On Wednesday, 12 November 2025, the Institute for Human Rights, in collaboration with the GCDC, held an expert panel event entitled ‘Reforming Human Rights after the Independent Review of the Human Rights Act’. In her opening remarks, Professor Virginia Mantouvalou (UCL Laws, Institute for Human Rights) explained that the event was organised to discuss lessons learned from the Independent Human Rights Act Review (IHRAR) and, importantly, how the Human Rights Act (HRA) can now be reformed to enhance human rights protection in the UK. The event was organised by Dr John Sorabji (UCL Laws, Independent Legal Adviser to the IHRAR Panel).
Sir Peter Gross (former Lord Justice of Appeal, Chair of the IHRAR Panel) began by explaining that IHRAR reviewed the operation of the HRA and, based on the evidence presented, proposed a coherent package of reforms aimed at delivering both domestic and international benefits. He noted that while current debates about the UK’s relationship with the ECHR will have an impact on IHRAR, certain features will remain important regardless of the political path chosen. These features include the observation that developing settled public acceptance of the HRA requires majority ownership of the rights regime and its contents, the recommendation that the government establish an effective civic and constitutional education programme in educational institutions, and the principle that any approach to reform must be evidence-based. He concluded by expressing hope that IHRAR will be accorded proper attention in ongoing debates.
Raj Desai (Barrister, Matrix Chambers) observed a trend towards greater judicial restraint in decision-making since the IHRAR report. Drawing on Professor Conor Gearty’s arguments, Desai provided some examples to illustrate how recent Supreme Court case law has moved towards increased judicial restraint, perhaps in ways that do not fully reflect the legislative intent behind the HRA. He argued that this move weakens some of the critiques of alleged judicial overreach or judicial activism. He emphasised the importance of ensuring that debates around the ECHR and the HRA are evidence-based. He also suggested addressing critiques at their root by providing a clear, principled response to the claim that judges determining rights issues is undemocratic. The answer, he argued, lies in showing that there are limits to what the majority should be able to do in a liberal democracy, and democracy becomes unhealthy if those limits are not maintained. Judges, as unelected officials, are well placed to uphold these limits.
On the question of whether the UK should leave the ECHR and repeal the HRA, Simon Davis (former partner, Clifford Chance) posited that the answer is no – but not never. He warned that were the UK to withdraw from the ECHR or repeal the HRA to promote its own brand of human rights, its credibility in advocating universal human rights – particularly with regimes that have poor human rights records – would be at risk. To address the current situation, where human rights are at risk of becoming politicised and judicial reputation is being attacked, Davis suggested not leaving the ECHR or repealing the HRA, but adopting a twin-track approach: targeted domestic legislative reform and active engagement with other European countries. Only if, after these measures, the ECtHR decides that the UK’s best efforts on legitimate issues of national concern are unlawful and inconsistent with European principles, might leaving the Convention become a consideration.
Professor George Letsas (UCL Laws, Institute for Human Rights) observed that there are powerful incentives in modern democracies for politicians and parts of the media to undermine public support for human rights and cause distrust. He outlined three main challenges faced by the HRA and the ECHR in recent years: (1) attempts to reduce the circle of human rights beneficiaries to a group that is portrayed as underserving, (2) attempts to frame human rights as foreign law rather than British law, and (3) claims that judges overreach or exceed their authority when interpreting human rights. Professor Letsas called for action to refute these arguments and show why they are misplaced. On the first point, he emphasised that individual rights inherently carry costs to the public interest, which society generally accepts; the key is that rights are not for select groups but for everyone, and it is better to live in a society that respects rights than one that does not. On the second point, he stressed that the value of human rights lies in their content rather than their source – if rights protect everyone based on principles of universal morality, their source is irrelevant. On the third point, Professor Letsas explained that the ECHR is a living instrument: when courts interpret the Convention in light of new circumstances, they are not creating new rights but applying old principles to new facts.
Dr Natalia Morales Cerda (UCL Laws, GCDC) brought a comparative perspective to the discussion, drawing on models from two Latin American countries: Mexico and Chile. Chile represents a hierarchical model, as the exercise of sovereignty is limited by respect for rights guaranteed both by the Constitution and by international human rights treaties ratified by Chile. However, while the Constitution recognises the binding force of treaties, it does not clearly define their position within the domestic hierarchy, leading to uncertainty. By contrast, Mexico, following a 2011 constitutional reform, now requires authorities to apply human rights norms in accordance with both the Constitution and international treaties, always favouring the broadest protection of the person – an idea known as the pro-person principle. This represents a shift from subsidiarity, where international law intervenes only when domestic law fails, to complementarity, where both systems work together in a mutually reinforcing way. While some challenges remain, the Mexican experience shows that a constitution can retain supremacy while remaining open to international law.
Following the presentations, the event concluded with a question-and-answer session with participants.
Watch a video recording of the event on UCL Laws’ YouTube channel, or view it directly below.
