Mr Raab told a committee of peers and MPs this week that he was looking at a mechanism that would allow Parliament to “correct” case law that it did not like “in a specific or special way”.
“It means examples like prisoner voting rights are going to be more common,” said a source.
Other Strasbourg judgments in recent years have included a case in which the court ruled that the Government’s “bedroom tax” discriminated against domestic violence victims.
The consultation paper is also expected to tell UK courts that they no longer have to abide by Strasbourg case law. “They should give primacy to UK case law, first and foremost,” said a source.
This would include halting the “drift” towards EU-style privacy laws in the wake of the court judgment in favour of the Duchess of Sussex in her battle with the Mail on Sunday over the leak of her private correspondence.
“I think the drift towards continental-style privacy laws innovated in the courtroom, not by elected lawmakers in the House of Commons, is something that we can and should correct,” Mr Raab said.
The third strand will emphasise that UK lawmakers do not have to comply with Strasbourg case law until such time as it might be ruled against by the European Court on Human Rights.
I’m ‘pro-judge’, says Raab
Mr Raab is also expected to propose tightening the interpretation of Article 8, which protects the right to a family life, to prevent its misuse by foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers to fight their removal from the UK. It is said to account for two-thirds of successful appeals.
He has cited the case of a drug dealer convicted of beating his ex-partner, a man who had not paid maintenance for his daughter, then successfully claimed the right to family life to avoid deportation.
However, the Justice Secretary is said to be resisting a push by Home Secretary Priti Patel to more tightly define Article 3 rights where people say they face torture, inhuman or degrading treatment if they are deported to their home countries.
Mr Raab is also expected to commit to strengthening freedom of speech, which he claims has been eroded by political correctness and by campaigns, and maintain that he is “pro-judge”, by ensuring a clear separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary.
