4 years ago today, the Supreme Court found in favour of two women victims of serial rapist John Worboys, against the Met Police & the Home Secretary. They found that the Human Rights Act DID impose an obligation on the State to properly investigate serious crimes like rape.

Judgment, summary and links to the hearings can be found here: https://t.co/RmJNQD8li2

What many people don’t know is that prior to the Human Rights Act, there was NO way for survivors like DSD & NBV to make such arguments in the UK Courts, let alone win. The Courts had repeatedly found that there was no duty for the police to investigate even very serious crimes.

Prior to the Human Rights Act, survivors had no recourse to justice, no matter how badly they had been failed by the police. Indeed the Met went all the way to the Supreme Court arguing there should not be such a legal duty. And the Home Sec agreed with them.

This duty arises from Articles 3 & 8. While they are framed as negative obligations, significantly, they impose positive duties on the State such that they MUST have a framework in place to try to prevent, catch and punish rapists. And they must also take steps to actually do so.

The Human Rights Act is arguably the most important piece of legislation in allowing women who are survivors of rape, sexual assault &/or domestic abuse to seek justice when the State fails them. Indeed the duties it imposes forces better State decisions, preventing some failures

So it is shocking that at this very moment, the government is trying to get rid of the Human Rights Act. Their consultation (closing soon) even sets out wanting to get rid of positive obligations being imposed - e.g. the one which obliges the police to investigate rape.

Any government wishing to eradicate violence against women and girls wouldn't be seeking to repeal the Human Rights Act or mess about with the positive obligations the Convention imposes. To do so may place women in more danger & will offer less accountability when failed.