Dominic Raab, who was preparing to announce a new British Bill of Rights that would strengthen the Bill amid growing concerns about ‘cancel-culture’ today, said that freedom of expression is being ‘whittled’.
The Justice Secretary will publish proposals to address concerns that judges are drawing up privacy laws ‘by the back door’.
Ministers fear a series of controversial rulings won by celebrities and other prominent individuals has eroded freedom of expression – a key component of Britain’s democracy for centuries.
The group is concerned by the growing “cancel culture” among ‘woke’ or ‘politically right’ campaigners.
New Bill of Rights will address’vexatious ‘deportation bids’ by foreign criminals. It also insists that British top judges rule over the European Court of Human Rights.
The Court of Appeal affirmed a High Court ruling that Meghan, Duchess of Sussex, (pictured with Prince Harry), had a reasonable expectation of privacy over a letter she wrote to Thomas Markle, her father.
Sky News spoke with Mr Raab about the important reform. He said: “It will do three. First, we will increase the protection of fundamental British rights such as freedom of speech and other liberty. That freedom has been eroded recently due to various reasons.
We can also prevent abuses of human right that are important to people, such as stopping deportation orders from people who were convicted of serious offenses.
Thirdly, people are seeing that human rights continue to be eroded as the system expands incrementally. It should be subjected to democratic oversight from lawmakers that you can hold accountable.
The bill will also seek to curtail the ability of foreign criminals to dodge deportation on human rights grounds.
Reforms will drastically limit the amount of appeals made under the controversial right to private life and family’.
It will be much more difficult to appeal against the court rulings under Article 8 (European Convention on Human Rights) which were enshrined by Labour in UK law.
Up to 70% of international criminals that file deportation appeals currently do so under Article 8. They claim it is a violation of their rights for them to be returned to their homeland, such as if they have children here.
However, sources say that they would have to ask permission first from the courts under the new plans. Foreign offenders may be prohibited from using Article 8 depending upon the gravity and duration of their sentence.
Sources in the Government said that last night, a permission stage could be established to filter out spurious and vexatious claims so the courts can focus their attention on legitimate, credible ones.
“The European Court has also its authorization stage. We’ll follow the Strasbourg example.
Officials feel the changes will eliminate interference from Europe as measures will highlight the seniority, or superiority, of the UK Supreme Court.
The Tory-led coalition government tried to reform Article 8 in 2012. It stated that criminality should be outweighed in exceptional cases by family life arguments.
Sources said that the move was unsuccessful and the number of appeals made under Article 8 has increased. The latest figures for August showed that 10,882 foreign inmates were released from jail but not deported.
From 2012’s low of 4,000 people, the total number on the streets has increased by 176 percent. Ministers also believe that human rights reforms will be essential for their plan to overhaul the parole system.
The Ministry of Justice has been working to make changes that place greater emphasis on public protection and criminal justice in the face of concerns about Colin Pitchfork’s double-child killer conviction.
Dominic Raab, Justice Minister will release proposals to address concern that judges may be drafting privacy legislations ‘by the side door.
Ministers were also concerned by the fact that judges have ruled in a manner which “gold plate” the components of Articles 1 and 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights. These rulings, it is believed, are threatening the authority of Parliament on British law.
The Duchess of Sussex feels that its influence is far greater than what they originally planned. This includes areas like free speech, immigration and human rights. It comes after criticism of the result of a legal case between the Duchess of Sussex and The Mail on Sunday.
The Court of Appeal affirmed a High Court ruling that Meghan had a reasonable expectation of privacy over a letter she wrote to Thomas Markle earlier this month.
During a lengthy legal battle, the newspaper defended its right to publish extracts of the correspondence in 2019. Lawyers and media experts said the decision set a ‘dangerous precedent’ by extending the right of privacy to benefit the ‘rich and powerful’.
Raab stated at the time of the ruling: “The drift toward continental-style privacy legislations, innovated in courtrooms and not by elected legislators in the House of Commons is something we can and must correct.”
Max Mosley won £60,000 in damages against the News of the World in 2008 after it published a story about an orgy with five women, which had been wrongly described as a ‘Nazi-themed’
Max Mosley, Formula 1’s tycoon, brought a key case in 2008 that was read as judges creating their privacy laws.
This year’s victim, Mr Mosley was born to Sir Oswald Mosley who was a former leader of British Union of Fascists. News of the World discovered that he was involved in sadomasochistic, sexy sex. It obtained a video of him in an age-67 orgy along with five females.
The High Court ruled the now-defunct newspaper breached Mr Mosley’s privacy, awarding him £60,000 in damages, and ruled it had been wrongly described as a ‘Nazi-themed’ orgy.
Justice Eady claimed that the businessman was entitled to privacy regarding his sexual activities.
Today’s consultation paper by the Justice Secretary is likely to state that the UK will continue to be a party to the European Convention on Human Rights.
It will balance it with ‘quintessentially British’ rights contained in historic documents like Magna Carta 1215, which established for the first-time the principle that the law does not apply to the monarch or their government.