CCPR/C/58/Add.6 page 2
of the Court have had a considerable impact on United Kingdom law and practice, often giving increased priority or urgency to changes which were already under consideration. Sometimes the judgement of the Court has required the insertion of judicial procedures into what had previously been regarded as an administrative process where accountability was to Parliament through Ministers. Examples of Court decisions which have led to changes in United Kingdom law are those of Dudgeon on homosexuality in Northern Ireland and Abdulaziz, Balkandali and Cabales on sex discrimination in immigration rules. The Government routinely scrutinizes draft legislation and proposals for administrative change to see whether they are compatible with international human rights instruments to which the United Kingdom is party.
6.
The case for more comprehensive human rights legislation has been argued at various times during the past 15 years. The incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights in United Kingdom domestic law has been the solution most often favoured; but neither of the two largest political parties has adopted it as its policy, and a series of bills introduced by private Members in both Houses of Parliament has failed to attract sufficient support to make progress.
7.
Reasons against legislation of this kind have been that the broad propositions in the Convention are often unsuited to the close textual analysis of statutes undertaken to determine the will of Parliament; the risk of damaging conflict between the courts on the one hand and the Government and Parliament on the other, with courts being used as a means of challenging unpopular action by the government of the day which has received the support of Parliament; and the view that injustice or unfairness of the kind which such a bill would be designed to correct could in the United Kingdom context be more suitably and more effectively challenged in Parliament.
As the Attorney-General, Sir Patrick Mayhew, QC, then Solicitor-General, said on 6 February 1987 in opposing Sir Edward Gardner's Human Rights Bill, which would have incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights:
8.
"The judiciary must be seen to be impartial. More especially, as far as practicable it must be kept free from political controversy. We must take great care not to propel judges into the political arena. However, that is what we would do if we asked them to take policy decisions of a nature that we [Parliament] ought properly to take ourselves and which under our present constitution we do take. We would increase that danger if we required or permitted them to alter or even reverse decisions taken by Parliament
Our constitutional history rather strongly shows that over the centuries the British people have preferred that these matters should be decided by people whom they can elect and sack rather than people immune from either process
wiser, less opportunist or even less venal though such people might well be considered to be."
-
Areas where issues of human rights and personal freedom are at present a matter of particular concern include:
9.
(a) The need for firm and effective action to prevent terrorism, including procedures for the detention, questioning and trial of suspects in which the rights of the individual have to be balanced by the protection and safety of the public;
A