• Home
  • Subscribe
  • Case table
  • About
  • Topics
    • Legal topics
      • Children
      • Criminal
      • Employment
      • Environment
      • European
      • Freedom of Information
      • Immigration/Extradition
      • Inquests and Inquiries
      • Family
      • International
      • Media
      • Medical
      • Mental Health
      • Politics / Public Order
      • Prisons
      • Religion
      • Terrorism
    • Introduction to Human Rights
    • Article 2
    • Article 3
    • Article 4
    • Article 5
    • Article 6
    • Article 7
    • Article 8
    • Article 9
    • Article 10
    • Article 11
    • Article 12
    • Article 13
    • Article 14
    • Protocol 1 Article 1
    • Protocol 1 Article 3
    • Protocol 2 Article 1
  • Archive
  • Contact

UK Human Rights Blog

Feeds:
Posts
Comments
« Watchdog calls for rule changes after barred voters fiasco
Minimum standards of dignity must be upheld for asylum seekers »

Strong reaction to universal jurisdiction rule change

July 29, 2010 by Adam Wagner

He can come now

The proposed change to the rules for bringing on who can apply for international war crimes arrest warrants has predictably generated some strong reactions

The changes will make it necessary to get the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before an arrest warrant can be granted. The Ministry of Justice say they are changing the rules in order to prevent arrests happening after the presentation of “flimsy” evidence. Those who fear arrest under the current system range from Israeli ministers to the Pope.

Commentators have been split on the issue. A group of campaigners have also written to the Guardian today arguing that “Since we call on other countries to uphold human rights and international law, our legal system also has to abide by those principles, in particular bringing to justice those responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, torture and hostage-taking”.

Michael Mansfield QC, a leading barrister, also writes in the Guardian:

In these circumstances [the Israeli flotilla raid], where states and governments have failed to ensure compliance with the norms of international law and justice, it is absolutely vital that the private citizen should have the right to instigate the arrest of a transgressor. This is why the justice secretary’s recent announcement that the coalition intends to circumscribe the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, so that it will be far more difficult to bring anyone accused of serious human rights violations before the courts, is such a retrograde step.

Meanwhile, Joshua Rozenberg makes the opposite point, arguing that the changes will actually safeguard universal jurisdiction:

Under Labour’s plans, the only people who could have obtained an arrest warrant for an offence of universal jurisdiction would have been the director of public prosecutions and law officers. Under the coalition’s proposals, however, a private prosecutor would be able to obtain an arrest warrant, provided the DPP had given consent.

He responds directly to Michael Mansfield’s argument that the idea that arrests will only take place if it is likely to lead to a prosecution, asking “Why should defendants be arrested in Britain if there is no chance that they will be tried here? Mansfield has no answer beyond the vague suggestion that fear of arrest in Britain, though not prosecution, would somehow deter war crimes.”

Read more:

  • Human rights universal jurisdiction arrest law to change
  • “Hell on earth” Gaza acquittal a miscarriage of justice?

Rate this:

Share:

  • Email
  • Digg

Like this:

Like
Be the first to like this post.

Posted in Art. 6 | Right to Fair Trial, In the news, Judges and Juries, Politics / Public Order | Tagged human rights, universal jurisdiction |

  • Welcome!

    UK Human Rights Blog is written by members of 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscription is free.

    Editorial Team

    • Adam Wagner
    • Rosalind English
    • Angus McCullough QC

  • Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog for free and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 10,250 other followers

  • Browse by legal topic

  • RSS Recommended

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • Supreme Court judgment: Assange v Swedish Judicial Authority - Carl Gardner May 30, 2012
    • Julian Assange's extradition stayed thanks to quick legal footwork | Joshua Rozenberg | Law | guardian.co.uk May 30, 2012
    • New Judgment: Assange v The Swedish Judicial Authority [2012] UKSC 22 May 30, 2012
    • What if Julian Assange loses in the Supreme Court? May 29, 2012
    • Secret justice concessions won't silence its critics | The Spectator May 29, 2012
    • ICLR's case summaries are now on Guardian Law | Daniel Hoadley | Law | guardian.co.uk May 29, 2012
    • The High Court is unable to agree on Twitter Joke Trial appeal - David Allen Green May 28, 2012
  • RSS Case law

    • Assange v The Swedish Prosecution Authority [2012] UKSC 22 (30 May 2012) May 30, 2012
      Supreme Court rules by 5-2 majority that Julian Assange must be extradited to Sweden. Definition of "judicial authority" is a wide one.
    • SCOPPOLA v. ITALY (No. 3) - 126/05 [2012] ECHR 868 (22 May 2012) May 23, 2012
      ECtHR Grand Chamber: automatic and indiscriminate disenfranchisement of prisoners unlawful but up to individual states how to implement changes were such a ban exist
    • Dishonesty in entry clearance applications May 21, 2012
      An Upper Tribunal (UT) decision confirms that, where an application for entry clearance is “marred by dishonesty” – whether in the applicant’s knowledge or not and even where the applicant is presently eligible for entry – it is not a disproportionate response for the Home Secretary to refuse the application, even in light of Article 8
    • MM and AO (A Child), R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ 668 (18 May 2012) May 18, 2012
      Secretary of State acted lawfully in not ordering independent inquiry into 2009 protest at Immigration Detention Centre. Challenge by children separated from parents during protest and claiming pschiatric damage as result.
    • British Sky Broadcasting Ltd & Ors, R (on the application of) v Chelmsford Crown Court [2012] EWHC 1295 (Admin) (17 May 2012) May 17, 2012
      Sky, BBC, ITN etc. succeed in JR of decision by court to order production of 100+ hours of video footage to Essex Police of Dale Farm protesters: "... there were no reasonable grounds for believing that the footage of over 100 hours included material likely to be of substantial value to the investigation"
    • Humphreys v Revenue and Customs [2012] UKSC 18 (16 May 2012) May 16, 2012
      Supreme Court: paying child tax credit to "main" care giver not discriminatory under art.14 ECHR to father caring for child 3 days per week. The specific test for justifying discrimination in the context of state benefits is that with questions of social and economic strategy the Court will generally respect the legislature’s policy choice unless i […]
  • Wikio - Top Blogs - Law
  • UKHRB on Twitter

    • #Assange loses SC appeal 5 votes to 2. Like to be #ECtHR application to block #extradition 4 hours ago
    • #Assange Supreme Court decision imminent bbc.co.uk/news/uk-182594… #extradition 5 hours ago
    • Also fresh on the blog- The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on by David Hart QC ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/the… 5 hours ago
    • Good morning all, @IsabelMcArdle here. Justive and Security Bill- the govt is not for turning by Angela Patrick ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… 5 hours ago
    Follow @ukhumanrightsb
  • Adam Wagner on Twitter

    • RT @simonmckay: Catt v Metropolitan Police. Important case on #protest and #dataretention. Would be surprised if it was not appealed:htt ... 41 minutes ago
    • For anyone who hasn't read it > Justice & Security Bill: Government is not for turning - Angela Patrick of @justicehq: wp.me/pJiO3-3Gc 57 minutes ago
    • RT @CrowtherSimon: Excellent piece by @justicehq's Angela Patrick on Just& Sec Bill on @ukhumanrightsb ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/05/29/jus… #secretj ... 58 minutes ago
    • RT @I_am_peevee: @AdamWagner1 @gideonconn "and excellent artist"... 1 hour ago
    • My friend and brilliant musician @GideonConn has a brand new video: youtube.com/watch?v=tX-ZrZ… 1 hour ago
    • Excellent from @joshuarozenerg on the potentially embarrassing mess surrounding the #Assange ruling is.gd/4Qs0h3 1 hour ago
    Follow @adamwagner1
  • RSS Recent posts

    • The Erika: Cour de Cassation has its thinking cap on May 29, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Justice and Security Bill: The Government is not for turning – Angela Patrick May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • We need to think about Kevin May 29, 2012 Rosalind English
    • Key Justice and Security Bill resources May 29, 2012 Adam Wagner
    • Free Speech at Work: A 1COR Seminar and Mock Trial – Wed 27th June May 29, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
    • Time and time again: Article 6 to the rescue May 27, 2012 David Hart QC
    • Prisoner voting, Bratza’s replacement and peaceful protest – The Human Rights Roundup May 27, 2012 Wessen Jazrawi
    • The case for letting prisoners vote – Reuven Ziegler May 24, 2012 1 Crown Office Row
  • Links

    • 1 Crown Office Row
    • 1COR Human Rights Update
    • 1COR resources
    • A(nother) Lawyer Writes
    • Ashley Connick's Blog
    • AVMA Blog
    • BAILII
    • Beneath the Wig
    • British Institute of Human Rights
    • Cearta.ie
    • Charon QC
    • David Allen Green
    • ECHR Blog
    • ECHR News
    • Education Law Blog
    • EJIL Talk!
    • eutopia Law
    • Family Lore
    • Free Movement Blog
    • Garrulous Law
    • Guardian Legal Network
    • Halsbury's Law Exchange
    • Head of Legal
    • Human Rights in Ireland
    • Inforrm's Blog
    • Inner Temple Current Awareness
    • Jack of Kent
    • Jailhouse Lawyer's Blog
    • Joint Council for Welfare of Immigrants
    • Joshua Rozenberg's Blog
    • Law and Lawyers
    • Law Think
    • Lawbore
    • Lawyer Watch
    • Legal Week Legal Village
    • Meeja Law
    • Mental Health Law Online
    • Nearly Legal
    • Panopticon Blog
    • PHD Studies in Human Rights
    • Pink Tape
    • RightsNI
    • RPC Privacy Blog
    • Strasbourg Observers
    • The Human Rights Blog
    • The Justice Gap
    • The Magistrate's Blog
    • The Pupillage Blog
    • The Small Places
    • The Time Blawg
    • UK Constitutional Law Group blog
    • UK Freedom of Information Blog
    • UK Immigration Law Blog
    • UK Supreme Court Blog
    • Venables legal resources
    • Watching the Law
  • Disclaimer

    This blog is maintained for information purposes only. It is not intended to be a source of legal advice and must not be relied upon as such. Blog posts reflect the views and opinions of their individual authors, not of chambers as a whole.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Theme: Customized MistyLook by Sadish.


loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.