This chapter assesses changes in judicial approach and technique since the enactment of the Human Rights Act (HRA), and whether they are irreversible. It considers the language of analysis; the significance of terms such as ‘deference’, ‘institutional competence’, and ‘weight’; and the interpretative obligation in s.3 HRA enabling radical re-interpretation, and its relationship with the s.4 power to make declarations of incompatibility. It asks whether the ‘no less, but certainly no more’ than Strasbourg approach, with its need to predict outcomes in Strasbourg, reflects a ‘domestic remedy for breach of international obligations’ view of the HRA, or is an indication of the courts' understanding of their constitutional role and its limits. Finally, it suggests it is important not to sideline or forget the potential of the common law and the continued relevance and importance of traditional common law public law techniques.