Monstering, 9/11 and supporting human rights – The Human Rights Roundup

5 September 2011 by

Welcome back to the human rights roundup, a regular bulletin of all the law we haven’t quite managed to feature in full blog posts. The full list of links can be found here. You can also find our table of human rights cases here and previous roundups here.

by Graeme Hall

In the news

Monstering of the innocent?

Once again the Press finds itself in the spotlight, this time over the reporting of former suspect Rebecca Leighton and the deaths at Stepping Hill Hospital. Obiter J sets out the charges against Leighton and also the tests which prosecutors must meet for charges to remain in place. Describing the test as “quite remarkable” given the gravity of the charges, as well as noting the “immense damage” which has undoubtedly been done to Leighton’s reputation, Obiter J predicts a complex human rights challenge to the police’s conduct and calls for Parliament to take a closer look at the existing powers for charging people.

Brian Cathcart, in a reproduced article on Inforrm’s Blog, has argued that the recent successful prosecutions of two newspapers for contempt of court over the reporting of Joanna Yeates’ murder might concentrate editors’ minds on how ongoing criminal investigations are reported. However, Leighton’s case shows that these prosecutions may have had little impact.

Indeed, in a separate post, Inforrm’s Blog notes that newspapers have not only printed stories indicating Leighton’s guilt, but have equally accessed and publicised private information from confidential sources such as Facebook. Inforrm’s Blog describes the Press’ treatment of Leighton as the ‘“monstering” of the innocent’ and suggests that criminal suspects should be afforded anonymity.

Poor Press reporting has not escaped the gaze of our blog, and Adam Wagner has brought together a number of articles he has written on the subject here. Given the pervasiveness of such reporting and the potentially grave consequences, perhaps the reporting of criminal investigations should fall within the ambit of the Leveson Inquiry (terms of reference here).

In defence of the Human Rights Act

Nick Clegg has written a staunch defence of the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights in the Guardian. Whilst intimating that he and the Prime Minister are singing from the same hymn sheet, it is clear that when Clegg endorses Cameron on the need to get a grip on the misrepresentation of human rights, they are not in harmony with one another.

Clegg is supportive of the European Court of Human Rights and is also committed to the protections and freedoms already contained within the Human Rights Act; indicating his desire that the Commission for a British Bill of Rights’ conclusions will suggest building upon these rights, not replacing them. (An example could include increasing protections for older people; a topic which the Human Rights in Ireland blog considers here).

Sir Geoffrey Bindman, respected human rights lawyer, has written a concise and supportive response to Clegg’s article. Bindman argues that in order to maintain our reputation for respecting human rights at an international level , the Human Rights Act should not be replaced. He also picks up on the recurring theme of the UK Press’ nefarious human rights reporting.

Liberty, an NGO dedicated to the protection and advancement of human rights and civil liberties within the UK, has recently started a Human Rights Act blog series in an attempt to clarify the human rights misrepresentations which Mr. Cameron may(?) have been talking about. So far, they have covered Article 2: Right to life, as well as Article 6: Right to a fair hearing.

Terrorism: home and away

Coinciding with the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks this week, the Council of Europe’s Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, has written a sobering blogTen years of “global war on terror” undermined human rights – also in Europe – calling for Europe to undertake a “self-critical review” of our involvement in the “spider’s web” of human rights abuses in which we have become entangled since the “war on terror” began.

Given that the UK has already established the Detainee Inquiry to look at the role the UK played in the rendition and torture of suspected terrorists, it could be said that we are one step ahead (although the Inquiry has been heavily criticised: see Eric Metcalfe’s guest post). Nonetheless, this call for a review also comes at a time when the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Bill finds itself in the news once more.

The BBC reports that an “Enhanced bill” will enable the Home Secretary to move suspected terrorists from their homes to other parts of the country, despite a pledge from the government to scrap similar relocation powers when first elected. The Bill will be kept in reserve and will only be put before Parliament in a time of emergency, and the powers could then only be used in exceptional circumstances. Adam Wagner explains the apparent policy inconsistency here.

Other roundups:

The Week That Was by UKSC blog offers a wide-ranging roundup of news, finishing with the bemusing story of the security personnel sacked for tagging an offender’s false leg. Obiter J’s August: will voices of calm prevail? implores calm across an array of legal news topics including the recent riots and the potential trial of Gaddafi.

In the courts:

Mr Yiannis Voyias v Information Commissioner, Camden Council must disclose list of empty residential properties to squatting campaigner under FoI rules, says first tier tribunal.

JG & Anor v Lancashire County Council [2011] EWHC 2295 (Admin) (02 September 2011), Judicial review of council’s multi-million pound cuts to disabled and social care services fails on High Court.

Case-law commentaries from across the blogosphere:

…and don’t forget our recent posts:

Welcome to the UKHRB


This blog is run by 1 Crown Office Row barristers' chambers. Subscribe for free updates here. The blog's editorial team is:
Commissioning Editor: Jonathan Metzer
Editorial Team: Rosalind English
Angus McCullough QC David Hart QC
Martin Downs
Jim Duffy

Free email updates


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

Subscribe

Categories


Tags


Aarhus Abortion Abu Qatada Abuse Access to justice adoption AI air pollution air travel ALBA Allergy Al Qaeda Amnesty International animal rights Animals anonymity Article 1 Protocol 1 Article 2 article 3 Article 4 article 5 Article 6 Article 8 Article 9 article 10 Article 11 article 13 Article 14 article 263 TFEU Artificial Intelligence Asbestos Assange assisted suicide asylum asylum seekers Australia autism badgers benefits Bill of Rights biotechnology blogging Bloody Sunday brexit Bribery British Waterways Board Catholic Church Catholicism Chagos Islanders Charter of Fundamental Rights child protection Children children's rights China christianity citizenship civil liberties campaigners civil partnerships climate change clinical negligence closed material procedure Coercion Commission on a Bill of Rights common law communications competition confidentiality consent conservation constitution contact order contact tracing contempt of court Control orders Copyright coronavirus costs costs budgets Court of Protection crime criminal law Cybersecurity Damages data protection death penalty defamation DEFRA deportation deprivation of liberty derogations Detention Dignitas diplomacy disability disclosure Discrimination disease divorce DNA domestic violence duty of care ECHR ECtHR Education election Employment Environment Equality Act Equality Act 2010 Ethiopia EU EU Charter of Fundamental Rights EU costs EU law European Convention on Human Rights European Court of Human Rights European Court of Justice evidence extradition extraordinary rendition Facebook Family Fatal Accidents Fertility FGM Finance foreign criminals foreign office foreign policy France freedom of assembly Freedom of Expression freedom of information freedom of speech Gay marriage gay rights Gaza Gender genetics Germany Google Grenfell Gun Control Health HIV home office Housing HRLA human rights Human Rights Act human rights news Human Rights Watch Huntington's Disease immigration India Indonesia injunction Inquests insurance international law internet inuit Iran Iraq Ireland islam Israel Italy IVF ivory ban Japan joint enterprise judaism judicial review Judicial Review reform Julian Assange jury trial JUSTICE Justice and Security Bill Law Pod UK legal aid legal aid cuts Leveson Inquiry lgbtq liability Libel Liberty Libya lisbon treaty Lithuania local authorities marriage Media and Censorship mental capacity Mental Capacity Act Mental Health military Ministry of Justice modern slavery morocco murder music Muslim nationality national security naturism neuroscience NHS Northern Ireland nuclear challenges Obituary parental rights parliamentary expenses scandal patents Pensions Personal Injury physician assisted death Piracy Plagiarism planning planning system Poland Police Politics Pope press prison Prisoners prisoner votes Prisons privacy Professional Discipline Property proportionality Protection of Freedoms Bill Protest Public/Private public access public authorities public inquiries quarantine Radicalisation rehabilitation Reith Lectures Religion RightsInfo right to die right to family life Right to Privacy right to swim riots Roma Romania Round Up Royals Russia saudi arabia Scotland secrecy secret justice Secret trials sexual offence Sikhism Smoking social media social workers South Africa Spain special advocates Sports Standing starvation statelessness stem cells stop and search Strasbourg super injunctions Supreme Court Supreme Court of Canada surrogacy surveillance Syria Tax technology Terrorism tort Torture travel treason treaty accession trial by jury TTIP Turkey Twitter UK Ukraine universal credit universal jurisdiction unlawful detention USA US Supreme Court vicarious liability Wales War Crimes Wars Welfare Western Sahara Whistleblowing Wikileaks wildlife wind farms WomenInLaw Worboys wrongful birth YearInReview Zimbabwe

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.

Our privacy policy can be found on our ‘subscribe’ page or by clicking here.

%d bloggers like this: