During the EU referendum campaign, the core message from Vote Leave was that a vote to Leave would be a vote to take back control over the UK’s laws, courts, money and borders. Of course, the majority of voters agreed. Now we are entering the General Election, the opportunity is there to take back complete control of our courts by also repealing the Human Rights Act and breaking free from the European Court of Human Rights. This is not a new idea; indeed, it has been Conservative Party policy for over ten years to repeal the Human Rights Act and establish a new British Bill of Rights. The pledge would replace the Human Rights Act (HRA), which took the UK fully into the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), with a new British Bill of Rights that the current Minister of Justice, Sir Oliver Heald QC, in 2006 called “suitable for Britain”. What suitability means is up for debate. What is not up for debate, however, is that it is a policy that has in the past been supported by many prominent Conservative Members of Parliament, including the current Justice Secretary, Liz Truss, and Prime Minister, Theresa May. Furthermore, another truth is that last year the UK electorate voted to take back control of its courts and, at the last General Election, voted for a party that promised to “break the formal link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights, and make our own Supreme Court the ultimate arbiter of human rights matters in the UK.” Yet these promises are yet to be delivered. Of course, it was understandable that due to the policy priority of Brexit, the Government – erring on the side of caution – announced a few months ago that it would delay plans for the British Bill of Rights. However, if the Conservative Party wins the General Election, there should be a sufficient majority in the Commons to ensure that a clean Brexit does not face significant opposition in Parliament. As such, it would be feasible for a Conservative government with an enhanced majority to repeal the Human Rights Act and leave the ECtHR. Of course, I’m sure some readers might be inclined to interject that membership of the ECtHR and the ECHR was not in question during the EU referendum. The vote itself was on whether or not the EU’s Court of Justice (ECJ) would hold the last say on issues involving pieces of EU law. However, there may well come a time when certain laws that the elected government wishes to repeal and/or introduce into the UK would be forbidden under ECHR rulings. This is because since the signing of the Maastricht Treaty, the EU’s Court of Justice uses the ECHR as a guiding principle in its case law. Indeed, there have already been cases such as the extradition of Abu Hamza that had been frustrated for years due to the UK’s ECHR membership. Further, rulings from the ECHR have allowed the introduction of super-injunctions into the UK legal system, and very nearly created a constitutional crisis over prisoner voting rights. In recent days it has been suggested that repealing the Human Rights Act is one of the five pledges that are most likely to be dropped in the Conservative Party’s manifesto and the Daily Telegraph reports this very day that “Britain will be bound by European human rights laws for another five years with the Conservatives expected to abandon a pledge to withdraw the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights.” This would be wrong. It’s not just that leaving the European Court of Human Rights would fulfil its previous promise to the country but that it would mean completely taking back control for our Parliament and court system. Leaving the European Court of Human Rights is a must in order to embrace legal and political freedom in the UK. Photocredit: eggs-on-toast