It was introduced to the House of Commons by Dominic Raab, the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Secretary of State for Justice, on 22 June 2022.

[5] In the Queen's Speech in May 2022, the Government committed to introducing the new Bill of Rights, arguing that the legislation would seek to "end the abuse of the human rights framework and restore some common sense to our justice system.”[6] On 15 June 2022, the week before the Bill was introduced to Parliament, the Strasbourg Court issued an interim order stopping a flight due to transport asylum seekers from the UK as part of the Rwanda asylum plan.

[8] In the UK Government announcement for the Bill, Dominic Raab argued that the proposed law would "strengthen our UK tradition of freedom whilst injecting a healthy dose of common sense into the system" and it would also "reinforce freedom of speech, enable us to deport more foreign offenders and better protect the public from dangerous criminals".

After the reinstatement of Dominic Raab as Lord Chancellor as part of Rishi Sunak’s first cabinet, it was suggested the Bill would return to Parliament.

[citation needed] The Government faced criticism from leading lawyers and academics about side-lining parliamentary and public scrutiny, in the process of creating and introducing the Bill.

'[13] Daniella Lock, Postdoctoral Fellow at the Bonavero Institute of Human Rights in the Faculty of Law, University of Oxford, criticised the absence of parliamentary scrutiny measures before the Bill was introduced.

However, some of the subsequent clauses in the Bill would allow for narrower readings of these rights and greater departure from the case law of the ECHR.

[23][22] Clause 3 provides that the Supreme Court is the 'ultimate judicial authority on questions arising under domestic law in connection with the Convention rights'.

[23][22] However the scope of Article 10 of the ECHR is wider than just free speech- it protects freedom of expression and not only the use of speech, writing and images.

Clause 4 also includes multiple exceptions to the proposed special protection for free speech: it would not apply to cases involving criminal matters, breach of confidence, immigration or citizenship, or national security.

Under clause 6, the court would have to 'give the greatest possible weight to the importance of reducing the risk to the public from persons who have committed offences in respect of which custodial sentences have been imposed' when deciding on whether there has been a breach of Convention rights.

Clause 8 requires that if courts are making an assessment of a breach to Article 8 (Private and Family Life) in a deportation case, they may only find there has been a breach where there is 'manifest harm to a qualifying member of [the potential deportee's] family that is so extreme that the harm would override the otherwise paramount public interest in removing [the person] from or requiring [the person] to leave the United Kingdom.'

It is also only in the most 'compelling circumstances' that extreme harm can be found to affect a family member other than a qualifying child or that the public interest favours not deporting the person.

[1] Clause 7 emphasises the deference courts should give to Parliament when they make assessments of incompatibility between a piece of legislation and a Convention right.

The Bill retains the current power in s4 HRA 1998 to declare legislation incompatible in Clause 10 but seeks to enhance the weight of Parliamentary decision making in the minds of judges; Clause 7 requires that judges treat Parliament as having decided that the statute strikes the appropriate balance between competing rights and 'give the greatest possible weight to the principle that, in a Parliamentary democracy, decisions about how such a balance should be struck are properly made by Parliament’.

In this way it replicates the same requirement in s6 HRA 1998, however this would apply in the narrower sense of interpretation of rights allowed to the courts by earlier clauses.

[1] In contrast Article 34 ECHR provides the permission requirement does not apply where 'respect for human rights' requires the case to be examined and Strasbourg case law also develops certain guidelines, for instance the 'significant disadvantage' clause in Article 34 will be unlikely to rule out proceedings in relation to the right to life or freedom from torture.

[28] Mark Elliott, professor of public law at the University of Cambridge, argued that the Bill is "a piece of legislation that the Government claims enhances human rights protection but which in fact significantly diminishes it" and that it "smacks of authoritarian resistance to scrutiny and is antithetical to the best traditions of the British constitution".

[37][page needed] Following the United States of America Supreme Court case Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization which overturned the constitutional right to abortion set out in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Labour MPs suggested that a right to abortion should be included within the Bill.

[38] Stella Creasy MP subsequently suggested she would propose an amendment to the Bill during its passage through parliament in order to introduce a right to abortion and hoped for a conscience vote.

That is, Dr Hughes suggests, the area is not settled but is in fact currently being heavily litigated at Supreme Court level and below.

'[44][page needed][40] There is also a pending judgment from a reference by the Attorney General for Northern Ireland to the Supreme Court, heard on 19 July 2022.