Here is the terms of reference and panel for the "Independent Review of the Human Rights Act"

Some initial thoughts

Terms of reference:

- Entirely expected that the "take into account" duty, which has been interpreted by the UK courts as a duty to follow the European Court of Human Rights where it has clearly and constantly taken a particular line, is under review...
"The impact of the HRA on the relationship between the judiciary, executive and Parliament, and whether domestic courts are being unduly drawn into areas of policy"

This is such a diffuse and difficult question to answer and ultimately depends on your definition of "policy"...
The framing of the question gives lie to this being a neutral 20-year "review". It's not, because the government plainly wants the outcome to be a finding that the HRA has led to courts "unduly" being drawn into areas of "policy"
There will be certain members of the panel, e.g. Sir Stephen Laws of the Judicial Power Project, who will argue strongly that the HRA has led to courts being "unduly" drawn into areas of policy.
"The implications of the way in which the Human Rights Act applies outside the territory of the UK and whether there is a case for change."

Again, expected, this is really about a hobby horse of certain members of the government re the HRA applying to theatres of war abroad.
This statement from the Lord Chancellor is disingenuous. If this really was a review of whether HRA was "working effectively", terms of reference would include analysing whether HRA is working effectively, i.e. has it been an effective means of protecting people's human rights.
It is actually somewhat mad that terms of reference do not include reviewing effectiveness of the Human Rights Act, in its 20 years of operation, in protecting rights of individuals. That's the whole point. Any concerns should be weighed against a careful review of its success.
The panel - it's not terrible, a number of independent thinkers on there who will be concerned to do a rigorous job and won't want their reputations traduced by being seen as government patsies.
I don't know everyone on it but would suggest on average panel 'leans in' to govt view of the HRA being constitutionally tricky and potentially needing reigning in - Stephen Laws will be a strong voice for that - but I don't think a foregone conclusion and not a kangaroo court..
... But, having said that, there are no obvious Human Rights Act supporters on panel - others may correct me, I don't know all the names well.

This is not an attempt to create a balanced panel - more, I suggest, a credible panel of experts who govt hope will do what it wants

More from Adam Wagner

🚨Important changes to lockdown/self-isolation regulations from 5pm

The Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (All Tiers and Self-Isolation) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

£800 'house party' FPN & police can now access track & trace data

https://t.co/k9XCpVsXhC


“Large gathering offence”

As trailed by Home Secretary last week there is now a fixed penalty notice of £800 (or £400 if you pay within 14 days) for participating in an gathering of over 15 people in a private residence


Fixed Penalty Notices double for each subsequent “large gathering offence” up to £6,400

Compare:
- Ordinary fixed penalty notice is £200 or £100 if paid in 14 days
- Holding or being involved in the holding of a gathering of over 30 people is £10,000


Second big change:

Since September has been a legal requirement to sell-isolate if you test positive/notified by Track & Trace of exposure to someone else who tested positive

Police can now be given access to NHS Track & Trace data if for the purpose of enforcement/prosecution


This will make it easier for police to enforce people breaking self-isolation rules. Currently there has been practically no enforcement.

Data says only a small proportion of people meant to be self-isolating are fully doing so.
A year ago, the idea that you could close every restaurant, café and pub in the capital without a Parliamentary vote or even a debate would have been unthinkable. Today we have allowed government by executive decree and it now seems normal. Covid lawmaking has corroded democracy

To explain: since March, the government has used the Public Health (Control of Diseases) Act 1984 to pass lockdown laws - over 60 (I have listed them here
https://t.co/5Z1p3gVjbX).


The lockdown laws have imposed stringent restrictions on movement, freedom of association, family life, religion etc. But each and every lockdown law passed has used the super emergency procedure which allows the government to pass them without a parliamentary vote for 28 days

The government did this for months before MPs revolted at which point it promised to put any major changes before parliament first. It has done this since the three tiers in mid-October.

BUT...

(1) The govt is still only giving parliament about 12 hours to consider laws and the vote is a simple yes or no

(2) Changes to tiered areas are not considered major changes so these don't go to a vote until 28 days later by which time it has usually changed.
A short thread on why I am dubious that the government can lawfully impose charges on travellers entering the UK for quarantine and testing (proposed at £1,750 and £210)

1/

The UK has signed up to the International Health Regulations (IHA) 2005. These therefore create binding international legal obligations on the UK.

The IHA explicitly prevent charging for travellers' quarantine or medical examinations.

https://t.co/n4oWE8x5Vg /2


International law is not actionable in a UK court unless it has been implemented in law.

But it can be used as an aide to interpretation where a statute isn't clear as to what powers it grants.

See e.g. Lord Bingham in A v SSHD https://t.co/RXmib1qGYD

/3


The Quarantine regulations will, I assume, be made under section 45B of the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984

https://t.co/54L4lHGMEr

/4


That gives pretty broad powers but I can't see any power to charge for quarantine. Perhaps it will be inferred from somewhere else in Part 2A?

But...

You May Also Like

1/12

RT-PCR corona (test) scam

Symptomatic people are tested for one and only one respiratory virus. This means that other acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


2/12

It is tested exquisitely with a hypersensitive non-specific RT-PCR test / Ct >35 (>30 is nonsense, >35 is madness), without considering Ct and clinical context. This means that more acute respiratory infections are reclassified as


3/12

The Drosten RT-PCR test is fabricated in a way that each country and laboratory perform it differently at too high Ct and that the high rate of false positives increases massively due to cross-reaction with other (corona) viruses in the "flu


4/12

Even asymptomatic, previously called healthy, people are tested (en masse) in this way, although there is no epidemiologically relevant asymptomatic transmission. This means that even healthy people are declared as COVID


5/12

Deaths within 28 days after a positive RT-PCR test from whatever cause are designated as deaths WITH COVID. This means that other causes of death are reclassified as