The very fact that MI5 - and the security services generally - are accountable to our domestic courts flows from the ECHR decision of Malone.

One of many ways that Convention has benefitted our legal order.

Amazingly corrupt?

Anyway, I am about to turn in for today. @spinninghugo.bsky.social, a pleasure as always, 'til next time!

I don't know what ultimately scuppered HRA replacement plans but that does not change what Art 13 ECHR requires, according to the ECtHR.

Yes, it does still happen more than you'd think and definetly not just in those cases - eg hudoc.echr.coe.int?i=001-210494. I am cheating slightly because I am looking at a dataset with all judgments since 2002 right now - this was not off the top of my head.

And there's still plenty of Art 13 violations.

Correlation is not causality 🙂

That claim requires a lot more evidence. I would say it is no less predictable than courts in other legal systems that I know. Most importantly, you can never have a high level of predictability and clarity anyway: law (and language) is rarely that clear or self-executing and always fact sensitive.

There are, of course, good reasons to do all of these things, but Art 13 ECHR does not require them.

You need an effective domestic remedy. You notably do not need (a) to incorporate ECHR into domestic law; (b) resume domestic proceedings after ECtHR decision; (c) provide domestic appeal proceedings; (d) a remedy against primary legislation, or even (e) something like s3 HRA.

There are certainly some downsides, but these are not linked to the rule of law or democracy. Unless you can explain why democracy/rule of law necessarily requires not letting judges adjudicate human rights this is all just question begging and circular.

So Parliament and MPs are democratically empowered to take important policy decisions unless they make a decision to let judges decide (sometimes)? You do not need to have a democratic mandate to make law (eg common law) - the rule of law or representative democracy doesn't get you there.

Annother way is simply denying that the rule of law has anything to say whatsoever about what kind of laws Parliament can pass and what amount of leeway it can (or cannot) give to courts in interpretation of statute. Common law is pretty much nothing but judicial law-making and nobody seems to mind.