Please have a read through the information provided below and answer the question with relevant references.
I do feel that the Human Rights Act 1998 does somewhat erode Parliamentary Sovereignty. After researching the topic, it is clear why this question is so relevant.
Those against the European Court Human Rights highlight that UK MPs can indirectly overturn legal rulings made in British Courts through decisions they make in Parliament, and cites that due to this MPs are the highest legal authority in the UK’s constitutional structure, who importantly are elected by their constituents. The argument begins when it is considered that decisions made by judges from the European Court of Human Rights are not subject to the same scrutiny (Wagner, 2011). e.g. ‘article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights states that the government must “abide by”, that is, it must follow, final decisions of the European Court of Human Rights’ (Wagner, 2011).
Speaking on this subject, Adam Wagner said ‘Any power that judges have, such as the power to prevent criminals being sent back to their home countries if to do so would breach their human rights, is directly conferred by decisions of parliament and can straightforwardly (well, fairly straightforwardly) be taken away. But it is more difficult to explain why the actions of UK judges are limited by a constitutional compromise developed over centuries, while European judges have been given enormous power almost via the back door.’ (Wagner, 2011). This frustration is echoed in the media, an example of which is The Telegraph’s claim in 2015 that ‘At least 20 foreign terrorists have used the Human Rights Act to remain in the UK’ (Mendick, 2015).
This helps to show the mood and scepticism from many about the jurisdiction of the ECHR in the UK, but can anyone from the group provide some examples of where the ECHR is having a positive impact on the UK currently?
