I’m the book reviewer for Public Law and we aim* for 1500 words per review, with minimal footnotes etc. I think the format works well for an academic journal.

*with some leeway - most reviews edge closer to 2000 words in practice

self-indulgent bullshit.

I agree that some judges, in some cases, are more receptive to common law arguments than ECHR - but that's just part and parcel of good litigation strategy! We'll have to agree to disagree on whether POL and s3 are similar - I'd argue that's more to do with judges not taking section 3 seriously!

I have no doubt that the common law can protect certain academic conceptions of the common good. But I am afraid that I remain unconvinced that the common law can hold a candle to the HRA when it comes to providing meaningful, substantive human rights protections, as much as I would love to be wrong

A final note. There are some academics - and to be crystal clear I am not saying the author is one of them - whose valorisation of the common law is motivated by their desire to bring (back?) about a legal system which looks very different to our liberal democratic model.

As much as certain specific areas of private law, such as the law relating to public authority evictions, have developed in a way which incorporates human rights standards: this would not have happened organically, independently of the duties under the HRA and content of the ECHR jurisprudence.

I’m unconvinced by some of the examples here. Proportionality review, despite some academic excitement, remains exclusive to the context of adjudicating upon HRA/ECHR rights. Sliding scale rationality review, which takes into account the weight of what is at stake, is a separate phenomenon.

Specificity: common law rights are vague and nebulous. ECHR rights are specific, enumerated and their application benefits from vast amounts of clarifying jurisprudence. Good luck successfully arguing that a right exists in the first place, never mind that it applies to the facts of your case.

Depth: common law rights are, in all but the most exceptional cases, relegated to being in effect interpretive presumptions, capable of being easily dislodged - often implicitly - by statutory wording. The common law provides nowhere near as strong like the interpretive obligation as section 3 HRA.

Breadth: the number of rights positively protected under the common law is not high. The common law canon is highly selective. It law does not protect your right to vote. It does not protect you from discrimination. It will not stop you from being subjected to the death penalty abroad.

Those human rights standards / values recognised under the common law lack the breadth, depth and specificity of the rights recognised under the HRA / ECHR. These three flaws are fatal imo. Here’s what I mean by each:

One of the best Nu Who episodes is probably Dalek because it’s literally… one dalek and it’s very scary!