This paper evaluates the “mirror principle” which has recently been embraced by the senior appellate court. According to the House of Lords, the domestic courts must not deviate from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights when interpreting the meaning and application of rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. Focusing solely on the ‘scope’ stage of rights interpretation, it is first argued that there is no legal source which mandates such a principle. More importantly, there is no compelling reason why the national courts should be unable to extend the peripheries of these municipal rights beyond the scope of Convention rights currently envisaged by the European Court (Part I). There are in fact a number of very good reasons why the courts should remain unrestrained in adopting a more generous interpretative role (Part II). Finally, in order to quell any concerns of judicial activism, several restraints are outlined which should colour this new dynamic approach (Part III).