The introduction of a Human Rights Act would provide more robust checks on executive power by placing a duty on public authorities to make decisions and act in accordance with human rights. Non-human rights compliant decisions could be reviewed and set aside by a court. This would help to strengthen accountability over executive decisions, and create an important recourse for people subject to arbitrary decisions that breach their human rights. As the Australian Law Association submitted: Belmarsh Case59 In the UK, a detention regime was introduced in the aftermath of 9/11 that targeted for indefinite incarceration only suspected international terrorists who had not been granted a criminal trial. The regime did not extend to suspected national terrorists. Those detained under this regime were suspected international terrorists who lived in Britain but who could not be sent back to their home countries because of a risk that they would be tortured or killed (under nonrefoulement rules). However, they could not be tried in court following ordinary criminal law rules, because of a lack of evidence. Instead they were detained indefinitely in Belmarsh prison. The detainees’ case was taken before the House of Lords. The control orders were challenged on the grounds that they breached rights to liberty and non-discrimination. The Government argued that the orders were a necessary measure to protect the nation during public emergency.60 The House of Lords held that the provisions under which detainees were being held at Belmarsh prison were incompatible with the right to liberty. The measures were unjustified, including because they did not rationally address the threat to security and they were not a proportionate response. A charter of human rights would ensure that those who wield power within Australia’s federal institutions are subjected to a code of conduct in accordance with the rule of law which operates to prevent them from exercising power in such a way as to infringe upon the rights of people.58 The following UK case study illustrates how the UK Human Rights Act has led to increased accountability for human rights abuses, in line with democratic principles. Importantly, indefinite detention powers that apply only to some of those who pose a threat (namely, only international suspected terrorists and not nationals), could not be said to be ‘strictly required’ noting that the terrorist threat in the UK was also posed by national terrorists. The regime was also found to have the effect of discriminating between foreigners and nationals of the state. The regime was replaced with a new ‘control order’ scheme that did not distinguish based on nationality. This new regime also attracted judicial scrutiny and was made (somewhat) more human rights compliant over time.61 Conor Gearty comments on the impact of this case: The Human Rights Act had passed an early and great test … Parliamentarians, cabinet Ministers, and civil servants proved themselves inclined to take human rights seriously even when the human rights law itself did not require that they should ... The result is surely a better form of human rights protection, precisely because it is democratically entrenched.62 FREE AND EQUAL A Human Rights Act for Australia 2022 75