challenged Parliament's authority to set policy, most notably in the 2005 Hirst case on prisoner voting rights, creating a democratic deficit where decisions affecting British citizens are made by judges with no accountability to UK voters.

Perhaps most controversial are the ECHR's impacts on deportation policy. The cases of Learco Chindamo, Philip Lawrence's murderer, and Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, who killed 12-year-old Amy Houston in a hit-and-run, demonstrate how Article 8 "right to family life" claims have prevented the removal of dangerous foreign criminals. These rulings have prioritized offenders' rights over public safety concerns, causing outrage among victims' families and undermining confidence in the immigration system.

Withdrawal wouldn't mean abandoning human rights protections – rather, it presents an opportunity to create a modern framework tailored to British values and legal traditions. Countries like Canada and Australia maintain robust rights protections without supranational oversight, showing that sovereignty and rights protection can coexist. With its centuries-old common law tradition, independent judiciary, and democratic institutions, the UK is well-equipped to safeguard fundamental liberties while ensuring policies reflect the will of its citizens.

What do you think? Should Parliament's sovereignty prevail, or does external oversight provide necessary protections? Listen to our detailed analysis and consider what approach would best serve both rights and democracy in modern Britain.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The argument for the United Kingdom withdrawing from
the European Convention on HumanRights, echr, hinges on
restoring national sovereignty,enhancing democratic
accountability and addressingpractical challenges in
governance, particularly inimmigration.
1.
Restoring national sovereigntythe ECHR enforced by the

(00:21):
European Court of Human Rightsin Strasbourg imposes legal
obligations that can overridedecisions made by the UK's
elected Parliament and judiciary.
This undermines parliamentarysovereignty, a bedrock of the
UK's constitution.
For example, the 2005 Hearst vUnited Kingdom case, where the
ECHR ruled that the UK's blanketban on prisoner voting violated

(00:45):
Article 3 of Protocol 1,sparked outrage as it challenged
Parliament's authority to setelectoral policy.
Withdrawing from the ECHR wouldensure that UK laws reflect the
will of its citizens, not asupranational court.
Counter-argument Critics arguethat the ECHR safeguards

(01:06):
fundamental rights that might beweakened without external
oversight.
However, the UK's robust legalsystem, including the Human
Rights Act 1998, which could bereplaced, and centuries of
common law, demonstrates itscapacity to protect rights
domestically.
2.
Enhancing democraticaccountability ECHR judges

(01:28):
appointed by the Council ofEurope are not accountable to UK
voters, yet their rulings canbind the government.
This creates a democraticdeficit, as unelected foreign
judges override policies set byelected representatives.
The prisoner voting sagafollowing Hearst saw prolonged
tensions, with Parliamentresisting ECHR demands,

(01:49):
highlighting the disconnectWithdrawal would restore
accountability to UKinstitutions, ensuring decisions
align with public sentiment andnational priorities.
Counter-argument Some claim theECHR provides an impartial
check on government overreach.
Yet the UK's independentjudiciary, including the Supreme

(02:10):
Court, is well-equipped toprotect rights and Parliament
can legislate to fill any gaps,keeping accountability domestic.
3.
Addressing immigration andsecurity challenges the ECHR,
particularly Articles 3,prohibition of Torture and 8,
right to Private and Family Life, has been cited as a barrier to

(02:32):
deporting foreign criminals,frustrating efforts to
prioritize public safety andborder control.
Below are notable exampleswhere criminals avoided
deportation due to alleged humanrights breaches.
Where criminals avoideddeportation due to alleged human
rights breaches Leoco Cindamo,1995, cindamo, an Italian
national convicted of murderingheadteacher Philip Lawrence in

(02:54):
London, avoided deportation in2007.
The Asylum and ImmigrationTribunal ruled that deporting
him to Italy would breach hisArticle 8 rights to family life
as he had no close family tiesthere, despite his serious crime
.
This decision caused publicoutcry as it prioritised the
killer's rights over publicsafety concerns.
Asa Muhammad Ibrahim, 2003,ibrahim, an Iraqi failed asylum

(03:22):
seeker, killed 12-year-old AmyHouston in a hit-and-run
incident in Blackburn.
Despite his criminal record, heavoided deportation in 2008 due
to Article 8 claims as he hadformed a family in the UK.
The case infuriated Amy'sfamily and the public, who saw
it as a miscarriage of justiceAbdul Shakur 2010.

(03:46):
Shakur, an Afghan drug dealerconvicted of trafficking heroin,
successfully resisteddeportation by arguing that his
removal would breach his Article8 rights due to his family ties
in the UK.
The decision was seen asundermining efforts to tackle
serious crime.

(04:06):
Somali Rapist Case 2016.
A Somali national convicted ofrape was allowed to remain in
the UK after judges accepted hisArticle 3 claim that he faced a
risk of ill treatment ifreturned to Somalia.
This case highlighted how theECHR's broad interpretation can
protect serious offenders fromdeportation.

(04:28):
These cases illustrate how ECHRprovisions can hinder the UK's
ability to deport foreigncriminals, even those convicted
of heinous crimes, due toexpansive interpretations of
human rights.
Withdrawal would allow the UKto streamline deportation
processes, balancing humanrights with public safety while

(04:51):
maintaining domestic protections.
Counterargument Opponents arguethat withdrawal could lead to
inhumane deportations.
However, a domestic frameworkcould ensure fair processes
while prioritising public safety, avoiding the ECHR's often
overly broad interpretations.
4.
Economic and legislativeflexibility.

(05:12):
Echr rulings can imposesignificant costs and
legislative burdens, forinstance, complying with
prisoner voting rulings requiredyears of parliamentary debate
and legal resources.
Withdrawal would free the UKfrom such obligations, allowing
resources to focus on domesticpriorities.
It would also prevent ECHRrulings from disrupting

(05:35):
post-Brexit reforms in areaslike trade, security and
immigration, where the UK seeksgreater autonomy.
Counter-argument Critics warnthat withdrawal could damage the
UK's global reputation andtrade prospects.
However, nations like Canadaand Australia maintain strong
human rights records without asupranational court, and the UK

(05:57):
could follow suit with atailored framework.
5.
A bespoke human rightsframework.
Withdrawing from the ECHR wouldenable the UK to develop a
modern human rights frameworkreflecting its legal traditions
and societal values.
The ECHR, drafted in 1950, isoutdated for addressing

(06:19):
contemporary issues liketerrorism, digital privacy or
immigration.
A UK Bill of Rights couldclarify the balance between
individual rights and collectivesecurity, avoiding contentious
ECHR rulings.
For example, it could setstricter criteria for Article 8
claims, preventing cases likeChindamos or Ibrahims from

(06:40):
recurring Counter-argument.
There's a risk that a domesticframework could weaken
protections.
However, the UK's democraticinstitutions, independent
judiciary and free press providestrong safeguards and public
consultation could ensure broadsupport for a new framework.
Conclusiondrawing from the ECHRwould restore the UK's

(07:01):
sovereignty, ensuring that lawsreflect the democratic will of
its people.
It would address practicalchallenges, particularly in
deporting foreign criminals, asdemonstrated by cases like
Chindamore, ibrahim and Shakur,where ECHR provisions
prioritised offenders' rightsover public safety.
Withdrawal would also enhancelegislative flexibility and

(07:21):
allow a modernised UK-specifichuman rights framework.
While the ECHR has historicalvalue, the UK's robust legal and
democratic systems can protectrights without external
oversight.
Withdrawal would not abandonhuman rights, but empower the UK
to define them in line with itspriorities.