Evaluate the view that human rights are no longer effectively protected in the UK. (30)
In the wake of the 2023 Public Order Act’s expansion of powers to police protests and
ongoing conflict in Parliament about whether the UK should leave the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), some political analysts argue that the UK no
longer has a ‘rights-based culture’, thus no longer are rights effectively protected. This
essay will analyse whether this is the case by evaluating the ability of the civil liberties
pressure groups to defend individual rights, the capacity of the Supreme Court and the
Human Right sAct (1998) to enforce fundamental liberties, and the role of the executive
and Parliament in both enhancing and eroding rights. Overall, this essay will argue that
it is more convincing to suggest that although the UK’s judicial framework for protecting
rights appears robust, the UK’s uncodified constitution and principle of parliamentary
sovereignty has allowed executive and legislative overreach to significantly weaken the
protection of rights in practice, rendering them ineffectively protected.
A key way to analyse whether rights are well protected in the UK is in relation to civil
liberties pressure groups. On the one hand, civil liberties pressure groups can be seen
as highly effective in protecting rights through public campaigns against the erosion of
rights and ensuring that rights remain high-profile in the political system. Insider
pressure groups can play a key role in protecting rights through advising the
government on developing legislation. For example, promotional groups Stonewall
played a vital role in lobbying the New Labour government to pass laws that protect the
rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in the UK, such as the 2000 Sexual Offences Act, which
equalised the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual couples to 16, for which
the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts had to be invoked to overrule House of Lords
opposition, and Stonewall’s influence was later seen in the passage of the 2010
Equality Act. This shows how insider groups can use their contacts and favour with
ideologically-aligned governments to further the rights that are protected for certain
groups in the UK. Also, outsider pressure groups can be highly effective in the
protection of rights through funding legal challenges to government legislation which
infringes on rights. Care4Calais, for instance, has played a key role in protecting the
rights of immigrants in the UK by initiating legal challenges against the government’s
attempts to deport individuals to Rwanda, and saw success in June 2022 when the first
planned flight to Rwanda was emptied out as a result of successful legal challenges,
and continued pressure from these civil liberties groups and the support of public
opinion (43% of the public were opposed to the Rwanda plan according to YouGov) led
to the policy being dropped altogether by the Labour government. This shows how
outsider methods such as legal challenges can be vital in the protection of rights by
limiting the actions of governments who seek to erode them. On the other hand, it is
more convincing to argue that civil liberties pressure groups can be seen as ineffective
© Humanities Unlocked. | Edexcel A-level Politics 2025 | For personal use only. Redistribution is
prohibited.
, in protecting rights because it is the government that ultimately makes the final decision
on legislation that affects rights, and campaigns on unpopular or marginalised groups
and causes who aren’t aligned with the government’s agenda have limited success,
such as the Howard League for Penal Reform, which campaigns for the rights of
prisoners. Further to this, the pressure group Liberty has been unable to get the Police,
Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (2022) or the Public Order Act (2023) repealed,
despite fronting very high-profile opposition campaigns like #KilltheBill, and these Acts
which have restricted the right to protest have been used very recently in March 2025 to
prevent farmers from protesting against an inheritance tax by blocking the roads with
tractors in Westminster. This shows that legal wins secured by pressure groups do not
deter subsequent executive encroachment on rights, so while pressure groups remain
indispensable rights watchdogs, their influence is inherently conditional on political and
public receptivity, and thus limited in effectiveness. On balance, while it is true that civil
rights pressure groups are somewhat effective at protecting rights by influencing the
passage of legislation and through legal challenges, on the whole it is more convincing
to argue that they are mostly ineffective in ensuring rights are equally protected,
especially when there is a strong government intent on eroding rights.
Despite this, some may argue that the Supreme Court plays a vital role in protecting
rights effectively by upholding the rule of law (one of A.V Dicey’s twin pillars of UK
democracy). The Human Rights Act (1998) incorporated the ECHR into UK law, and
some contend that this has created a rights-based culture in the UK, because as it is
law, the government and all private bodies must abide by it. The Supreme Court can
use its greatest power of judicial review to determine whether policies are compatible
with the Human Rights Act - if not, it issues a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, putting
pressure on Parliament to change or reverse its decisions. This can be seen with the
2004 Belmarsh case, in which in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, part
of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001) was ruled incompatible with section
5 of the Human Rights Act; this ruling forced the government to repeal the law and
introduce the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005). This demonstrates the persuasive
influence of the Human Rights Act, and that the Supreme Court, empowered by the Act,
can act as an effective check on executive power by directly compelling the government
to revise legislation that breaches fundamental civil liberties, and that while pressure
groups may initiate legal challenges, it is ultimately the courts that determine whether
rights are upheld in practice, especially preventing the government from using collective
rights as a justification for infringing upon individual rights. Also, judicial independence -
established through the separation of powers created by the 2005 Constitutional Reform
Act - is essential in strengthening the Supreme Court's role in protecting rights and
liberties, because the judiciary is not going to kowtow to the executive, and can
determine if a public authority has acted ultra vires. This can be seen in the case of R
© Humanities Unlocked. | Edexcel A-level Politics 2025 | For personal use only. Redistribution is
prohibited.
In the wake of the 2023 Public Order Act’s expansion of powers to police protests and
ongoing conflict in Parliament about whether the UK should leave the European
Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), some political analysts argue that the UK no
longer has a ‘rights-based culture’, thus no longer are rights effectively protected. This
essay will analyse whether this is the case by evaluating the ability of the civil liberties
pressure groups to defend individual rights, the capacity of the Supreme Court and the
Human Right sAct (1998) to enforce fundamental liberties, and the role of the executive
and Parliament in both enhancing and eroding rights. Overall, this essay will argue that
it is more convincing to suggest that although the UK’s judicial framework for protecting
rights appears robust, the UK’s uncodified constitution and principle of parliamentary
sovereignty has allowed executive and legislative overreach to significantly weaken the
protection of rights in practice, rendering them ineffectively protected.
A key way to analyse whether rights are well protected in the UK is in relation to civil
liberties pressure groups. On the one hand, civil liberties pressure groups can be seen
as highly effective in protecting rights through public campaigns against the erosion of
rights and ensuring that rights remain high-profile in the political system. Insider
pressure groups can play a key role in protecting rights through advising the
government on developing legislation. For example, promotional groups Stonewall
played a vital role in lobbying the New Labour government to pass laws that protect the
rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in the UK, such as the 2000 Sexual Offences Act, which
equalised the age of consent for heterosexual and homosexual couples to 16, for which
the 1911 and 1949 Parliament Acts had to be invoked to overrule House of Lords
opposition, and Stonewall’s influence was later seen in the passage of the 2010
Equality Act. This shows how insider groups can use their contacts and favour with
ideologically-aligned governments to further the rights that are protected for certain
groups in the UK. Also, outsider pressure groups can be highly effective in the
protection of rights through funding legal challenges to government legislation which
infringes on rights. Care4Calais, for instance, has played a key role in protecting the
rights of immigrants in the UK by initiating legal challenges against the government’s
attempts to deport individuals to Rwanda, and saw success in June 2022 when the first
planned flight to Rwanda was emptied out as a result of successful legal challenges,
and continued pressure from these civil liberties groups and the support of public
opinion (43% of the public were opposed to the Rwanda plan according to YouGov) led
to the policy being dropped altogether by the Labour government. This shows how
outsider methods such as legal challenges can be vital in the protection of rights by
limiting the actions of governments who seek to erode them. On the other hand, it is
more convincing to argue that civil liberties pressure groups can be seen as ineffective
© Humanities Unlocked. | Edexcel A-level Politics 2025 | For personal use only. Redistribution is
prohibited.
, in protecting rights because it is the government that ultimately makes the final decision
on legislation that affects rights, and campaigns on unpopular or marginalised groups
and causes who aren’t aligned with the government’s agenda have limited success,
such as the Howard League for Penal Reform, which campaigns for the rights of
prisoners. Further to this, the pressure group Liberty has been unable to get the Police,
Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act (2022) or the Public Order Act (2023) repealed,
despite fronting very high-profile opposition campaigns like #KilltheBill, and these Acts
which have restricted the right to protest have been used very recently in March 2025 to
prevent farmers from protesting against an inheritance tax by blocking the roads with
tractors in Westminster. This shows that legal wins secured by pressure groups do not
deter subsequent executive encroachment on rights, so while pressure groups remain
indispensable rights watchdogs, their influence is inherently conditional on political and
public receptivity, and thus limited in effectiveness. On balance, while it is true that civil
rights pressure groups are somewhat effective at protecting rights by influencing the
passage of legislation and through legal challenges, on the whole it is more convincing
to argue that they are mostly ineffective in ensuring rights are equally protected,
especially when there is a strong government intent on eroding rights.
Despite this, some may argue that the Supreme Court plays a vital role in protecting
rights effectively by upholding the rule of law (one of A.V Dicey’s twin pillars of UK
democracy). The Human Rights Act (1998) incorporated the ECHR into UK law, and
some contend that this has created a rights-based culture in the UK, because as it is
law, the government and all private bodies must abide by it. The Supreme Court can
use its greatest power of judicial review to determine whether policies are compatible
with the Human Rights Act - if not, it issues a ‘declaration of incompatibility’, putting
pressure on Parliament to change or reverse its decisions. This can be seen with the
2004 Belmarsh case, in which in A v Secretary of State for the Home Department, part
of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act (2001) was ruled incompatible with section
5 of the Human Rights Act; this ruling forced the government to repeal the law and
introduce the Prevention of Terrorism Act (2005). This demonstrates the persuasive
influence of the Human Rights Act, and that the Supreme Court, empowered by the Act,
can act as an effective check on executive power by directly compelling the government
to revise legislation that breaches fundamental civil liberties, and that while pressure
groups may initiate legal challenges, it is ultimately the courts that determine whether
rights are upheld in practice, especially preventing the government from using collective
rights as a justification for infringing upon individual rights. Also, judicial independence -
established through the separation of powers created by the 2005 Constitutional Reform
Act - is essential in strengthening the Supreme Court's role in protecting rights and
liberties, because the judiciary is not going to kowtow to the executive, and can
determine if a public authority has acted ultra vires. This can be seen in the case of R
© Humanities Unlocked. | Edexcel A-level Politics 2025 | For personal use only. Redistribution is
prohibited.
