A report prepared by Lord Wolfson of Tredegar KC (Shadow Attorney-General) and Helen Grant (Shadow Solicitor General) has been published - Wolfson Report. The report is headed - ADVICE TO THE LEADER OF THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY RE ECHR.
It is well-known by now that both Reform UK and now the Conservative Party plan to denounce the European Convention of Human Rights which is seen by politicians connected with those parties as an obstacle to them achieving aims such as introducing tougher controls over immigration and making deportations easier.
Wolfson's general conclusion is that the UK could denounce the ECHR and not suffer major international difficulties in so doing. In common with several other commentators, I profoundly disagree - (see, for example, the links at the end of this post).
One particular question
is whether the UK could remain a member of the Council of Europe (CoE) if it were to denounce the ECHR.In my Notes for Students (28 April 2025) I wrote -
Hence, promotion of human rights is seen as the CoE's primary role.
The Wolfson Report says (para 356 )
With respect to that view, it is surely beyond doubt that, irrespective of the 'founding statutes', the present-day position is that adherence to ECHR is regarded by the Council of Europe as essential. The Council describes itself as the continent's leading human rights organisation. Why then should the Council permit membership to continue if a member denounces the convention? Wolfson states "it is not obvious the Council of Europe would want to exclude the UK in view of its international significance more generally."
Adherence to the Convention across Europe has achieved a great deal - see, for example, HERE. It cannot be said with any certainty that most of those achievements would have taken place within UK domestic legal systems.
At para 370, Wolfson states - "It is worth remembering that countries that inherited the British model of rights protection have continued to improve their approach to rights protection and official accountability, but have done so without binding themselves to international courts."
It is questionable whether those countries (mainly Australia, Canada, New Zealand) did actually inherit a British model of rights protection. They are all nations with long-standing constitutions. They are 'common law systems' but, with respect to human rights, they have adopted their own protections such as New Zealand's Bill of Rights.
The Wolfson Report considers SEVEN possible options in the event that denunciation of the convention takes place. These are set out in Part IX (para 295 et seq). For the purpose of this post it is not necessary to look at all the options save to note that some of them involve the adoption of a Bill of Rights.
Wolfson then expresses the view that the UK judiciary might adopt an expansive view of such a Bill. Given that statement, who can seriously believe that politicians will wish to enact any British Bill of Rights? I think it would be exceptionally naive to think that they would do so. In any event, the clear aim of those who wish to denounce the ECHR is to remove what they see as obstacles to government action. Why then would they choose to put in place any worthwhile alternative?
The ECHR contains a mechanism for denunciation. Such provisions are common in treaties but I would caution against reading that as support for the proposition that the denunciation would be without consequences. The contrary is likely to be the case.
In this post I have not considered either the risks to trade and co-operation with the European Union (EU) or the Peace Settlement in Northern Ireland. There is a regrettable tendency by some to lightly dismiss those matters. That is unwise. The consequences could be severe.
Denunciation of the convention requires 6 months notice to the Council of Europe and does NOT have retrospective effect. Article 58 of the convention is clear that leaving the Council of Europe also takes the leaving State out of the convention. The article does not address the converse.
Links
2] Institute for Government - ECHR Leave or Stay?
3] George Peretz KC - The Political Lawyer substack - Quitters never win: the problems with leaving the ECHR
4] George Peretz KC - The Political Lawyer substack - A doomed enterprise ....
5] House of Commons Library - 2014 Briefing - considers whether UK could remain in Council of Europe if it denounced ECHR
6] Lawyers might also wish to look at Jonathan Goldsmith's article in the Law Society Gazette - XECHR: 'Mamma Mia' - Here we go again - where it is argued that there are strong reasons for lawyers, in their capacity as lawyers, to want the UK to continue with ECHR adherence. One new reasons is because the CoE this year published another convention, this time on the protection of lawyers, the first international treaty for our protection. If we leave the ECHR, we leave the lawyer convention, too. This article o+is a salutary reminder that the Council of Europe does much more than simply administer the ECHR !
7] The late Conor Gearty - Are we losing our civil liberties? Conor weighed in on what’s at stake if Britain leaves the ECHR, and how to fortify democracy.
7 October 2025
No comments:
Post a Comment