Making deportation / extradition difficult on human rights grounds is right. However, making it difficult to expel someone on the basis of EU free movement rules is another. Reduced to basics, the EU treaties provide for freedom of movement but it is surely intended to apply to those who genuinely wish to seek honest work and not to protect those who refuse to abide by the laws of the receiving State. I believe that the EU ought to be taking a hard look at its position in this area and this could be done as part of process of the EU’s accession to the E Conv HR.

I wondered if your blog might have picked up on some recent statements that juries have a limited time left given modern economics. Jury trial is said to be massively more expensive than trials would be without them. (An argument about which I am far from convinced). I think that there is a ‘power game’ afoot in some quarters. The ‘power’ rests with the jury and this is a mere reflection of the fact that power, in a democracy, should rest with the people. The jury system requires the lawyers involved in a case to approach matters in a fair and objective way since, at the end of the trial, the decision rests with the jury and not with the lawyers/judge.

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13630/

After all: would you want to be married by a Registrar who, be s/he never so polite and professional, who thought you would roast in hell?

Why is a Registrar’s conscience worth less than that of a member of the clergy?

An academic discussion which fails to be debated with those representing popular concerns is, with all due respect, purely that, academic.

If confidence is to be placed in the ECHR, there is a need for a proper, open discussion on this issue, with senior members of the profession and the judiciary addressing the concerns that people have. As it stands, one might be forgiven for thinking that the way the ECHR is currently interpreted (articles 6 and 8 in particular) is a long way from the original concepts when it was first drafted.

I close with one final point: was the discussion saying that withdrawal from the ECHR, were it to happen, would mean the end of the application of human rights principles in the UK. Concepts such as that of a “fair trial” have existed in our law for many years and grown stronger. I fail to see that our Parliament and judges would not have developed them further, even in the absence of the Convention.

The UK never committed or obligated the UK to the European Convention of Human Rights.
ECHR

The UK deleted Article 1. The very article that “binds” the establishment to uphold ECHR
and corrupt judges removed Article 13. The Right to a remedy from the dishonest, fraudulent
British HRA Human Rights Act.

The UK establishment describes Article 1. ( the most important article ) as ” Introductory ” a
downright lie if ever there was one!

Article 13. was removed to maintain illegal control over HM Subjects denying them their Rights
as European Citizens

British citizens are “secretly enslaved” in a corrupted monarchy by a treasonous freemason
led and controlling legal mafia that operate in the police, courts, civil service,,judiciary, lawyers, etc.etc. their “Oath” overcomes their required loyalty to the Sovereign they operate
in stealth, guile, deceit, treachery, and are very cunning ! Google: Gorsey Hey masonic home
to see how they steal from their brothers charities !

Just Google: ECHR European Convention of Human Rights and then google The Human
Rights Act 2000 for confirmation of your status as a second rate European Citizen as a
subject of the Queen. Sixty years of gross neglect has allowed this corrupt mafia to flourish!

The job of a monarch is to rule, not to reign ! for sixty years apathy has allowed corrupted
interest groups to infiltrate the Countries controlling civil services allowing thefts, frauds,
persecution etc. etc. on a scale that is now unsustainable ! the country is bereft of direction
and purpose

Agreed. I think, particularly more prominent when such a “choice” can be linked to a need for choice due to inequality of arms, or, to something inherent in the issues attributable to that particular client / defendant – a very well qualified prosecutor needing to be matched by a very well qualified defence counsel (perhaps in serious crime matters), or cases of various criminal issues / charges / indictments against the same person, which could be seen as a course of conduct which requires the same defence for consistency – where if not provided, could result in an unfair trial.

To rule “choice” out completely without having any particular provision for exceptions, would not be a good thing for the government.

My layman view.

31. Article 6(3)(c) guarantees three rights to a person charged with a criminal offence: to defend himself in person, to defend himself through legal assistance of his own choosing and, on certain conditions, to be given legal assistance free. To link the corresponding phrases together, the English text employs on each occasion the disjunctive “or”; the French text, on the other hand, utilises the equivalent – “ou” – only between the phrases enouncing the first and the second right; thereafter, it uses the conjunctive “et”. The “travaux préparatoires” contain hardly any explanation of this linguistic difference. They reveal solely that in the course of a final examination of the draft Convention, on the eve of its signature, a Committee of Experts made “a certain number of formal corrections and corrections of translation”, including the replacement of “and” by “or” in the English version of Article 6(3)(c) (Collected Edition of the “Travaux préparatoires”, vol. IV, p. 1010). Having regard to the object and purpose of this paragraph, which is designed to ensure effective protection of the rights of the defence, the French text here provides more reliable guidance.