Judgments need to be more accessible - and it is right that judges engage outside of them
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
Sunday, March 18, 2012
Saturday, March 17, 2012
The civil servants are the masters now – and our democracy suffers
The civil servants are the masters now – and our democracy suffers
Attempts to reform human rights law are being frustrated by liberal bureaucrats.
By Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph, 7:58PM GMT 16 Mar 2012
Islamist fanatics want rule by the sharia, their version of the law of God. They reject what they call “man-made” laws – the laws by which most nations live. For the same reason, Islamists reject democracy. It is a sham, they say, and an offence against God.
Those who support the untrammelled power of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) are the secular equivalent. They think that the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg court which enforces it are sacred. They believe these rights should be forced upon people everywhere, regardless of how anyone votes. Human rights are their sharia.
In Iran, the Guardian Council of senior clergy makes the final decision about whether anything passed by the parliament is compatible with Islamic law. In Europe, the ECHR has the same absolute authority over the decisions of all the member parliaments, including our own. True, its punishments do not (yet) involve stoning or the cutting off of hands, but the principle is the same: “We,” says the priesthood of human rights lawyers, “are in possession of the truth: no other power may stand against us.”
Even before he became Prime Minister, David Cameron was suspicious of the human rights theocrats. Once he had reached 10 Downing Street, he tried to do something about it. He set up a commission on a British Bill of Rights. The idea was not to get rid of human rights, but to bring them home. At present we have a situation in which, for example, the ECHR can rule that Britain must give prisoners the vote. No major political party and no large section of public opinion agree. Yet, under the present arrangements, there is absolutely nothing that our elected representatives can do about it.
Because we live under a coalition, and because Nick Clegg has made constitutional questions one of his special subjects, the membership of Mr Cameron’s commission is split between Liberals and Conservatives. The appointment of four Lib Dem choices and four Conservative ones gives the Liberals a power disproportionate to their parliamentary numbers. The chairman of the commission, Sir Leigh Lewis, formerly the top bureaucrat at the Department for Work and Pensions, has a Cleggy view of the world.
Last week, Dr Michael Pinto-Duchinsky, one of the nominees from the Cameron camp, resigned from the commission. His essential complaint was that he could not get it to focus on the heart of the matter. In its 21 months of work, it has devoted only one solitary meeting to the question which, in his view – and that of the Prime Minister who set it up – is central. Dr Pinto-Duchinsky calls it “the politics of the last say”. If you wanted to be more constitutionally high-falutin, you could call it parliamentary sovereignty. He does not want to remove human rights from our law. He accepts and even welcomes the fact that judges’ decisions will sometimes challenge the decisions of politicians. But what he also argues is that elected legislators must have some power of “democratic override”.
At present, there is none. At least in the United States, where the Supreme Court is extremely strong, it is possible, though not easy, for the Congress to amend the constitution and thus the court’s powers. (You can see why this might be necessary when you recall that the Supreme Court in the mid-19th century upheld slavery in the US on the grounds that it was a property right. It took the Civil War to sort things out.) There is no last-resort ability to intervene with the ECHR. Although there is something called “the margin of appreciation” which allows the Strasbourg court to give discretion to member states in how they apply its judgments, this discretion is bestowed by the court itself, and cannot be expanded by the members. The 47 judges, some of them from countries such as Russia, Albania and Azerbaijan, where the phrase “human rights” attracts only a puzzled stare, are, in the politics of the last say, our dictators. As dictators are free to do, they take their time. The court has a backlog of more than 150,000 cases.
So if the commission won’t address this question of parliamentary sovereignty, its conclusions, expected at the end of this year, will make no difference. Anything it recommends will be a mere relabelling, some pious restatements of human rights, wrapped, for Mr Cameron’s political convenience, in the Union flag.
How is it, then, that a government is frustrated by the very people it appoints? Here we come to the huge problem nowadays of our permanent official and semi-official classes. So weak is Parliament, and so nervous is government of looking over-political, that these classes fill the gap left by “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians.
If you look, for example, at the public appointments rules introduced in the name of procedural correctness, or of “diversity” (which, by an Orwellian effect, really means uniformity), you will see that they are run by civil servants. Naturally, they choose people appealing to the civil servant’s cast of mind. Everywhere – in the appointment of peers or quangocrats, in IPSA, the body which decides on MPs’ expenses, or on the Committee for Standards in Public Life – unelected people lay down the moral law for the elected. They welcome the opinions of interest groups, and exclude those of the public and the people the public elect.
Thus, for example, all those charged with looking at the matter keep advocating that there should be state funding for political parties (in effect, nationalising them), despite the known reluctance of actual taxpayers to come across with the money for such a rotten cause. Even in Downing Street, itself, Mr Cameron has allowed the permanent machine to outmanoeuvre the political appointments brought in to enact his will. Off, on his bicycle, pedals his brilliant adviser, Steve Hilton. In the driving seat of the Rolls-Royce of officialdom purrs the ever more powerful new Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood.
I am not arguing, of course, that elected people are personally morally better or wiser than unelected ones. We have many able and decent public servants (and several fairly useless MPs). My point is that the word “servant” is the key. You now hear the phrase “independent civil servants” as if such a thing were a part of our constitution. Yet it is a contradiction in terms. The civil servant serves. If he becomes “independent”, whom does he serve? The servant becomes master.
The problem came up this week in Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee wants to be able to question civil servants freely, forcing them to answer its questions. You can see why, when they now seem to act without any even theoretical reference to ministers. Yet if ministers are no longer responsible to Parliament for the actions of officials, then what are ministers for? The word “bureaucrat” means one who has power by virtue of occupying his office (the “bureau”). Democracies are supposed to be suspicious of that.
It is not a coincidence that such people favour the European Court of Human Rights. Great liberal jurists like Lord Lester, one of the Lib Dem members of the commission, instinctively dislike democracy. He calls the idea of ultimate democratic override of a court “reactionary”. Such people think of democracy as little more than a series of unenlightened opinion polls in which majorities vote to oppress minorities. For them, the ECHR is perfect. It is publicly funded, internationally guaranteed, unanswerable to anyone elected by anybody, and stuffed with people like themselves. For those same reasons, the rest of us should fear it.
Comment: It takes some stretch of the imagination to compare the ECHR with sharia law.
Attempts to reform human rights law are being frustrated by liberal bureaucrats.
By Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph, 7:58PM GMT 16 Mar 2012
Islamist fanatics want rule by the sharia, their version of the law of God. They reject what they call “man-made” laws – the laws by which most nations live. For the same reason, Islamists reject democracy. It is a sham, they say, and an offence against God.
Those who support the untrammelled power of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) are the secular equivalent. They think that the European Convention on Human Rights and the Strasbourg court which enforces it are sacred. They believe these rights should be forced upon people everywhere, regardless of how anyone votes. Human rights are their sharia.
In Iran, the Guardian Council of senior clergy makes the final decision about whether anything passed by the parliament is compatible with Islamic law. In Europe, the ECHR has the same absolute authority over the decisions of all the member parliaments, including our own. True, its punishments do not (yet) involve stoning or the cutting off of hands, but the principle is the same: “We,” says the priesthood of human rights lawyers, “are in possession of the truth: no other power may stand against us.”
Even before he became Prime Minister, David Cameron was suspicious of the human rights theocrats. Once he had reached 10 Downing Street, he tried to do something about it. He set up a commission on a British Bill of Rights. The idea was not to get rid of human rights, but to bring them home. At present we have a situation in which, for example, the ECHR can rule that Britain must give prisoners the vote. No major political party and no large section of public opinion agree. Yet, under the present arrangements, there is absolutely nothing that our elected representatives can do about it.
Because we live under a coalition, and because Nick Clegg has made constitutional questions one of his special subjects, the membership of Mr Cameron’s commission is split between Liberals and Conservatives. The appointment of four Lib Dem choices and four Conservative ones gives the Liberals a power disproportionate to their parliamentary numbers. The chairman of the commission, Sir Leigh Lewis, formerly the top bureaucrat at the Department for Work and Pensions, has a Cleggy view of the world.
Last week, Dr Michael Pinto-Duchinsky, one of the nominees from the Cameron camp, resigned from the commission. His essential complaint was that he could not get it to focus on the heart of the matter. In its 21 months of work, it has devoted only one solitary meeting to the question which, in his view – and that of the Prime Minister who set it up – is central. Dr Pinto-Duchinsky calls it “the politics of the last say”. If you wanted to be more constitutionally high-falutin, you could call it parliamentary sovereignty. He does not want to remove human rights from our law. He accepts and even welcomes the fact that judges’ decisions will sometimes challenge the decisions of politicians. But what he also argues is that elected legislators must have some power of “democratic override”.
At present, there is none. At least in the United States, where the Supreme Court is extremely strong, it is possible, though not easy, for the Congress to amend the constitution and thus the court’s powers. (You can see why this might be necessary when you recall that the Supreme Court in the mid-19th century upheld slavery in the US on the grounds that it was a property right. It took the Civil War to sort things out.) There is no last-resort ability to intervene with the ECHR. Although there is something called “the margin of appreciation” which allows the Strasbourg court to give discretion to member states in how they apply its judgments, this discretion is bestowed by the court itself, and cannot be expanded by the members. The 47 judges, some of them from countries such as Russia, Albania and Azerbaijan, where the phrase “human rights” attracts only a puzzled stare, are, in the politics of the last say, our dictators. As dictators are free to do, they take their time. The court has a backlog of more than 150,000 cases.
So if the commission won’t address this question of parliamentary sovereignty, its conclusions, expected at the end of this year, will make no difference. Anything it recommends will be a mere relabelling, some pious restatements of human rights, wrapped, for Mr Cameron’s political convenience, in the Union flag.
How is it, then, that a government is frustrated by the very people it appoints? Here we come to the huge problem nowadays of our permanent official and semi-official classes. So weak is Parliament, and so nervous is government of looking over-political, that these classes fill the gap left by “here today, gone tomorrow” politicians.
If you look, for example, at the public appointments rules introduced in the name of procedural correctness, or of “diversity” (which, by an Orwellian effect, really means uniformity), you will see that they are run by civil servants. Naturally, they choose people appealing to the civil servant’s cast of mind. Everywhere – in the appointment of peers or quangocrats, in IPSA, the body which decides on MPs’ expenses, or on the Committee for Standards in Public Life – unelected people lay down the moral law for the elected. They welcome the opinions of interest groups, and exclude those of the public and the people the public elect.
Thus, for example, all those charged with looking at the matter keep advocating that there should be state funding for political parties (in effect, nationalising them), despite the known reluctance of actual taxpayers to come across with the money for such a rotten cause. Even in Downing Street, itself, Mr Cameron has allowed the permanent machine to outmanoeuvre the political appointments brought in to enact his will. Off, on his bicycle, pedals his brilliant adviser, Steve Hilton. In the driving seat of the Rolls-Royce of officialdom purrs the ever more powerful new Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood.
I am not arguing, of course, that elected people are personally morally better or wiser than unelected ones. We have many able and decent public servants (and several fairly useless MPs). My point is that the word “servant” is the key. You now hear the phrase “independent civil servants” as if such a thing were a part of our constitution. Yet it is a contradiction in terms. The civil servant serves. If he becomes “independent”, whom does he serve? The servant becomes master.
The problem came up this week in Parliament. The Public Accounts Committee wants to be able to question civil servants freely, forcing them to answer its questions. You can see why, when they now seem to act without any even theoretical reference to ministers. Yet if ministers are no longer responsible to Parliament for the actions of officials, then what are ministers for? The word “bureaucrat” means one who has power by virtue of occupying his office (the “bureau”). Democracies are supposed to be suspicious of that.
It is not a coincidence that such people favour the European Court of Human Rights. Great liberal jurists like Lord Lester, one of the Lib Dem members of the commission, instinctively dislike democracy. He calls the idea of ultimate democratic override of a court “reactionary”. Such people think of democracy as little more than a series of unenlightened opinion polls in which majorities vote to oppress minorities. For them, the ECHR is perfect. It is publicly funded, internationally guaranteed, unanswerable to anyone elected by anybody, and stuffed with people like themselves. For those same reasons, the rest of us should fear it.
Comment: It takes some stretch of the imagination to compare the ECHR with sharia law.
Friday, March 16, 2012
Rights Gone Wrong?
Rights Gone Wrong?
Rights Gone Wrong is couched as a question: it’s a documentary to explore the roots of British human rights, the cornerstone of fairness, and the muddying influence of European law.
BBC Journalist Andrew Neil is tasked with travelling to parts of the UK, and then to Europe, to ask people why the British justice system is in ruin. Neil, who wears a selection of beguiling, continental scarves throughout, is on a crusade to restore faith in human rights to Britain.
Assumptions are made from the outset. The accepted belief is the British public is fed up with Europe because thanks to the court in Strasbourg, Abu Qatada stays in Britain, crooks can’t appear on Wanted posters and prisoners can vote (although this has yet to be enforced).
Sensationalist newspaper clippings slope onto the screen – “End the human rights farce” – and onto this Neil slathers emotive phrases to signpost the viewer towards his thinking – that Britain should usurp Europe with its own bill of human rights. That Europe is troublesome.
“I love Europe,” says Neil as he takes a sip of champagne and raises an eyebrow. He leans in: “But have we been lumbered with Europe’s zealous obsession with human rights?” It’s language to plant the seed – another idea disguised as a question.
He shows the fall out of European justice: a man whose daughter was run over by an asylum seeker from Kurdistan who, once he’d served his jail term, remained in the UK. This is because Strasbourg had ruled his marriage to a Briton gave him the right to a family life over here. And yes, the scenario is bitterly unfair – the camera lens sweeps over a graveyard and onto the father who asks “What about my right to a family life?” – but there is a distinct lack of balance here and the overall good Europe does in regulating human rights is left largely unaddressed.
On with the crusade. Neil travels to Strasbourg, to “the heart of darkness” as he calls it, and reveals how other countries like Russia and Italy ignore the court’s rulings while Britain is a stickler for the rules and gets lumbered with the law.
The documentary trumpets the potency and heritage of justice in Britain – there’s a snippet played of Winston Churchill talking about human rights -“A rose out of the ashes of the second world war” – and later, a scene where Neil clutches a photocopy of the Magna Carta wrapped in ribbon and strides through the English countryside.
He reaches a historian who’s stood nearby and plucks out a line from the Magna Carta scroll that says a person can’t be imprisoned without trial. It is evidence of Britain’s long-held commitment to fairness. It paves the way for Neil’s argument for autonomy. The historian tells him ruling powers would ignore this clause when they felt like it.
The documentary isn’t correctly labelled. Rights Gone Wrong? might be “Andrew Neil’s Vision For Justice” – or at least a title without a question mark. Neil doesn’t grapple with the truth, he lays on his own ideas. By the end he’d have you believe human rights law is in the grips of disaster and only British justice can save the day.
Watch the BBC 2 documentary on iPlayer here.
Last Night's Viewing: Rights Gone Wrong?
I do hope someone kept the Wanted poster. At the beginning of Rights Gone Wrong – a rapid-response documentary about the controversial nature of some recent rulings from the European Court of Human Rights – Andrew Neil illustrated some of the wilder stories that had made it into the papers, including the suggestions that a kitten had prevented a criminal's deportation and that a police force hadn't publicised a suspect's picture for fear of breaching his human rights. Cue a mocked-up Police Appeal for Assistance bearing the features of the Daily Politics presenter, a man who has repeatedly breached his own right to dignity in the pursuit of televisual novelty. I still have sweaty flashbacks of him and Portillo doing a cover of "(Is This the Way to) Amarillo" for the 2005 election coverage.
Rights Gone Wrong?, BBC Two, review
Did Andrew Neil prove that human rights laws are failing us? James Walton reviews BBC Two's timely documentary.
Rights Gone Wrong is couched as a question: it’s a documentary to explore the roots of British human rights, the cornerstone of fairness, and the muddying influence of European law.
BBC Journalist Andrew Neil is tasked with travelling to parts of the UK, and then to Europe, to ask people why the British justice system is in ruin. Neil, who wears a selection of beguiling, continental scarves throughout, is on a crusade to restore faith in human rights to Britain.
Assumptions are made from the outset. The accepted belief is the British public is fed up with Europe because thanks to the court in Strasbourg, Abu Qatada stays in Britain, crooks can’t appear on Wanted posters and prisoners can vote (although this has yet to be enforced).
Sensationalist newspaper clippings slope onto the screen – “End the human rights farce” – and onto this Neil slathers emotive phrases to signpost the viewer towards his thinking – that Britain should usurp Europe with its own bill of human rights. That Europe is troublesome.
“I love Europe,” says Neil as he takes a sip of champagne and raises an eyebrow. He leans in: “But have we been lumbered with Europe’s zealous obsession with human rights?” It’s language to plant the seed – another idea disguised as a question.
He shows the fall out of European justice: a man whose daughter was run over by an asylum seeker from Kurdistan who, once he’d served his jail term, remained in the UK. This is because Strasbourg had ruled his marriage to a Briton gave him the right to a family life over here. And yes, the scenario is bitterly unfair – the camera lens sweeps over a graveyard and onto the father who asks “What about my right to a family life?” – but there is a distinct lack of balance here and the overall good Europe does in regulating human rights is left largely unaddressed.
On with the crusade. Neil travels to Strasbourg, to “the heart of darkness” as he calls it, and reveals how other countries like Russia and Italy ignore the court’s rulings while Britain is a stickler for the rules and gets lumbered with the law.
The documentary trumpets the potency and heritage of justice in Britain – there’s a snippet played of Winston Churchill talking about human rights -“A rose out of the ashes of the second world war” – and later, a scene where Neil clutches a photocopy of the Magna Carta wrapped in ribbon and strides through the English countryside.
He reaches a historian who’s stood nearby and plucks out a line from the Magna Carta scroll that says a person can’t be imprisoned without trial. It is evidence of Britain’s long-held commitment to fairness. It paves the way for Neil’s argument for autonomy. The historian tells him ruling powers would ignore this clause when they felt like it.
The documentary isn’t correctly labelled. Rights Gone Wrong? might be “Andrew Neil’s Vision For Justice” – or at least a title without a question mark. Neil doesn’t grapple with the truth, he lays on his own ideas. By the end he’d have you believe human rights law is in the grips of disaster and only British justice can save the day.
Watch the BBC 2 documentary on iPlayer here.
Last Night's Viewing: Rights Gone Wrong?
I do hope someone kept the Wanted poster. At the beginning of Rights Gone Wrong – a rapid-response documentary about the controversial nature of some recent rulings from the European Court of Human Rights – Andrew Neil illustrated some of the wilder stories that had made it into the papers, including the suggestions that a kitten had prevented a criminal's deportation and that a police force hadn't publicised a suspect's picture for fear of breaching his human rights. Cue a mocked-up Police Appeal for Assistance bearing the features of the Daily Politics presenter, a man who has repeatedly breached his own right to dignity in the pursuit of televisual novelty. I still have sweaty flashbacks of him and Portillo doing a cover of "(Is This the Way to) Amarillo" for the 2005 election coverage.
Rights Gone Wrong?, BBC Two, review
Did Andrew Neil prove that human rights laws are failing us? James Walton reviews BBC Two's timely documentary.
Barrister struck off over claim that senior law lord had him kidnapped
Barrister struck off over claim that senior law lord had him kidnapped
A barrister has been struck off after falsely claiming one of Britain’s most senior judges had him kidnapped and blackmailed him into dropping a £1 million claim on behalf of a client.
Alexander Mercouris concocted a web of “tortuous deceit” to convince a client he was pursuing the bogus claim, including forging a Supreme Court judge’s signature, a tribunal heard.
He even alleged that Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, President of the Supreme Court, had him abducted and offered him a £50,000 bribe to abandon the case.
His lies began after he offered to represent Lorna Jamous, 49, a mother seeking damages from a council over standards of care involving her son, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) heard.
Mrs Jamous had been offered a £5,000 settlement by Westminster City Council, but Mercouris told her in October 2009 that he could take further action to get her hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Mercouris, 51, later told his client he had managed to win her a £983,000 payout, prompting her to rack up debts in expectation of the windfall.
However, when she began questioning why the money had not materialised, Mercouris “embarked on ever more bizarre assertions to hide the truth” that the payout had never been awarded, Stephen Mooney, the BSB’s counsel said.
To convince Mrs Jamous, he showed her a forged letter purporting to be from Baroness Hale, Justice of the Supreme Court, expressing concern that the payment had not arrived.
At one point, he talked the mother-of-two out of attending a hearing at which she would have discovered the truth, claiming her presence would “derail sensitive negotiations”.
Next he told her he had applied for an interim £50,000 payment, then claimed his brother had stolen the whole £983,000.
Mr Mooney said he then made “the most peculiar allegation” - that bogus police officers kidnapped him and took him to a meeting with Lord Phillips.
Mercouris claimed the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales pleaded with him to drop the case in exchange for a £50,000 bribe, plus his debts and mortgage paid off.
He also alleged that Lord Phillips threatened to have his 102-year-old grandmother put into a care home.
Mr Mooney described the lies as an “extremely convoluted story” of “tortuous deceit” and that his relationship with his client had gone from “supportive and helpful” to “bizarre, unhelpful and profoundly dishonest”.
“In my opinion, Mr Mercouris is not fully in control of his faculties,” he told the tribunal.
Mercouris, a former Citizens Advice Bureau worker who was called to the bar in 2006, wept as he admitted five counts of bringing his profession into disrepute through misconduct.
“Mr Mooney has referred to some of my actions as bizarre, I cannot dispute that. I’m very sorry. I worked very hard to become a barrister and disbarment is a bitter thought,” he said.
The tribunal heard that Mercouris, who represented himself during the hearing, had worked in the Royal Courts of Justice for 12 years before being called to the bar.
He added that he was diagnosed with depression after a nervous breakdown in 2007 due to caring for his sick grandmother and had been out of work for several months.
Striking him off, panel chairman Crawford Lindsay QC said Mercouris’s “fantasy scheme” was a “sad case”.
“These are extremely serious allegations where you deceived the client, involving two distinguished members of the judiciary. You went completely off the rails,” he said.
Speaking after the hearing, Mrs Jamous, of Belgravia, west London, said: "It was very cruel the way he treated us because we put out trust in him as a barrister and he abused that trust.
"He told us that we had been awarded this money, even showing us a letter from Baroness Hale confirming it, so we had no reason to doubt him.
"I borrowed money, went on holiday and was looking at houses because we thought we had £1 million to spend."
A barrister has been struck off after falsely claiming one of Britain’s most senior judges had him kidnapped and blackmailed him into dropping a £1 million claim on behalf of a client.
Alexander Mercouris concocted a web of “tortuous deceit” to convince a client he was pursuing the bogus claim, including forging a Supreme Court judge’s signature, a tribunal heard.
He even alleged that Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, President of the Supreme Court, had him abducted and offered him a £50,000 bribe to abandon the case.
His lies began after he offered to represent Lorna Jamous, 49, a mother seeking damages from a council over standards of care involving her son, the Bar Standards Board (BSB) heard.
Mrs Jamous had been offered a £5,000 settlement by Westminster City Council, but Mercouris told her in October 2009 that he could take further action to get her hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Mercouris, 51, later told his client he had managed to win her a £983,000 payout, prompting her to rack up debts in expectation of the windfall.
However, when she began questioning why the money had not materialised, Mercouris “embarked on ever more bizarre assertions to hide the truth” that the payout had never been awarded, Stephen Mooney, the BSB’s counsel said.
To convince Mrs Jamous, he showed her a forged letter purporting to be from Baroness Hale, Justice of the Supreme Court, expressing concern that the payment had not arrived.
At one point, he talked the mother-of-two out of attending a hearing at which she would have discovered the truth, claiming her presence would “derail sensitive negotiations”.
Next he told her he had applied for an interim £50,000 payment, then claimed his brother had stolen the whole £983,000.
Mr Mooney said he then made “the most peculiar allegation” - that bogus police officers kidnapped him and took him to a meeting with Lord Phillips.
Mercouris claimed the former Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales pleaded with him to drop the case in exchange for a £50,000 bribe, plus his debts and mortgage paid off.
He also alleged that Lord Phillips threatened to have his 102-year-old grandmother put into a care home.
Mr Mooney described the lies as an “extremely convoluted story” of “tortuous deceit” and that his relationship with his client had gone from “supportive and helpful” to “bizarre, unhelpful and profoundly dishonest”.
“In my opinion, Mr Mercouris is not fully in control of his faculties,” he told the tribunal.
Mercouris, a former Citizens Advice Bureau worker who was called to the bar in 2006, wept as he admitted five counts of bringing his profession into disrepute through misconduct.
“Mr Mooney has referred to some of my actions as bizarre, I cannot dispute that. I’m very sorry. I worked very hard to become a barrister and disbarment is a bitter thought,” he said.
The tribunal heard that Mercouris, who represented himself during the hearing, had worked in the Royal Courts of Justice for 12 years before being called to the bar.
He added that he was diagnosed with depression after a nervous breakdown in 2007 due to caring for his sick grandmother and had been out of work for several months.
Striking him off, panel chairman Crawford Lindsay QC said Mercouris’s “fantasy scheme” was a “sad case”.
“These are extremely serious allegations where you deceived the client, involving two distinguished members of the judiciary. You went completely off the rails,” he said.
Speaking after the hearing, Mrs Jamous, of Belgravia, west London, said: "It was very cruel the way he treated us because we put out trust in him as a barrister and he abused that trust.
"He told us that we had been awarded this money, even showing us a letter from Baroness Hale confirming it, so we had no reason to doubt him.
"I borrowed money, went on holiday and was looking at houses because we thought we had £1 million to spend."
Andrew pulls no punches in forthright investigation
Andrew pulls no punches in forthright investigation
You would think our basic human rights could be pretty much taken for granted in the UK in the 21st century, but it is not as clear cut as you might expect – as revealed in this forthright, provocative and informative documentary spearheaded by the BBC's Mr Politics, Andrew Neil.
Public anger over votes for prisoners and the release of Abu Qatada showed just what a toxic issue human rights law has become. The complication lies in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Here they vetoed the deportation of a failed asylum seeker from Kurdistan who killed 12-year-old Amy Houston in a hit and run accident because he has a "basic right" to a family life with the British wife he married after the incident, and their children. Amy's father Paul Houston was one of several interviewees who told Andrew that urgent reform is needed.
Jasvinder Sanghera from a charity which helps victims of forced marriages, campaigned to get the law changed so that people from outside Europe could not get a visa to come to the UK to marry if they were under 21. But the Supreme Court struck Jasvinder's law down.
Change is supposed to be on the cards, but with Britain only heading up the Council of Europe until May, the furthest we can get by then is a declaration of intent to change. Andrew was sceptical, offering an alternative which would mean resigning from the Convention and creating a new British Bill of Rights, updated from the core of the 1950 version penned by Sir Winston Churchill. This, however, would have a myriad complications in terms of our relationships with other member nations. We're caught between a rock and a hard place.
It was an eye-opening and thought-provoking investigation; I just wish the continuity had been better; watching Andrew's crowning glory pale from dark brown to gingery grey... and back again... was rather distracting.
Source.
You would think our basic human rights could be pretty much taken for granted in the UK in the 21st century, but it is not as clear cut as you might expect – as revealed in this forthright, provocative and informative documentary spearheaded by the BBC's Mr Politics, Andrew Neil.
Public anger over votes for prisoners and the release of Abu Qatada showed just what a toxic issue human rights law has become. The complication lies in the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
Here they vetoed the deportation of a failed asylum seeker from Kurdistan who killed 12-year-old Amy Houston in a hit and run accident because he has a "basic right" to a family life with the British wife he married after the incident, and their children. Amy's father Paul Houston was one of several interviewees who told Andrew that urgent reform is needed.
Jasvinder Sanghera from a charity which helps victims of forced marriages, campaigned to get the law changed so that people from outside Europe could not get a visa to come to the UK to marry if they were under 21. But the Supreme Court struck Jasvinder's law down.
Change is supposed to be on the cards, but with Britain only heading up the Council of Europe until May, the furthest we can get by then is a declaration of intent to change. Andrew was sceptical, offering an alternative which would mean resigning from the Convention and creating a new British Bill of Rights, updated from the core of the 1950 version penned by Sir Winston Churchill. This, however, would have a myriad complications in terms of our relationships with other member nations. We're caught between a rock and a hard place.
It was an eye-opening and thought-provoking investigation; I just wish the continuity had been better; watching Andrew's crowning glory pale from dark brown to gingery grey... and back again... was rather distracting.
Source.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
European court says 'kettling' tactics in 2001 lawful
European court says 'kettling' tactics in 2001 lawful
"Kettling" tactics used by the Metropolitan Police to contain crowds in 2001 were lawful, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The controversial method was used during anti-globalisation demonstrations in London on 1 May 2001.
Police blocked off Oxford Circus and corralled those inside for seven hours.
The court said there had been no violation of Article 5 - the right to liberty and security - of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Three people - George Black, a Greek national from Australia; Bronwyn Lowenthal and Peter O'Shea - who had nothing to do with the demonstration, took the case to Europe claiming they were "deprived of their liberty".
They were joined by Lois Austin, from Basildon, Essex, who had been taking part in the protest.
'Volatile conditions'
The court said: "The police had imposed the cordon to isolate and contain a large crowd in dangerous and volatile conditions.
"This had been the least intrusive and most effective means to protect the public from violence. Although the police tried to start dispersing the crowd throughout the afternoon, they had been unable to do so as the danger had persisted."
It was the first time the court in Strasbourg had been asked to rule on kettling.
The House of Lords had earlier ruled kettling on that day had been "necessary, proportionate and lawful".
The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said: "The essence of the judgement really is that kettling is lawful if it's done in the right way, if it's proportionate and is enforced for no longer than reasonably necessary and if it's being undertaken to avoid personal injury and damage to property."
The European Court's Grand Chamber of 17 judges, presided over by Belgium's Francoise Tulkens, said: "Even by 2001, advances in communications technology had made it possible to mobilise protesters rapidly and covertly on a hitherto unknown scale.
"Article 5 did not have to be construed in such a way as to make it impracticable for the police to fulfil their duties of maintaining order and protecting the public."
The judges ruled that the convention also placed a duty on the police "to protect individuals from violence and physical injury".
Earlier this year, in a separate case, the Met won its appeal against a High Court ruling over kettling tactics used during G20 demonstrations in 2009.
In that case Hannah McClure, a student, and Josh Moos, a campaigner for Plane Stupid, challenged the legality of restraint methods used against them in April 2009 when they were contained by officers in Bishopsgate in the City of London.
"Kettling" tactics used by the Metropolitan Police to contain crowds in 2001 were lawful, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled.
The controversial method was used during anti-globalisation demonstrations in London on 1 May 2001.
Police blocked off Oxford Circus and corralled those inside for seven hours.
The court said there had been no violation of Article 5 - the right to liberty and security - of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Three people - George Black, a Greek national from Australia; Bronwyn Lowenthal and Peter O'Shea - who had nothing to do with the demonstration, took the case to Europe claiming they were "deprived of their liberty".
They were joined by Lois Austin, from Basildon, Essex, who had been taking part in the protest.
'Volatile conditions'
The court said: "The police had imposed the cordon to isolate and contain a large crowd in dangerous and volatile conditions.
"This had been the least intrusive and most effective means to protect the public from violence. Although the police tried to start dispersing the crowd throughout the afternoon, they had been unable to do so as the danger had persisted."
It was the first time the court in Strasbourg had been asked to rule on kettling.
The House of Lords had earlier ruled kettling on that day had been "necessary, proportionate and lawful".
The BBC's legal affairs correspondent Clive Coleman said: "The essence of the judgement really is that kettling is lawful if it's done in the right way, if it's proportionate and is enforced for no longer than reasonably necessary and if it's being undertaken to avoid personal injury and damage to property."
The European Court's Grand Chamber of 17 judges, presided over by Belgium's Francoise Tulkens, said: "Even by 2001, advances in communications technology had made it possible to mobilise protesters rapidly and covertly on a hitherto unknown scale.
"Article 5 did not have to be construed in such a way as to make it impracticable for the police to fulfil their duties of maintaining order and protecting the public."
The judges ruled that the convention also placed a duty on the police "to protect individuals from violence and physical injury".
Earlier this year, in a separate case, the Met won its appeal against a High Court ruling over kettling tactics used during G20 demonstrations in 2009.
In that case Hannah McClure, a student, and Josh Moos, a campaigner for Plane Stupid, challenged the legality of restraint methods used against them in April 2009 when they were contained by officers in Bishopsgate in the City of London.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Engaging With Human Rights in a Disunited Kingdom
Engaging With Human Rights in a Disunited Kingdom
Colin Harvey
The world is saturated with the normative discourse of rights. Rights-talk is to be found almost everywhere; in sugary political speeches, in legal texts, and in the pleas of those experiencing abuse and those advocating on their behalf. Complex societies become ever more fractured as enclosed language games provide a basis for professional progression and advancement of a field; as well as legal and political mobilisation. Our wordplay and our transnational networks co-exist with shameful levels of inequality, barbarism and brutality. We know it. We watch it happen. We keep talking about human rights.
That modernity binds both sides together is old news; the 20th century demonstrated the capacity of humanity to reach remarkable heights, as we butchered each other along the way. Understanding the flawed humanity enthroned within human rights seems just as urgent as pressing hard on the potential normative force of personhood. The human within human rights contains all the wonderful, strange, sad, destructive and contradictory tendencies that make our short lives so intriguing. When we struggle for human rights we surely know this. No one wishes to inhabit a world of dull and cramped uniformity.
For all the complexities it remains plausible to assert that although we arrive into a world not of our making, carrying all the inherited limitations of our species, we have it within each of us, and in solidarity with others, to resolve many of the problems we face. We know enough still to believe that collectively determined action in the world is possible. No human person alive today need live a less than fully human life. If she does, we – as a species – have made it so. How taunting then the surplus of norms must seem, how ripe for future condemnation we are?
Why indulge in such lacerating critique? It is to make a simple point: a commitment to human rights is not ethically neutral, and this engaged perspective should be deployed against forms of legalism that risk suffocating the critical resources of the subject. To insist on human rights brings substantive political and legal consequences, and a basis for assessing practical action. The outcomes will depend on how rights are conceptualised, and there is no easy way to duck declared forms of commitment.
It may not seem like it, but this is of relevance when thinking critically about the Bill of Rights discussions in the UK.
First, the debate is not usefully considered in isolation from political context. Those who wish to know what a Bill of Rights worth that title looks like should be enlightened. But there is little value in pretending that those historically hostile to the aspirations of the global human rights movements have suddenly been converted to the cause. No amount of sunny verbiage about a British Bill of Rights can mask the grubbier political realities. A war against the ambitions of the global rights movement can be conducted within the discourse itself. Everyone believes in human rights now, but what sort of rights culture do you hold to? A constant effort is required to ensure a justifiable conception is promoted and defended. These are interpretative battles with worldly consequences.
Second, from a critical human rights perspective let’s be provocative: worship of one piece of legislation (the Human Rights Act 1998) does not seem that persuasive either. Whether a ‘constitutional measure’ or not it is still a grounded form of law. The literature is impressive. The Act continues to have a positive impact, often in situations that do not make headlines. Empirical work is ongoing. Whatever the evidence suggests, the worry is that lines are now drawn; on occasion in contrast to what that evidence demonstrates. The constitutional significance of the Act will always confront its direct political heritage. Churchill can be cited as a reminder of the Convention’s origins. The ‘Britishness’ of the law can be defended and rehearsed ad nauseam. The historic cross-party noises in support of bills of rights can be dusted off. But this will, to many people, always be a New Labour legacy (either positively or negatively depending on your party politics). A contextual assessment of the Human Rights Act 1998 cannot dodge the long-term strategic question of whether this is the end for rights in the UK, and should not sidestep the political realities of its achievement.
Third, the voices that historically propel the human rights movement forward are prone to be rendered invisible by forms of narrow legalism. Hope is often invested in the promise of closure that a significant legal judgment can bring. The notion of the last word in bounded time feeds a worldly desire for decisions that is effectively absorbed into the concept of the rule of law. The idea that we might well be in a conversation without end – even over the contested meaning of established norms - can cause either despair or offer a spur to action. As political constructs erect hierarchies of interpretation to limit the damage, the discourse of human rights imports a tension that cannot be removed; the door will continue to remain slightly ajar. To talk of who has the last word in historical time is rendered meaningless within such a conception of political and legal life. There will be moments of decision, but there will be a going on with human rights as a path that seeks to always comprehend the person first over all and every human construct.
Finally, new constitutional configurations are emerging across these islands. There will be those who seek to instil fearfulness around these trends. From a rights perspective the challenges and opportunities can be embraced. The potential is there for a dialogue among equals to open up public space for a less defensive engagement on how we might promote and protect human rights, and thus show leadership in our age of anxiety and hope. The outcomes are not pre-determined; those who sow seeds of mistrust can also prosper. It is thus necessary to be open to post-devolutionary experiments in rights protection. The risk is that human rights are submerged in an insecure wave of political unionism. The creativity and energy of the human rights movement should not be undermined even by notionally progressive forms of political and legal unionism in the UK. Such an approach would bury a global movement in the rubble of a partial and frequently distorted ‘national/nationalist’ conversation.
These may all be irrelevant reflections, a distraction. The purpose here is just to pause to consider why we engage with human rights. Setting aside the often bewildering nature of personal motivations (that human again in human rights), we must do this work at some level because we feel profoundly uncomfortable with the world we are in, and thus wish to change it – in the time we have – using whatever forms available: political, cultural, social, economic, and even legal. The risk, it seems to me, is to mistake the contested tools for the contested objectives, and thus forget the ethical imperatives silently pressing us on. That we are re-enacting the arguments of centuries is no reason for despair or retreat. All those who suffer now, and those silenced brutally in historical time, provide all the foundations necessary to keep going on. To keep talking about the best conceptions of human rights, and insisting on practical realisation.
Colin Harvey is Professor of Human Rights Law at Queen’s University Belfast.
The world is saturated with the normative discourse of rights. Rights-talk is to be found almost everywhere; in sugary political speeches, in legal texts, and in the pleas of those experiencing abuse and those advocating on their behalf. Complex societies become ever more fractured as enclosed language games provide a basis for professional progression and advancement of a field; as well as legal and political mobilisation. Our wordplay and our transnational networks co-exist with shameful levels of inequality, barbarism and brutality. We know it. We watch it happen. We keep talking about human rights.
That modernity binds both sides together is old news; the 20th century demonstrated the capacity of humanity to reach remarkable heights, as we butchered each other along the way. Understanding the flawed humanity enthroned within human rights seems just as urgent as pressing hard on the potential normative force of personhood. The human within human rights contains all the wonderful, strange, sad, destructive and contradictory tendencies that make our short lives so intriguing. When we struggle for human rights we surely know this. No one wishes to inhabit a world of dull and cramped uniformity.
For all the complexities it remains plausible to assert that although we arrive into a world not of our making, carrying all the inherited limitations of our species, we have it within each of us, and in solidarity with others, to resolve many of the problems we face. We know enough still to believe that collectively determined action in the world is possible. No human person alive today need live a less than fully human life. If she does, we – as a species – have made it so. How taunting then the surplus of norms must seem, how ripe for future condemnation we are?
Why indulge in such lacerating critique? It is to make a simple point: a commitment to human rights is not ethically neutral, and this engaged perspective should be deployed against forms of legalism that risk suffocating the critical resources of the subject. To insist on human rights brings substantive political and legal consequences, and a basis for assessing practical action. The outcomes will depend on how rights are conceptualised, and there is no easy way to duck declared forms of commitment.
It may not seem like it, but this is of relevance when thinking critically about the Bill of Rights discussions in the UK.
First, the debate is not usefully considered in isolation from political context. Those who wish to know what a Bill of Rights worth that title looks like should be enlightened. But there is little value in pretending that those historically hostile to the aspirations of the global human rights movements have suddenly been converted to the cause. No amount of sunny verbiage about a British Bill of Rights can mask the grubbier political realities. A war against the ambitions of the global rights movement can be conducted within the discourse itself. Everyone believes in human rights now, but what sort of rights culture do you hold to? A constant effort is required to ensure a justifiable conception is promoted and defended. These are interpretative battles with worldly consequences.
Second, from a critical human rights perspective let’s be provocative: worship of one piece of legislation (the Human Rights Act 1998) does not seem that persuasive either. Whether a ‘constitutional measure’ or not it is still a grounded form of law. The literature is impressive. The Act continues to have a positive impact, often in situations that do not make headlines. Empirical work is ongoing. Whatever the evidence suggests, the worry is that lines are now drawn; on occasion in contrast to what that evidence demonstrates. The constitutional significance of the Act will always confront its direct political heritage. Churchill can be cited as a reminder of the Convention’s origins. The ‘Britishness’ of the law can be defended and rehearsed ad nauseam. The historic cross-party noises in support of bills of rights can be dusted off. But this will, to many people, always be a New Labour legacy (either positively or negatively depending on your party politics). A contextual assessment of the Human Rights Act 1998 cannot dodge the long-term strategic question of whether this is the end for rights in the UK, and should not sidestep the political realities of its achievement.
Third, the voices that historically propel the human rights movement forward are prone to be rendered invisible by forms of narrow legalism. Hope is often invested in the promise of closure that a significant legal judgment can bring. The notion of the last word in bounded time feeds a worldly desire for decisions that is effectively absorbed into the concept of the rule of law. The idea that we might well be in a conversation without end – even over the contested meaning of established norms - can cause either despair or offer a spur to action. As political constructs erect hierarchies of interpretation to limit the damage, the discourse of human rights imports a tension that cannot be removed; the door will continue to remain slightly ajar. To talk of who has the last word in historical time is rendered meaningless within such a conception of political and legal life. There will be moments of decision, but there will be a going on with human rights as a path that seeks to always comprehend the person first over all and every human construct.
Finally, new constitutional configurations are emerging across these islands. There will be those who seek to instil fearfulness around these trends. From a rights perspective the challenges and opportunities can be embraced. The potential is there for a dialogue among equals to open up public space for a less defensive engagement on how we might promote and protect human rights, and thus show leadership in our age of anxiety and hope. The outcomes are not pre-determined; those who sow seeds of mistrust can also prosper. It is thus necessary to be open to post-devolutionary experiments in rights protection. The risk is that human rights are submerged in an insecure wave of political unionism. The creativity and energy of the human rights movement should not be undermined even by notionally progressive forms of political and legal unionism in the UK. Such an approach would bury a global movement in the rubble of a partial and frequently distorted ‘national/nationalist’ conversation.
These may all be irrelevant reflections, a distraction. The purpose here is just to pause to consider why we engage with human rights. Setting aside the often bewildering nature of personal motivations (that human again in human rights), we must do this work at some level because we feel profoundly uncomfortable with the world we are in, and thus wish to change it – in the time we have – using whatever forms available: political, cultural, social, economic, and even legal. The risk, it seems to me, is to mistake the contested tools for the contested objectives, and thus forget the ethical imperatives silently pressing us on. That we are re-enacting the arguments of centuries is no reason for despair or retreat. All those who suffer now, and those silenced brutally in historical time, provide all the foundations necessary to keep going on. To keep talking about the best conceptions of human rights, and insisting on practical realisation.
Colin Harvey is Professor of Human Rights Law at Queen’s University Belfast.
Joint Committee hears evidence on human rights judgments
Joint Committee hears evidence on human rights judgments
The Joint Committee on Human Rights takes evidence on the Human Rights Judgments from witnesses including Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights and Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the Court.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights takes evidence on the Human Rights Judgments from witnesses including Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights and Erik Fribergh, Registrar of the Court.
European Court of Human Rights president dismisses British reform plans
European Court of Human Rights president dismisses British reform plans
David Cameron’s plans to curtail the powers of the European Court of Human Rights have been dismissed by its British president.
By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor, Daily Telegraph, 7:00AM GMT 14 Mar 2012
Sir Nicolas Bratza, appearing before Parliament for the first time, offered a strong defence of the much-criticised institution and insisted it was not interfering with British courts or policies.
He claimed that last year it only found fault with Britain on eight occasions in almost 1,000 cases, and very rarely prevented the deportation of criminals or terror suspects.
And he brushed aside most of the suggestions made by the Government to rewrite the rules that underpin the Strasbourg court, in a blow to David Cameron’s calls for reform.
Sir Nicolas said some of the proposals would be “extremely difficult” to carry out while others would be “fraught with difficulty” and risk “friction and divisiveness” in the 47 states that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Government has had reform of the ECHR in its sights following a series of embarrassing rulings, such as the case brought by a convicted killer that requires prisoners to be given the vote, and the ban on the deportation of the radical preacher Abu Qatada.
It is trying to use the opportunity provided by its six-month presidency of the Council of Europe to bring about important changes, and the topic will top the agenda at a summit in Brighton next month.
A leaked draft declaration states that the Government wants to cut the number of full rulings by Strasbourg judges giving non-binding “advisory opinions” in some cases.
Questioned by MPs and Peers on the Joint Committee of Human Rights about this proposal, Sir Nicolas asked: “Would it lead to a decrease as it is intended to? Or it would lead to an increase in what is already a very heavy workload in the sense that we would be literally swamped with requests from courts from 47 different states for advisory opinions, which probably wouldn’t be binding on the court that had requested it."
Ministers also want written into the Convention the principles of “subsidiarity” – that rulings should be made at lower levels – and the “margin of appreciation” – which allows governments more leeway in interpreting rulings.
Asked why the court was not keen to write the principle of subsidiarity into the convention, Sir Nicolas replied: “I think we feel it is not necessary and I think we would have to see how it was actually expressed.”
He went on: “I think we would have more concern still about the suggestion that somehow the margin of appreciation should be legislated for as well.
“There I think there would be real doubts in attempting to legislate for something which varies very much depending on the nature of the article invoked, the breach of that article.
“I think it would be extremely difficult to legislate for a margin of appreciation which inevitably would vary.”
Asked about the British Government’s plan for new admissibility criteria that would deal with up to 25,000 pending cases, by only intervening when national courts had made a “manifest error” in failing to abide by Convention standards or case law, he said: “I think there are a number of hesitations.”
Sir Nicolas, who will soon step down as Britain's judge at the ECHR after 14 years, questioned if the additional procedure was necessary as many cases are already rejected.
He went on: “Unlike the current criteria which are very well known to us, the new criteria will have to be interpreted by the Grand Chamber. It’s far from clear what would constitute a ‘manifest error’ in interpretation.
“Once it has been interpreted, to apply it to 20 different judges to apply this as single judges would itself be fraught with difficulty.”
He concluded: “Finally I think there is a risk of friction or divisiveness, because I think there would be a danger in our court being forced to say that cases brought against certain states disclosed manifest errors on the part of the national judiciary.
“I think this could be quite unfortunate if we were forced into that situation.”
Sir Nicolas insisted that the ECHR would deal with a backlog of 92,000 cases by 2015 and was coping with other pending rulings, but “can’t currently cope” with up to 25,000 “substantial” cases.
His own solution was to make it easier for judges to tell applicants that “very similar” cases had been dealt with before, returning them to national courts.
Sir Nicolas also rejected the politicians’ allegations that the ECHR was interfering too often in British law and policy, citing figures that in 2011 it had only found eight violations in 955 judgements.
“The vast bulk of the cases against the UK are declared inadmissible, this is in large part due to the high rate of compliance with the Convention in this country.”
He said disagreements with our courts are “relatively rare”.
“I’m afraid I don’t think these criticisms are borne out that we are constantly interfering with the way that matters are dealt with domestically.”
He said there was “nothing exceptional” in the court saying that countries have responsibility if they want to return alleged criminals to places where they may face torture, but accepted he could understand the frustration of the public and politicians.
He claimed that of 776 recent applications not to return people to countries, only 34 had been accepted.
“I don’t agree with the suggestions made that we are micro-managing cases or somehow over-reaching in our powers.”
David Cameron’s plans to curtail the powers of the European Court of Human Rights have been dismissed by its British president.
By Martin Beckford, Home Affairs Editor, Daily Telegraph, 7:00AM GMT 14 Mar 2012
Sir Nicolas Bratza, appearing before Parliament for the first time, offered a strong defence of the much-criticised institution and insisted it was not interfering with British courts or policies.
He claimed that last year it only found fault with Britain on eight occasions in almost 1,000 cases, and very rarely prevented the deportation of criminals or terror suspects.
And he brushed aside most of the suggestions made by the Government to rewrite the rules that underpin the Strasbourg court, in a blow to David Cameron’s calls for reform.
Sir Nicolas said some of the proposals would be “extremely difficult” to carry out while others would be “fraught with difficulty” and risk “friction and divisiveness” in the 47 states that have signed up to the European Convention on Human Rights.
The Government has had reform of the ECHR in its sights following a series of embarrassing rulings, such as the case brought by a convicted killer that requires prisoners to be given the vote, and the ban on the deportation of the radical preacher Abu Qatada.
It is trying to use the opportunity provided by its six-month presidency of the Council of Europe to bring about important changes, and the topic will top the agenda at a summit in Brighton next month.
A leaked draft declaration states that the Government wants to cut the number of full rulings by Strasbourg judges giving non-binding “advisory opinions” in some cases.
Questioned by MPs and Peers on the Joint Committee of Human Rights about this proposal, Sir Nicolas asked: “Would it lead to a decrease as it is intended to? Or it would lead to an increase in what is already a very heavy workload in the sense that we would be literally swamped with requests from courts from 47 different states for advisory opinions, which probably wouldn’t be binding on the court that had requested it."
Ministers also want written into the Convention the principles of “subsidiarity” – that rulings should be made at lower levels – and the “margin of appreciation” – which allows governments more leeway in interpreting rulings.
Asked why the court was not keen to write the principle of subsidiarity into the convention, Sir Nicolas replied: “I think we feel it is not necessary and I think we would have to see how it was actually expressed.”
He went on: “I think we would have more concern still about the suggestion that somehow the margin of appreciation should be legislated for as well.
“There I think there would be real doubts in attempting to legislate for something which varies very much depending on the nature of the article invoked, the breach of that article.
“I think it would be extremely difficult to legislate for a margin of appreciation which inevitably would vary.”
Asked about the British Government’s plan for new admissibility criteria that would deal with up to 25,000 pending cases, by only intervening when national courts had made a “manifest error” in failing to abide by Convention standards or case law, he said: “I think there are a number of hesitations.”
Sir Nicolas, who will soon step down as Britain's judge at the ECHR after 14 years, questioned if the additional procedure was necessary as many cases are already rejected.
He went on: “Unlike the current criteria which are very well known to us, the new criteria will have to be interpreted by the Grand Chamber. It’s far from clear what would constitute a ‘manifest error’ in interpretation.
“Once it has been interpreted, to apply it to 20 different judges to apply this as single judges would itself be fraught with difficulty.”
He concluded: “Finally I think there is a risk of friction or divisiveness, because I think there would be a danger in our court being forced to say that cases brought against certain states disclosed manifest errors on the part of the national judiciary.
“I think this could be quite unfortunate if we were forced into that situation.”
Sir Nicolas insisted that the ECHR would deal with a backlog of 92,000 cases by 2015 and was coping with other pending rulings, but “can’t currently cope” with up to 25,000 “substantial” cases.
His own solution was to make it easier for judges to tell applicants that “very similar” cases had been dealt with before, returning them to national courts.
Sir Nicolas also rejected the politicians’ allegations that the ECHR was interfering too often in British law and policy, citing figures that in 2011 it had only found eight violations in 955 judgements.
“The vast bulk of the cases against the UK are declared inadmissible, this is in large part due to the high rate of compliance with the Convention in this country.”
He said disagreements with our courts are “relatively rare”.
“I’m afraid I don’t think these criticisms are borne out that we are constantly interfering with the way that matters are dealt with domestically.”
He said there was “nothing exceptional” in the court saying that countries have responsibility if they want to return alleged criminals to places where they may face torture, but accepted he could understand the frustration of the public and politicians.
He claimed that of 776 recent applications not to return people to countries, only 34 had been accepted.
“I don’t agree with the suggestions made that we are micro-managing cases or somehow over-reaching in our powers.”
The European court of human rights needs these British reforms
The European court of human rights needs these British reforms
The Strasbourg court is in a mess. It doesn't help human rights to damn our eminently sensible reforms as reactionary
Anthony Lester
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 March 2012 21.30 GMT
I spent last week in Strasbourg taking stock of the government's efforts to strengthen European human rights protection. Its ambitious aim is to muster enough support during the British chairmanship of the Council of Europe for much needed reforms at European and national level.
There is to be a high-level conference in Brighton in April – the third since 2010 – to approve a declaration on what needs to be done to ensure that the European convention on human rights and the Strasbourg court are effective in protecting the rights and freedoms of 800 million people. The central question is whether the momentum can be built up to make sure that the proposals are at last put into effect.
The European court of human rights is drowning in paper. There is a backlog of 150,000 applications, most without merit. The court is reducing this backlog rapidly, but even when the backlog has been dealt with, there will remain a hard core of 25,000 admissible and important cases that must somehow be decided in Strasbourg or the state concerned. There is no obvious solution to this problem.
The proposals in the draft declaration are mainly sensible and not new. The Strasbourg court, in an unpublished opinion, has said that it supports their main thrust, subject to two conditions: that the right of individual petition is preserved; and that effective measures are put in place to accommodate well-founded cases with which the court cannot deal. The court's president, the British judge Sir Nicolas Bratza, has played a courageous part in rebutting British myths and misconceptions about his court.
The Brighton proposals rightly focus on what parliaments, governments and courts need to do. The prime responsibility for securing our rights and providing remedies is at national level. Strasbourg is a court of last resort. The proposals also rightly emphasise the importance of improving the national selection process of judicial candidates for the court, and strengthening the role of the committee of ministers in supervising the execution of the court's judgments.
One of the government's problems is the adverse impact of the attacks made by media and politicians who play to populist prejudices by calling for the repeal of the Human Rights Act, withdrawal from the convention, a narrowly literal and static interpretation of it, and a "democratic" veto or override to curtail "judicial legislation" – arguments that undermine the rule of law.
This reactionary approach is misinterpreted as being what the coalition seeks to bring about. That misconception weakens the government's negotiating hand, as does the UK's failure to abide by the court's judgment seven years ago on prisoners' voting rights that stains our good reputation for abiding by our international obligations.
Liberal Democrat ministers fully support reforms designed to strengthen human rights protection across Europe. But many NGOs do not trust the government's aims and continue to argue against the UK initiative on the basis that reform is not needed. It saddens me to read their joint coordinated statements opposing the UK initiative, ignoring the practical problems and lacking strategic vision.
There are elements in the UK proposal with which I disagree: notably, the proposal to restrict the admissibility of complaints where national courts have taken account of the convention rights and not clearly erred, or that raise serious questions of interpretation or application of the convention. That might work in the case of the UK which has an independent and enlightened judiciary, but would undermine European supervision in states where the rule of law remains a fiction. However, it is one thing to focus on particular proposals; it is quite another to argue against the need for constructive reforms to improve the efficiency, accessibility and legitimacy of the court.
The great change that has occurred in my lifetime has been the development of a common law of Europe based on rule of law and respect for fundamental freedoms and rights. During this period of economic austerity, social tension and disillusionment with European and national institutions, we need to unite to strengthen the protection of human rights here and in Europe.
The Strasbourg court is in a mess. It doesn't help human rights to damn our eminently sensible reforms as reactionary
Anthony Lester
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 13 March 2012 21.30 GMT
I spent last week in Strasbourg taking stock of the government's efforts to strengthen European human rights protection. Its ambitious aim is to muster enough support during the British chairmanship of the Council of Europe for much needed reforms at European and national level.
There is to be a high-level conference in Brighton in April – the third since 2010 – to approve a declaration on what needs to be done to ensure that the European convention on human rights and the Strasbourg court are effective in protecting the rights and freedoms of 800 million people. The central question is whether the momentum can be built up to make sure that the proposals are at last put into effect.
The European court of human rights is drowning in paper. There is a backlog of 150,000 applications, most without merit. The court is reducing this backlog rapidly, but even when the backlog has been dealt with, there will remain a hard core of 25,000 admissible and important cases that must somehow be decided in Strasbourg or the state concerned. There is no obvious solution to this problem.
The proposals in the draft declaration are mainly sensible and not new. The Strasbourg court, in an unpublished opinion, has said that it supports their main thrust, subject to two conditions: that the right of individual petition is preserved; and that effective measures are put in place to accommodate well-founded cases with which the court cannot deal. The court's president, the British judge Sir Nicolas Bratza, has played a courageous part in rebutting British myths and misconceptions about his court.
The Brighton proposals rightly focus on what parliaments, governments and courts need to do. The prime responsibility for securing our rights and providing remedies is at national level. Strasbourg is a court of last resort. The proposals also rightly emphasise the importance of improving the national selection process of judicial candidates for the court, and strengthening the role of the committee of ministers in supervising the execution of the court's judgments.
One of the government's problems is the adverse impact of the attacks made by media and politicians who play to populist prejudices by calling for the repeal of the Human Rights Act, withdrawal from the convention, a narrowly literal and static interpretation of it, and a "democratic" veto or override to curtail "judicial legislation" – arguments that undermine the rule of law.
This reactionary approach is misinterpreted as being what the coalition seeks to bring about. That misconception weakens the government's negotiating hand, as does the UK's failure to abide by the court's judgment seven years ago on prisoners' voting rights that stains our good reputation for abiding by our international obligations.
Liberal Democrat ministers fully support reforms designed to strengthen human rights protection across Europe. But many NGOs do not trust the government's aims and continue to argue against the UK initiative on the basis that reform is not needed. It saddens me to read their joint coordinated statements opposing the UK initiative, ignoring the practical problems and lacking strategic vision.
There are elements in the UK proposal with which I disagree: notably, the proposal to restrict the admissibility of complaints where national courts have taken account of the convention rights and not clearly erred, or that raise serious questions of interpretation or application of the convention. That might work in the case of the UK which has an independent and enlightened judiciary, but would undermine European supervision in states where the rule of law remains a fiction. However, it is one thing to focus on particular proposals; it is quite another to argue against the need for constructive reforms to improve the efficiency, accessibility and legitimacy of the court.
The great change that has occurred in my lifetime has been the development of a common law of Europe based on rule of law and respect for fundamental freedoms and rights. During this period of economic austerity, social tension and disillusionment with European and national institutions, we need to unite to strengthen the protection of human rights here and in Europe.
PM frustration over Bill of Rights
PM frustration over Bill of Rights
Mr Cameron made clear that he blames delays on the compromises made necessary by coalition, but he remains determined to press ahead with the change, which has totemic status for some Tories but is bitterly opposed by Liberal Democrats.
One of the four Tory members of the Bill of Rights Commission - academic Michael Pinto-Duschinsky - quit last week, claiming that the commission had been rigged by europhile Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
Following his resignation, leaked papers suggested that the commission was in disarray, with one Conservative member Anthony Speaight QC accusing its chairman Sir Leigh Lewis of being "provocative and bullying", and trying to "pick us off one by one".
The apparent lack of consensus led to speculation that plans to replace the Human Rights Act may have to be put off until after the general election scheduled for 2015.
Speaking as he flew to the United States for talks with President Barack Obama, Mr Cameron made clear he had not given up hope of finding a way forward, but recognised that Lib Dem sensitivities meant it would be slower than he would like.
He told reporters: "I want to make progress.
"This is clearly an area that if we weren't in coalition government, we would be going quite a bit faster, in fact, quite a lot faster."
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2012, All Rights Reserved.
Mr Cameron made clear that he blames delays on the compromises made necessary by coalition, but he remains determined to press ahead with the change, which has totemic status for some Tories but is bitterly opposed by Liberal Democrats.
One of the four Tory members of the Bill of Rights Commission - academic Michael Pinto-Duschinsky - quit last week, claiming that the commission had been rigged by europhile Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg.
Following his resignation, leaked papers suggested that the commission was in disarray, with one Conservative member Anthony Speaight QC accusing its chairman Sir Leigh Lewis of being "provocative and bullying", and trying to "pick us off one by one".
The apparent lack of consensus led to speculation that plans to replace the Human Rights Act may have to be put off until after the general election scheduled for 2015.
Speaking as he flew to the United States for talks with President Barack Obama, Mr Cameron made clear he had not given up hope of finding a way forward, but recognised that Lib Dem sensitivities meant it would be slower than he would like.
He told reporters: "I want to make progress.
"This is clearly an area that if we weren't in coalition government, we would be going quite a bit faster, in fact, quite a lot faster."
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2012, All Rights Reserved.
Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Outcry over UK plans to charge European court of human rights claimants
Outcry over UK plans to charge European court of human rights claimants
British government calls for financial disincentives to reduce volume of cases piling up at Strasbourg court
Proposals to charge claimants for taking their cases to the European court of human rights (ECHR) have triggered an international row over the United Kingdom's programme for reforming the Strasbourg court.
Austrian diplomatic sources have accused the UK of supporting the scheme designed to deter too many cases coming before the court but British sources have insisted the proposal was made by another country and emerged during negotiations.
The introduction of financial disincentives to reduce the volume of cases piling up at the Strasbourg court is understood not to have received support from any of the other 46 member states in the Council of Europe.
The UK currently holds the rotating chairmanship of the council and has drafted a radical reform programme aimed at restricting the flow of cases to the ECHR and boosting the status of national courts. It will be presented to an international conference in Brighton next month.
But other countries have been critical of the UK's Brighton Declaration, opposing its emphasis on expanding the so-called margin of appreciation – allowing national courts to interpret human rights in different ways – and, in particular, introducing stricter criteria to reduce the number of cases reaching the court in Strasbourg.
"One of the [UK's] earlier ideas to reduce the volume was simply charging people to get the right to go there," Austrian diplomats told the Guardian. "There was no support for it [from other Council of Europe countries].
"The most important issue for Austria is the right of the individual without any restriction [to take claims to the ECHR] ... should not be reduced or made more difficult.
"One of the first proposals by the UK was the idea to enforce the use of lawyers to ask for stamp duty and money ... This is no longer in the draft declaration but still there's the idea that the court should introduce admissibility criteria."
There is a backlog of about 150,000 cases at Strasbourg but the court says it will have dealt with the problem by 2015 thanks to previous reforms. Austria fears that if the criteria are narrowed, then few cases will be taken against western European nations that generally comply with the human rights convention and the court will end up focusing almost exclusively on less democratically developed states in eastern Europe. "That will lose it its legitimacy," the Austrian diplomats said.
On the suggestion that the margin of appreciation should be widened, Austria said: "We feel that the ECHR is doing a good job of allowing [room for interpretation] and, over the years, it has increased ... But we don't think this should lead to a situation where national courts can do whatever they like."
The Austrian comments expose the international debate going on beyond the UK's domestic obsession with the case of the Islamist cleric Abu Qatada. His deportation to Jordan has been prevented on the grounds that he could be tortured there.
Other member states fear London is in danger of breaking the traditionally consensual approach of the Council of Europe and has been somewhat condescending in repeatedly harking back to ancient English liberties such as Magna Carta.
Under the draft Brighton Declaration, leaked to the Guardian last month, the UK insists it is safeguarding the individual's right of petition to the Strasbourg.
The president of the ECHR, Sir Nicolas Bratza QC, Britain's nominee on the court, appeared before parliament's joint committee on human rights on Tuesday and defended the court's performance. "I don't agree with suggestions made that we are micro-managing cases or somehow overreaching our powers," he said.
Commenting on the Brighton Declaration, Bratza said: "We would have more concerns about the margin of interpretation [being] legislated for." There would be problems, he said, for something which varied so much according to "which particular article [of the human rights convention] has been invoked".
"Is it necessary to add additional admissibility criteria where we already reject 90% of applications? Only about 1 or 2% of [UK] cases go through under existing admissibility criteria."
Bratza said he was glad that some of the other initial UK proposals such as fees and the "sunset clause" – under which cases which had not been settled could be ignored after a certain period – had been dropped.
One of the Brighton Declaration proposals says ECHR judges should not be "older than the 65 years at the date on which their term of office commences". Of the three UK judges nominated for election to replace Bratza this month, one, Paul Mahoney, is understood to be close to that age if not already over 65.
Concern about the role of the ECHR was also voiced by Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, who resigned in protest this week from the government-appointed UK Commission on a bill of rights because he feared parliament's role was being ignored.
"Some democratic check against absolute judicial power is needed," he wrote on the Guardian law website. "That applies to the powers of national courts but all the more so to those of more remote, international ones. The problem of reconciling the judicial independence of an international court with the sovereignty of our national legislature brings us into vital, largely unexplored territory of constitutional debate."
His position on the commission has been taken up by the Conservative Lord Faulks QC.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "In January, the prime minister set out a number of principles for reform of the European court of human rights. The draft declaration reflects these priorities.
"Just like any other negotiation, we will not provide a running commentary on negotiations, nor publish a draft while they are ongoing."
British government calls for financial disincentives to reduce volume of cases piling up at Strasbourg court
Proposals to charge claimants for taking their cases to the European court of human rights (ECHR) have triggered an international row over the United Kingdom's programme for reforming the Strasbourg court.
Austrian diplomatic sources have accused the UK of supporting the scheme designed to deter too many cases coming before the court but British sources have insisted the proposal was made by another country and emerged during negotiations.
The introduction of financial disincentives to reduce the volume of cases piling up at the Strasbourg court is understood not to have received support from any of the other 46 member states in the Council of Europe.
The UK currently holds the rotating chairmanship of the council and has drafted a radical reform programme aimed at restricting the flow of cases to the ECHR and boosting the status of national courts. It will be presented to an international conference in Brighton next month.
But other countries have been critical of the UK's Brighton Declaration, opposing its emphasis on expanding the so-called margin of appreciation – allowing national courts to interpret human rights in different ways – and, in particular, introducing stricter criteria to reduce the number of cases reaching the court in Strasbourg.
"One of the [UK's] earlier ideas to reduce the volume was simply charging people to get the right to go there," Austrian diplomats told the Guardian. "There was no support for it [from other Council of Europe countries].
"The most important issue for Austria is the right of the individual without any restriction [to take claims to the ECHR] ... should not be reduced or made more difficult.
"One of the first proposals by the UK was the idea to enforce the use of lawyers to ask for stamp duty and money ... This is no longer in the draft declaration but still there's the idea that the court should introduce admissibility criteria."
There is a backlog of about 150,000 cases at Strasbourg but the court says it will have dealt with the problem by 2015 thanks to previous reforms. Austria fears that if the criteria are narrowed, then few cases will be taken against western European nations that generally comply with the human rights convention and the court will end up focusing almost exclusively on less democratically developed states in eastern Europe. "That will lose it its legitimacy," the Austrian diplomats said.
On the suggestion that the margin of appreciation should be widened, Austria said: "We feel that the ECHR is doing a good job of allowing [room for interpretation] and, over the years, it has increased ... But we don't think this should lead to a situation where national courts can do whatever they like."
The Austrian comments expose the international debate going on beyond the UK's domestic obsession with the case of the Islamist cleric Abu Qatada. His deportation to Jordan has been prevented on the grounds that he could be tortured there.
Other member states fear London is in danger of breaking the traditionally consensual approach of the Council of Europe and has been somewhat condescending in repeatedly harking back to ancient English liberties such as Magna Carta.
Under the draft Brighton Declaration, leaked to the Guardian last month, the UK insists it is safeguarding the individual's right of petition to the Strasbourg.
The president of the ECHR, Sir Nicolas Bratza QC, Britain's nominee on the court, appeared before parliament's joint committee on human rights on Tuesday and defended the court's performance. "I don't agree with suggestions made that we are micro-managing cases or somehow overreaching our powers," he said.
Commenting on the Brighton Declaration, Bratza said: "We would have more concerns about the margin of interpretation [being] legislated for." There would be problems, he said, for something which varied so much according to "which particular article [of the human rights convention] has been invoked".
"Is it necessary to add additional admissibility criteria where we already reject 90% of applications? Only about 1 or 2% of [UK] cases go through under existing admissibility criteria."
Bratza said he was glad that some of the other initial UK proposals such as fees and the "sunset clause" – under which cases which had not been settled could be ignored after a certain period – had been dropped.
One of the Brighton Declaration proposals says ECHR judges should not be "older than the 65 years at the date on which their term of office commences". Of the three UK judges nominated for election to replace Bratza this month, one, Paul Mahoney, is understood to be close to that age if not already over 65.
Concern about the role of the ECHR was also voiced by Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, who resigned in protest this week from the government-appointed UK Commission on a bill of rights because he feared parliament's role was being ignored.
"Some democratic check against absolute judicial power is needed," he wrote on the Guardian law website. "That applies to the powers of national courts but all the more so to those of more remote, international ones. The problem of reconciling the judicial independence of an international court with the sovereignty of our national legislature brings us into vital, largely unexplored territory of constitutional debate."
His position on the commission has been taken up by the Conservative Lord Faulks QC.
A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "In January, the prime minister set out a number of principles for reform of the European court of human rights. The draft declaration reflects these priorities.
"Just like any other negotiation, we will not provide a running commentary on negotiations, nor publish a draft while they are ongoing."
Prisoners Must Vote Only In Presidential Elections - EC Boss
Prisoners Must Vote Only In Presidential Elections - EC Boss
Dr Afari Gyan
The Electoral Commissioner of Ghana, Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan has suggested that prisoners be made to vote only in the presidential election in December and not in the parliamentary polls.
Among his reasons, prisoners may not have adequate knowledge of the candidates contesting in the constituencies they find themselves.
Speaking in a meeting with religious bodies in Accra, Dr. Afari Gyan raised fears that political parties may begin to raise concerns when votes get swayed in favour of their opponents.
Afari Gyan said “we will register the prisoners and they will vote. They have agreed that we set up polling stations inside the prisons for them to vote”.
He added “I wish that we all agree that they [Prisoners] vote only in the Presidential elections because for the Presidential elections it doesn’t matter where you vote”.
Meanwhile, the suggestion by the electoral commissioner, has received mixed reactions from both the New Patriotic Party and the ruling National Democratic Congress.
General Secretary of the NPP, Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie, popularly known as Sir John said it doesn’t matter whether the Prisoners live in the constituency or not, they must be allowed to vote both in the Presidential and Parliamentary.
He said “as well as the person qualifies to register in that particular constituency, that person is fit to determine who becomes what. It is not fit for us to determine to them that they have a right to vote only in the Presidential”.
On the other hand, the ruling NDC appears to be in good company with the EC.
Deputy General Secretary of the party in charge of operations, George Lawson in an interview with XYZ News said the EC’s suggestion is not out of place.
Source: XYZ News/Ghana
The Electoral Commissioner of Ghana, Dr. Kwadwo Afari Gyan has suggested that prisoners be made to vote only in the presidential election in December and not in the parliamentary polls.
Among his reasons, prisoners may not have adequate knowledge of the candidates contesting in the constituencies they find themselves.
Speaking in a meeting with religious bodies in Accra, Dr. Afari Gyan raised fears that political parties may begin to raise concerns when votes get swayed in favour of their opponents.
Afari Gyan said “we will register the prisoners and they will vote. They have agreed that we set up polling stations inside the prisons for them to vote”.
He added “I wish that we all agree that they [Prisoners] vote only in the Presidential elections because for the Presidential elections it doesn’t matter where you vote”.
Meanwhile, the suggestion by the electoral commissioner, has received mixed reactions from both the New Patriotic Party and the ruling National Democratic Congress.
General Secretary of the NPP, Kwadwo Owusu Afriyie, popularly known as Sir John said it doesn’t matter whether the Prisoners live in the constituency or not, they must be allowed to vote both in the Presidential and Parliamentary.
He said “as well as the person qualifies to register in that particular constituency, that person is fit to determine who becomes what. It is not fit for us to determine to them that they have a right to vote only in the Presidential”.
On the other hand, the ruling NDC appears to be in good company with the EC.
Deputy General Secretary of the party in charge of operations, George Lawson in an interview with XYZ News said the EC’s suggestion is not out of place.
Source: XYZ News/Ghana
Sunday, March 11, 2012
My part in Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky's downfall
My part in Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky's downfall
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky has jumped before he could be pushed. It is unknown who suggested Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky should be selected for the UK Bill of Rights Commission, and why he was selected. He is neither a lawyer nor an expert on human rights, merely a so-called political scientist. From the outset he has shown that he is not fit for purpose. After his dismal performance before the Joint Committee on Human Rights he should not have been placed within a million miles of the subject of human rights.
The UK Bill of Rights Commission is right to deliberately ignore the wishes of Prime Minister David Cameron, if it is to have any integrity and he is against the ECHR, ECtHR and human rights generally.
I don't believe that it is realistic to make human rights consistent with parliamentary sovereignty. The two concepts are at odds with each other.
The UK surrendered parliamentary sovereignty to whatever extent when we signed up to the Council of Europe. We agreed to abide by the Convention and Court decisions. Therefore human rights, democracy and rule of law trump parliamentary sovereignty. European law does not recognise parliamentary sovereignty, rather it recognises a different concept sovereignty of the people.
It would appear that Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky has misunderstood the remit of the UK Bill of Rights Commission. Particularly "incorporating and building on the European Convention on Human Rights". Labour did not incorporate Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR when it supposedly brought rights home:
Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
Decisions are made by Parliament but if they impinge upon the ECHR then the ECtHR has jurisdiction to decide if they breach human rights.
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky favours ignoring human rights in favour of parliamentary sovereignty, and seeks to justify this abuse by claiming that Parliament should have a democratic override. This is dangerous ground. For example, it is a human right to vote. If Parliament overrode this it would not be democratic.
When the ECtHR instructed the UK to give prisoners the right to vote, this sent a signal that the UK is a failing State in relation to human rights, democracy and rule of law.
I claim the scalps of two opposed to human rights, first Steve Hilton and now Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky. Anymore for anymore?
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky has jumped before he could be pushed. It is unknown who suggested Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky should be selected for the UK Bill of Rights Commission, and why he was selected. He is neither a lawyer nor an expert on human rights, merely a so-called political scientist. From the outset he has shown that he is not fit for purpose. After his dismal performance before the Joint Committee on Human Rights he should not have been placed within a million miles of the subject of human rights.
The UK Bill of Rights Commission is right to deliberately ignore the wishes of Prime Minister David Cameron, if it is to have any integrity and he is against the ECHR, ECtHR and human rights generally.
I don't believe that it is realistic to make human rights consistent with parliamentary sovereignty. The two concepts are at odds with each other.
The UK surrendered parliamentary sovereignty to whatever extent when we signed up to the Council of Europe. We agreed to abide by the Convention and Court decisions. Therefore human rights, democracy and rule of law trump parliamentary sovereignty. European law does not recognise parliamentary sovereignty, rather it recognises a different concept sovereignty of the people.
It would appear that Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky has misunderstood the remit of the UK Bill of Rights Commission. Particularly "incorporating and building on the European Convention on Human Rights". Labour did not incorporate Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR when it supposedly brought rights home:
Article 1 – Obligation to respect human rights
The High Contracting Parties shall secure to everyone within their jurisdiction the rights and freedoms defined in Section I of this Convention.
Article 13 – Right to an effective remedy
Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.
Decisions are made by Parliament but if they impinge upon the ECHR then the ECtHR has jurisdiction to decide if they breach human rights.
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky favours ignoring human rights in favour of parliamentary sovereignty, and seeks to justify this abuse by claiming that Parliament should have a democratic override. This is dangerous ground. For example, it is a human right to vote. If Parliament overrode this it would not be democratic.
When the ECtHR instructed the UK to give prisoners the right to vote, this sent a signal that the UK is a failing State in relation to human rights, democracy and rule of law.
I claim the scalps of two opposed to human rights, first Steve Hilton and now Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky. Anymore for anymore?
Tory British Bill of Rights commissioner resigning
Tory British Bill of Rights commissioner resigning
One of the government's commissioners examining whether a British Bill of Rights is needed has told BBC One's Sunday Politics show he is resigning.
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky claims the commission is deliberately ignoring the wishes of Prime Minister David Cameron.
He told host Andrew Neil he had no alternative, as it was "so important" to make human rights "consistent with parliamentary sovereignty".
The government said it was aware the commission had "internal difficulties".
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky is one of eight commissioners brought together in March last year.
The Ministry of Justice asked them to fulfil a pledge in the Coalition Agreement to "investigate" a British Bill of Rights "incorporating and building on the European Convention on Human Rights".
A month previously, Mr Cameron had said it "was about time we started making sure decisions are made in this Parliament rather than in the courts".
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and other members of the commission had ignored his views and were not considering real change to current human rights laws.
'Disloyal'
"It is clear that it [the commission] has been intending all along to issue a report in favour of the status quo," he told Mr Neil.
"We have considered the issue of parliamentary sovereignty only once.
"The commission answers to Ken Clarke. He and Nick Clegg [deputy prime minister] set it up. His hands are everywhere."
He said Mr Clarke had followed the agenda of the human rights establishment, "sidelining not only Parliament but the prime minister, and I consider that to be disloyal".
In recent days, commission chairman Sir Leigh Lewis and the six other commissioners wrote a letter to Mr Clarke saying Dr Duschinsky's presence on the committee was "significantly impeding its progress".
Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith told Sunday Politics he was not aware what went on behind closed doors, but Sir Leigh was a "fair and decent" man.
"Sometimes when you attack public servants when they don't have the ability to defend themselves - it's a little unfair really," he said.
The issue of who has the final say over rulings of the European Court of Human Rights - Parliament or the court - has divided the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for years.
One of the government's commissioners examining whether a British Bill of Rights is needed has told BBC One's Sunday Politics show he is resigning.
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky claims the commission is deliberately ignoring the wishes of Prime Minister David Cameron.
He told host Andrew Neil he had no alternative, as it was "so important" to make human rights "consistent with parliamentary sovereignty".
The government said it was aware the commission had "internal difficulties".
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky is one of eight commissioners brought together in March last year.
The Ministry of Justice asked them to fulfil a pledge in the Coalition Agreement to "investigate" a British Bill of Rights "incorporating and building on the European Convention on Human Rights".
A month previously, Mr Cameron had said it "was about time we started making sure decisions are made in this Parliament rather than in the courts".
Dr Pinto-Duschinsky said Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and other members of the commission had ignored his views and were not considering real change to current human rights laws.
'Disloyal'
"It is clear that it [the commission] has been intending all along to issue a report in favour of the status quo," he told Mr Neil.
"We have considered the issue of parliamentary sovereignty only once.
"The commission answers to Ken Clarke. He and Nick Clegg [deputy prime minister] set it up. His hands are everywhere."
He said Mr Clarke had followed the agenda of the human rights establishment, "sidelining not only Parliament but the prime minister, and I consider that to be disloyal".
In recent days, commission chairman Sir Leigh Lewis and the six other commissioners wrote a letter to Mr Clarke saying Dr Duschinsky's presence on the committee was "significantly impeding its progress".
Welfare Secretary Iain Duncan Smith told Sunday Politics he was not aware what went on behind closed doors, but Sir Leigh was a "fair and decent" man.
"Sometimes when you attack public servants when they don't have the ability to defend themselves - it's a little unfair really," he said.
The issue of who has the final say over rulings of the European Court of Human Rights - Parliament or the court - has divided the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for years.
Tory British Bill of Rights commissioner set to quit
Tory British Bill of Rights commissioner set to quit
By Giles Dilnot Sunday Politics reporter
A government commissioner asked to advise on a British Bill of Rights is expected to resign in protest later after accusing the commission of ignoring the wishes of the prime minister and most Conservative MPs.
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky is one of eight commissioners brought together in March last year by the government to fulfil a pledge in the Coalition Agreement to "investigate" a British Bill of Rights "incorporating and building on the European Convention on Human Rights".
A month previously, Prime Minister David Cameron had said it "was about time we started making sure decisions are made in this Parliament rather than in the courts".
The issue of who has the final say over rulings of the European Court of Human Rights - Parliament or the court - has divided the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for a number of years.
But after 12 months of deliberation, Conservative commissioner Dr Pinto-Duschinsky sent an e-mail to the chairman of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, Sir Leigh Lewis, in which he raised his concerns that the views of Mr Cameron and the "overwhelming majority of Parliamentarians" were being ignored.
He wrote: "The underlying strategic decision that needs to be made about the work of the commission is whether or not the concerns of the overwhelming majority of Parliamentarians and of the PM are to be taken seriously and whether the alternatives to the Human Rights Act system are to be investigated in detail within the commission.
"So far the commission has engaged largely with proponents of the status quo and is set to do the same... "
He was not alone in voicing his concerns.
Last July, just four months into their work, fellow Conservative commissioner Anthony Speight QC wrote to Dr Pinto-Duschinsky and others, saying: "I shall be failing in my duty if I stand back and allow every trace of distinctive Tory thinking to be squeezed out of the picture."
Row escalated
Just six days ago, in further emails seen by the BBC's Sunday Politics show, the row escalated dramatically when Sir Leigh threatened to go to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and resign because of Dr Pinto-Duschinsky's presence on the commission and alleged accusations of bias against commission staff.
The next day all seven commissioners, including Dr Pinto-Duschinsky's Conservative colleagues, signed a letter to the justice secretary stating: "Dr Pinto-Duschinsky's continuing presence on the commission is significantly impeding its progress."
The failures Dr Pinto-Duschinsky has alleged have already drawn criticism from senior Tory backbencher David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden.
Mr Davis said: "The point of the commission was to bring human rights home, not to do them down, not to reduce them, but to bring them back under British democratic control and that's fundamental.
"If you don't do that, if there's no parliamentary control of it, no final parliamentary override if you like, then they've not delivered on the promise that they were set up under."
In a statement, the Ministry of Justice said: "We are aware that there have been some internal difficulties within the commission on process rather than policy. The MoJ has received a letter to that effect from the commissioners and we will be responding in due course."
The commission told the BBC: "The Commission on a Bill of Rights is making good progress on its work and will continue to do so.
"We have already discussed the issues of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic override at length. The commission will issue its final report to government by the end of the year in accordance with its terms of reference."
By Giles Dilnot Sunday Politics reporter
A government commissioner asked to advise on a British Bill of Rights is expected to resign in protest later after accusing the commission of ignoring the wishes of the prime minister and most Conservative MPs.
Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky is one of eight commissioners brought together in March last year by the government to fulfil a pledge in the Coalition Agreement to "investigate" a British Bill of Rights "incorporating and building on the European Convention on Human Rights".
A month previously, Prime Minister David Cameron had said it "was about time we started making sure decisions are made in this Parliament rather than in the courts".
The issue of who has the final say over rulings of the European Court of Human Rights - Parliament or the court - has divided the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats for a number of years.
But after 12 months of deliberation, Conservative commissioner Dr Pinto-Duschinsky sent an e-mail to the chairman of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, Sir Leigh Lewis, in which he raised his concerns that the views of Mr Cameron and the "overwhelming majority of Parliamentarians" were being ignored.
He wrote: "The underlying strategic decision that needs to be made about the work of the commission is whether or not the concerns of the overwhelming majority of Parliamentarians and of the PM are to be taken seriously and whether the alternatives to the Human Rights Act system are to be investigated in detail within the commission.
"So far the commission has engaged largely with proponents of the status quo and is set to do the same... "
He was not alone in voicing his concerns.
Last July, just four months into their work, fellow Conservative commissioner Anthony Speight QC wrote to Dr Pinto-Duschinsky and others, saying: "I shall be failing in my duty if I stand back and allow every trace of distinctive Tory thinking to be squeezed out of the picture."
Row escalated
Just six days ago, in further emails seen by the BBC's Sunday Politics show, the row escalated dramatically when Sir Leigh threatened to go to Justice Secretary Ken Clarke and resign because of Dr Pinto-Duschinsky's presence on the commission and alleged accusations of bias against commission staff.
The next day all seven commissioners, including Dr Pinto-Duschinsky's Conservative colleagues, signed a letter to the justice secretary stating: "Dr Pinto-Duschinsky's continuing presence on the commission is significantly impeding its progress."
The failures Dr Pinto-Duschinsky has alleged have already drawn criticism from senior Tory backbencher David Davis, the MP for Haltemprice and Howden.
Mr Davis said: "The point of the commission was to bring human rights home, not to do them down, not to reduce them, but to bring them back under British democratic control and that's fundamental.
"If you don't do that, if there's no parliamentary control of it, no final parliamentary override if you like, then they've not delivered on the promise that they were set up under."
In a statement, the Ministry of Justice said: "We are aware that there have been some internal difficulties within the commission on process rather than policy. The MoJ has received a letter to that effect from the commissioners and we will be responding in due course."
The commission told the BBC: "The Commission on a Bill of Rights is making good progress on its work and will continue to do so.
"We have already discussed the issues of parliamentary sovereignty and democratic override at length. The commission will issue its final report to government by the end of the year in accordance with its terms of reference."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)