Dominic Raab promised yesterday to end Britain’s drift toward continental privacy laws.
Justice Secretary indicated that he would like to see the Human Rights Act rewritten in order to ‘correct’ the disparity between privacy and speech.
He made these comments after criticizing the results of a court case between The Mail On Sunday and The Duchess Of Sussex.
Last week, the Appeal Court found that Meghan had a reasonable expectation of privacy over a letter she wrote to Thomas Markle.
While the proposed changes will not be a solution to the case, Raab indicated that proposals will soon be presented to revive the emphasis on freedom to express yourself, which was traditionally prioritized in British law above privacy.
Dominic Raab stated that he would like to see the Human Rights Act rewritten in order to ‘correct’ the imbalance between privacy and freedom speech
“We are finalizing the consultation. He stated that the Human Rights Act needs to be rewritten, according Times Radio.
“There has been a lot of discussion in Sunday newspapers about privacy and free speech, and the judge-made privacy legislations that have developed in this country in recent years.
‘Part of that’s been the EU – the right to be forgotten. Strasbourg case law forms part of this. It seems that we in the country are proud of a culture which values and prioritizes free speech. We’re going to look at that as something that is pro-freedom.
At present, under the Human Rights Act, judges have to abide by rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France – and Mr Raab said that had contributed to a drift towards a privacy law. Raab stated that if such legislation is introduced, judges should not be able to decide on each case individually.
A letter that Meghan wrote to Thomas Markle, her father, was deemed an invasion of privacy by the Appeal Court.
He added that the British tradition has seen a stronger emphasis placed on transparency and accountability in politics, from John Locke to John Stuart Mill to Isaiah Berlin.
“We don’t have continental-style privacy protections. That is why I believe that elected politicians should decide if this was the right path.
“And that is a great example of what we can do with our own domestic approach to this instead of relying too heavily on a global model. This, in effect, was the Human Rights Act’s left us with.
“Officially, but at the same, I would like to see greater respect for the democratic prerogatives that Parliament has to legislate in these areas.
Raab explained that the government was trying to strike the perfect balance, so people are protected against scammers, paedophiles and radicalisers.
Legal experts have warned that the Duchess of Sussex’s court case against the Mail’s sister title could have a chilling effect on free speech (file image)
He said, “But, certainly, I believe the drift toward continental-style privacy legislations, innovated in the courtroom and not by elected legislators in the House of Commons is something we can and must correct.”
Experts in legal matters warn that the court case brought by the Duchess against the Mail’s sister title may have chilling effects on freedom of speech.
Downing Street also suggested that they would take action. When asked by reporters last week if Boris Johnson thought judges had achieved the right balance between privacy and freedom of speech, a spokesperson for Number 10 said that they would carefully consider the consequences. As you have already heard, the prime minister said that free press is a cornerstone of democracy. The Government recognizes that the critical role of newspapers and media in holding politicians accountable and shining light on important issues.
Damian Green (Tory MP and member of the Commons culture panel) stated last week: “If we want privacy legislations, they must go through Parliament. They cannot be determined on a case by case basis in the courts.
When asked by reporters if Boris Johnson thought judges achieved the right balance between privacy and freedom of speech, a spokesperson for Number 10 said last week that they would study the consequences of the judgement carefully.