Comments for UK Human Rights Blog

Comment on Please stow your rights in the overhead compartment by EU law

EU law — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:38:36 +0000

As far as I know EU Regulations are directly applicable. What is meant by the sentence “a regulation was introduced to deal with claims by disabled passengers, which required immediate implementation into domestic law”?

Comment on Indefinite detention: not very British by Exenon

Exenon — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:36:32 +0000

Human rights in the U.K.??? applies to all except the Irish. Remember how many thousands were imprisoned without trial, tortured and stabbed to death. Shot down unarmed women and children in the streets of what was ostensibly the United Kingdom.
Hypocritical and typical of the “land of hope and glory”

Comment on Indefinite detention: not very British by Dadzarmy

Dadzarmy — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:21:29 +0000

Qatada entered this country illegally, then threatened it, then demanded to stay in the country claiming the rights of the country he had just threatened.The ECHR simply wanted to make a cause out of Qatada by shifting the articles by which they were basing the judgement for him to stay to wrong foot the UK Government. The ECHR in this political gesture have just sown the seends for their removal from the UK legal system.

Comment on Hospital had human rights duty to protect voluntary patient from suicide, rules Supreme Court by ObiterJ

ObiterJ — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 21:17:45 +0000

One instinctively feels that this is a good decision. The distinction between voluntary patients and those “sectioned” had little real merit.

These decisions demonstrate the huge importance of the Human Rights Act 1998. Without it, the parents would not have had a claim as “victims” of the breach of Article 2.

This is the sort of issue which needs to be borne in mind as government goes about trying to “distance” us from the European Court of Human Rights and bringing in some form of Bill of Rights to replace the HRA 98.

Comment on UK Supreme Court is tweeting, but where are the other courts? by Open Justice | Legal Geek

Open Justice | Legal Geek — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:00:11 +0000

[...] interesting post on the UK Human Rights blog the other day looks at the way that the Supreme Court, with its twitter account, summaries of [...]

Comment on Indefinite detention: not very British by James Lawson

James Lawson — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:51:51 +0000

It was interesting to hear Theresa May labelling the man a ‘Terrorist’ who has been convicted of no offence under the Terrorism Act 2000. Compare this to the very different treatment the government have accorded to people like Simon Mann and Mark Thatcher. Qatada may be a loud-mouthed cleric but unlike Mann, Qatada did not attempt to take over an entire country. The activities of Mann fall squarely within the definition of ‘Terrorism’ as defined within section 1 of the 2000 Act, while the effect of subsections (1) and (2) of the Act is to automatically confer upon Mann, as well as Thatcher who pleaded guilty before a South African Court of funding Mann, the status of ‘terrorist’. See the judgement of Collins J in CC v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis heard in December as to the effect of section 40. Simon Mann has made a handsome profit from the book he has written describing his part part in an attempted coup in the Central African Republic which reads like a ‘Boys Own’ adventure while he portrays himself as a latter day ‘Andy McNab’. So the question becomes, why has the government allowed someone like Mann, a ‘terrorist’ under the sections 1 and 40 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to profit from the proceeds of Terrorism derived from a book that ‘glorifies it? Is Mann or Thatcher for that matter subject to a control order? Why is Qatada a dangerous terrorist while Mann and Thatcher are not? What is the difference between what Qatada preaches and what people like Mann and Thatcher practice? All that separates Mann & Co from Qatada is a background of Eaton, Sandhurst and the Guards and it certainly helps if you are the son of a former Prime Minister!

The difficulty with the labelling process and a preference for a model which sets up a separate regime of terrorism from that of the ordinary criminal law is that it tends to produce absurd results in practice.

Comment on Indefinite detention: not very British by Julian

Julian — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 12:28:18 +0000

Indefinite detention sits uncomfortably with British legal values. Government Ministers and their shadow counter parts argue that Abu Qatada is a dangerous man, that he is a threat to national security. That may well be the case. He has seldom espoused any admiration for this country, or any other for that matter and has called for Jews and Americans to be bombed, he is undeniably someone one would heistate to invite to dinner.

Sytripping away the rehtoric and emotive language, the simple fact remains is that the UK authorities have failed to prosecute him and as such stands innocent of any crime in the UK. Even though his views may be repellant and deeply disturbing, British society is founded on fundamental freedoms and legal protection for the individual against the depredations of the state.

Borrowing from the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin:

‘They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety’

And this is essentially the problem here. As someone who advocates the use of terror to further his political goals, he succeeds in undermining the fundamental fabric of British values when the government detains his without trial.

Comment on Times contempt challenge thrown out in Strasbourg by summaryjustice

summaryjustice — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 09:09:10 +0000

It is nearly 20 years since the press stopped funding real investigative journalists and they now rely on information supplied to them from totally biased sources such as the Police and the Crown Prosecution Services.

This has led to our once free press being demoted in some circumstances to being an arm of police propaganda.

The rule of the Judiciary is vital to redress this balance and it is hoped the Leveson Inquiry in its next module will go deeply into the culture which has grown up since the sad demise of real investigative journalism

Comment on UK Supreme Court is tweeting, but where are the other courts? by mike farrell

mike farrell — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 21:23:46 +0000

At least I can read the SC tweets. Certainly cant watch supreme court TV which is not iPad friendly, unless anyone knows whether it is broadcast in any alternate and more modern IT friendly location?

Comment on Let the deportation fit the crime by John D

John D — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:55:12 +0000

In response to Kris above, there is no such thing as natural law or a soul. No such things exist. There are scientific laws of nature, such as gravity, which make it possible to make precise behavioural predictions based on knowledge of mass, air pressure, space and time, etc. The body of criminal and civil law in this country, by contrast, are based not upon science but loosely upon a certain degree of artistic licence. I recall, as a young business law student, considering contract law cases involving carbolic smoke balls, slugs in ginger beer bottles and a young student’s fancy waistcoats – and wondering just what sort of world lawyers and judges occupied?
With reference to this particular case under consideration, I have to enter the caveat that I am not fully conversant with all the conditions of this particular case. However, it strikes me that it was bad enough that Mr Gurung conspired with others to batter some other person into unconsciousness. Had he and his fellow conspirators left it at that, then maybe it would have been sufficient for him to be charged and prosecuted for assault or GBH. If found guilty (as he was) and sentenced to a period of custodial imprisonment, then it might have been possible to allow him to remain in this country, even though he had no direct claim to remain here.
However, he and his fellow conspirators went further by deliberately throwing their unconscious victim into a body of water, with malice aforethought and with the expectation that this would lead to the death of their victim.
I do not know the basis on which one of the judges in this case concluded that Mr Gurung would be unlikely to repeat the offence. I do not think that such a conclusion is warranted, as the behaviour of Mr Gurung has proven that he is perfectly capable of undertaking such a course of action then and at any time afterwards.
For the proper protection of UK citizens, this individual should be deported.

Comment on UK Supreme Court is tweeting, but where are the other courts? by Jonathan Mitchell

Jonathan Mitchell — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:54:24 +0000

In answer to the question in your title, the Scottish judiciary has been tweeting since September 2010: http://twitter.com/JudgesScotland . It has also been publishing some summaries of noteworthy court opinions, with an RSS feed; http://www.scotland-judiciary.org.uk/9/0/Summaries-of-Court-Opinions . See review at http://www.jonathanmitchell.info/2010/10/05/judicial-conduct-and-complaints/ . And all Court of Session/High Court opinions have been published for many years at http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinionsApp/last50results.asp?searchtype=supreme&txt=False.

More recently, the England and Wales judiciary has also gone on to Twitter at the inaccurately-named http://twitter.com/#!/JudiciaryUK .

Comment on Archbishop on warpath by Waldron-fan

Waldron-fan — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 17:40:37 +0000

Isn’t that just exactly what s202(4) Equality Act 2010 is making an honest attempt to do, by inserting the new s6A(3A) in Civil Partnership Act 2004 “For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in this Act places an obligation on religious organisations to host civil partnerships if they do not wish to do so.”

If there is a real argument about this (as opposed to each side putting up phantom enemies to knock down), then shouldn’t it be about whether this is a sensible compromise and if so then whether & how it needs to be made more effective in doing what it is admirably clearly attempting to do (which is exactly what RCAP seems to be asking for)? I cannot see that anyone could sensibly claim not to understand the drafting. If people have concerns about its robustness, why isn’t the debate about whether it would be strengthened by amending it to something like “Nothing in this Act, the Equalities Act, the Human Rights Act or any other law is to be read as placing an obligation …”?

The problem seems to arise partly because some in CofE appear to jump to assuming s6A(3A) will not work. But that is fuelled partly by some human rights proponents, who appear to make unsubstantiated assumptions about non-discrimination in religion (as if it means a particular religion can’t turn away someone who doesn’t subscribe to their doctrine) and about what line ECtHR would take (this is one Act of Parliament amending another, in a complex area, with surely a wide margin of appreciation, etc).

So both sides end up shouting about a problem which isn’t really there, promoting their own agendas by wilfully ignoring the sensible compromise that has been on the table for 2 years. There is an element in both camps which is contemptuous of the democratic process of compromise and wants to pull religious or human rights issues out of the hands of the voting public.

Comment on UK Supreme Court is tweeting, but where are the other courts? by Frank Cranmer

Frank Cranmer — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 11:46:49 +0000

If cost is an issue for the MoJ – as it almost certainly is in current economic circumstances – then possibly the single most cost-effective action that the MoJ could take to promote open justice would be to make a modest annual grant-in-aid to BAILII.

Comment on Let the deportation fit the crime by Kris

Kris — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:49:53 +0000

There is no “inviolability of home and family life”. In natural law tradition, we talk about the invioability of the soul.

Hence, the ECHR absolute prohibition on torture and degrading treatment – and on the Death Penalty. Article 8 is expressly limited.

But leaving that to one side, isn’t the s33 proportionality test whether the deportation is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim?

I don’t see that “Public interest” = “Public opinion” – and it must be right that the case is sent back for that interest to be considered.

Comment on Let the deportation fit the crime by dw

dw — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 15:58:24 +0000

Could “the right to family life” also be used to object to the imposition of a custodial sentence? Surely that interferes very substantially with the prisoner’s family life?

Much of the determination has the appearance of a search for reasons for not deporting him rather than – as in our view it ought to have been – an inquiry into whether, despite the statutory policy of automatic deportation, article 8 of the Convention would be violated by its implementation.

Ouch.