is the fact that they are, in some parts, based upon
interpretations of the existing Convention on Human
Rights which are somewhat loose, to say the least. For
example, the Working Paper, which we must assume
will form a blueprint for any Bill of Rights which finally
emerges, states that the original Convention places a
restriction upon the rights of people when weighed against
their responsibilities. For example, an individual’s right
to a private and family life has to be weighed against any
danger they might represent to other individuals or the
wider public. In the original Convention, however, this is
a general principle and is meant to be applied only in the
broadest sense, i.e. that the individuals rights have to be
balanced by the rights of others. By drawing a link between
‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’, the Conservative plans
seem to suggest a situation in which actions in the past (a
breach of responsibilities) could limit rights in the present.
The assertion that this would simply be a reflection of the
ECHR as it stands relies upon a misreading, at best, of
the balance between rights and responsibilities within the
ECHR. This begs the question why, if the change is indeed
to be so slight, it has to be made at all, particularly bearing
in mind the reputational damage it might wreak. Any
attempt to put words such as ‘but’, or ‘except’ at the end
of statements heralding basic human rights, other than in
the case of clear and present danger to others, is a dilution
of rights which, presently, occupy a pan-national position
above the legal system of any single country.
The direct effects of a British Bill of Rights upon criminal
cases in the UK depend upon two different variables. The
first, and more easily guessed, is the actual detail of what
is included within the bill once it is published. The second,
and much more difficult to gauge, is the content of any
bill finally passed, after its lengthy consultation period.
Changes which are certainly intended to take their place in
the Bill include:
•
•
•
•
Those convicted of “serious offences” (not limited to
offences relating to terrorism) will lose their right to
stay in the UK under Human Rights Laws
The right to a family life will be much more limited in
scope than is currently the case
As soon as a basic right is allowed to be open to third
party interpretation – deciding what represents a
“serious case” – then it ceases to be a basic right
Defendants will not be able to use Human Rights
legislation as a defence against breaking other laws
The lengthy consultation process which is just about to
start will provide an opportunity for anyone interested
in the law in the UK, and particularly in the rights of
defendants, to engage and attempt to play a part, however
small, in framing the forthcoming Bill of Rights
Bambos Tsiattalou is the founding partner of Stokoe
Partnership Solicitors
Bambos Tsiattalou is a Senior Partner and founding
member of Stokoe Partnership Solicitors, a criminal
litigation practice specialising in defending very serious
crime. He specialises in a range of serious criminal matters
and have been repeatedly featured in Chambers & Partners
as a leader in the field of criminal defence with a strong
reputation for client care and attention to detail.
About Stokoe Partnership Solicitors
Stokoe Partnership is a criminal litigation practice that
specialises in defending very serious crime. They work
in all types of crime, with particular expertise in serious
fraud, proceeds of crime, money laundering, drug
trafficking, extradition, and bribery and corruption cases.
the barrister Hilary Term 2016
barmag67.indd 29
29
03/12/2015 10:21