*/
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has had a ‘beneficial’ effect on UK judges, but Brexit could render it a ‘bliplet’ on the common law, the President of the Supreme Court said.
Addressing the Faculty of Law at the University of Singapore over the summer, Lord Neuberger considered whether, since the UK’s accession to the European Union and the bringing into UK law of the ECHR through the Human Rights Act 1998, England and Wales could still properly claim to be common law jurisdictions.
His speech, Has the identity of the English common law been eroded by EU laws and the European Convention on Human Rights?, determined that the common law was alive and well, although he said judges had at first been ‘so excited about the new toy [of the ECHR] that they left the old one [the common law] ‘in the cupboard’.
After the UK voted in the Referendum to leave the EU, he said: ‘Quite where this will lead remains to be seen, but it may well mean that the influence of EU law will be a 50-year blip on the near thousand years of the life of the common law’.
And, he said, the Government’s proposals to repeal and replace the 1998 Act ‘could result in the European Convention influence being no more than a 20-year bliplet on the life of the common law’.
As a serving judge, he declined to comment on whether the developments are good or bad.
Neuberger stated that the ‘direct influence of EU law has been significantly less than the direct influence of Convention law’.
He said: ‘The EU law cases which come to the UK courts involve the interpretation of EU Treaties, Directives and Regulations and of UK statutes intended to give effect to EU Directives. So the issues are essentially interpretational in nature.’
By contrast: ‘The extent of the reach of the Convention, through the medium of the 1998 Act, has been of such width and of such novelty it has had a significant (and I believe a generally beneficial) effect on the approach of UK judges when deciding cases.’
But he warned judges to ensure that in applying any principles from Strasbourg, they do not ‘undermine the essential characteristics of our constitutional system, based on the common law and parliamentary sovereignty’.
The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) has had a ‘beneficial’ effect on UK judges, but Brexit could render it a ‘bliplet’ on the common law, the President of the Supreme Court said.
Addressing the Faculty of Law at the University of Singapore over the summer, Lord Neuberger considered whether, since the UK’s accession to the European Union and the bringing into UK law of the ECHR through the Human Rights Act 1998, England and Wales could still properly claim to be common law jurisdictions.
His speech, Has the identity of the English common law been eroded by EU laws and the European Convention on Human Rights?, determined that the common law was alive and well, although he said judges had at first been ‘so excited about the new toy [of the ECHR] that they left the old one [the common law] ‘in the cupboard’.
After the UK voted in the Referendum to leave the EU, he said: ‘Quite where this will lead remains to be seen, but it may well mean that the influence of EU law will be a 50-year blip on the near thousand years of the life of the common law’.
And, he said, the Government’s proposals to repeal and replace the 1998 Act ‘could result in the European Convention influence being no more than a 20-year bliplet on the life of the common law’.
As a serving judge, he declined to comment on whether the developments are good or bad.
Neuberger stated that the ‘direct influence of EU law has been significantly less than the direct influence of Convention law’.
He said: ‘The EU law cases which come to the UK courts involve the interpretation of EU Treaties, Directives and Regulations and of UK statutes intended to give effect to EU Directives. So the issues are essentially interpretational in nature.’
By contrast: ‘The extent of the reach of the Convention, through the medium of the 1998 Act, has been of such width and of such novelty it has had a significant (and I believe a generally beneficial) effect on the approach of UK judges when deciding cases.’
But he warned judges to ensure that in applying any principles from Strasbourg, they do not ‘undermine the essential characteristics of our constitutional system, based on the common law and parliamentary sovereignty’.
Chair of the Bar reflects on 2025
Q&A with criminal barrister Nick Murphy, who moved to New Park Court Chambers on the North Eastern Circuit in search of a better work-life balance
Revolt Cycling in Holborn, London’s first sustainable fitness studio, invites barristers to join the revolution – turning pedal power into clean energy
Rachel Davenport, Co-founder and Director at AlphaBiolabs, reflects on how the company’s Giving Back ethos continues to make a difference to communities across the UK
By Marie Law, Director of Toxicology at AlphaBiolabs
AlphaBiolabs has made a £500 donation to Sean’s Place, a men’s mental health charity based in Sefton, as part of its ongoing Giving Back initiative
Little has changed since Burns v Burns . Cohabiting couples deserve better than to be left on the blasted heath with the existing witch’s brew for another four decades, argues Christopher Stirling
Six months of court observation at the Old Bailey: APPEAL’s Dr Nisha Waller and Tehreem Sultan report their findings on prosecution practices under joint enterprise
Despite its prevalence, autism spectrum disorder remains poorly understood in the criminal justice system. Does Alex Henry’s joint enterprise conviction expose the need to audit prisons? asks Dr Felicity Gerry KC
With automation now deeply embedded in the Department for Work Pensions, Alexander McColl and Alexa Thompson review what we know, what we don’t and avenues for legal challenge
Why were some Caribbean nations given such dramatically different constitutional frameworks when they gained independence from the UK? Dr Leonardo Raznovich examines the controversial savings clause
