Law and order is what governments strive to achieve. Sometimes they fail miserably. Like the Labour government, they are so disorganised that they break the law. That is why the Joint Committee on Human Rights scrutinises the government and Parliament and publishes its Report. Finding failings in the government’s responses to court judgments finding breaches of human rights. As the 16th Report concludes, in the prisoners votes case, condemning the government’s delay “While the issues involved give rise to political controversy, they are not legally complex”. Therefore, the government really has got no excuse for dilly, dallying about. The government chose to respond to Red Top headlines and editorials rather than the electorate or what was right. Murdoch has no vote he does not count.
The electorate wants security, not deprivations of liberty allegedly based upon some rather vague hyped up so-called terrorist threat. Law and order is not always the same thing as security. If the government breaks the law in order to get security, we have none of them which creates insecurity disorder and lawlessness.
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
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Amateurs have taken over the asylum
What this and this have in common is that they appear to be attacks by amateurs as opposed to professional terrorists, and that the only real threat is the disruption that they cause.
UPDATE: I consider this to be a bigger terrorist threat. Especially, as it is claimed that the US actually bombed innocent men, women and children.
UPDATED UPDATE: Obsolete likens these clowns the Beavis and Butthead.
The Laughing Policeman...
First we had the judge accused of flashing on the train, and now we have the copper caught having a wank on duty.
Levy, Turner and Evans to be charged
I do so want this story to be true which was broken by the Daily Mail last night after I had gone to bed. That is, Lord Levy, Ruth Turner and Sir Christopher Evans to be charged for their roles in the cash for honours scandal.
Hat-Tip to Theo Spark for the image of Levy in handcuffs and prison garb.
Evidence that life is cheap
A soldier who was 7 times over the drink drive limit and killed 5 people will serve less than a year in prison for each life lost.
This was not a momentary lapse of judgement, as the defendant claimed, it takes longer than a moment to drink 8 pints of lager.
I do not believe that this was careless driving at all but was in fact dangerous driving.
He should have been charged with manslaughter at the very least.
This was not a momentary lapse of judgement, as the defendant claimed, it takes longer than a moment to drink 8 pints of lager.
I do not believe that this was careless driving at all but was in fact dangerous driving.
He should have been charged with manslaughter at the very least.
A childs plea: 'Please close Guantanamo jail so I can see my daddy and give him a hug'
A childs plea: 'Please close Guantanamo jail so I can see my daddy and give him a hug'
By Robert Verkaik, Law Editor
Published: 30 June 2007
Johaina Aamer recalls very little of the final precious moments she spent with her father before the bombs started falling in Afghanistan.
She remembers him pretending to be a lion and chasing her and her two brothers around the garden and then running for cover as the explosions crept closer. After that, her mind is blank.
But in paintings and pictures the nine-year-old has unlocked her subconscious to tell a horrifying story of the American invasion, her father's capture and his 2,000 days spent as a prisoner in Guantanamo Bay.
Her art reveals the anguish of an ordinary south London family who have been enduring their own private Guantanamo hell, not knowing why father and husband, Shaker Aamer, was taken from them. Two years ago, Johaina wrote a letter to Tony Blair saying that when she saw him on television with George Bush she switched channels.
The children decided not to post it in case it prejudiced their father's case. Today Johaina Aamer, her mother, Zin, 32, and her three brothers, Abdullah, eight, Abdul Rahman, six and Abdul Salam, five, are asking Gordon Brown, to end their misery and free Shaker, 40, and the other eight British residents still held in Guantanamo Bay.
"I would like him to close down the prison so my daddy can come home and I can give him a big hug," said Johaina.
Even then, it may be too late. The family fear that Shaker, who has shed half his 17-stone body weight since his imprisonment five and half years ago, is slowly dying. In one of his last, heavily censored, letters home Shaker, a Saudi Arabian passport holder who has been living in Britain since 1996, asks for the right to die.
He has recently joined a hunger strike in protest at his detention without trial and was being tube-fed.
Last month, the family thought he had died when it was reported that an anonymous Saudi national had been found dead at the US naval base in Cuba.
"We can find out very little about what is going on in Guantanamo Bay, so that when we hear these stories we always fear the worst," said Zin, who is being treated for depression.
She says it was Shaker's idea to leave their London home in the summer of 2001 because he felt frustrated at not having a proper home to bring up his family.
"The council couldn't find us a flat or house in London so we decided to leave. Shaker was always helping people in England and he wanted to help the children of Afghanistan, but wasn't sure whether he should be teaching or help build a hospital."
For a few weeks, the family shared a house with Moazzam Begg, a Briton who was freed from Guantanamo in 2005, who had also gone to Kabul to help children in Afghanistan. But when the American invasion started, the country became a very dangerous place to be.
"The bombs were falling every night and we had to leave the city to stay in a village. The children were terrified and kept telling us to be quiet in case our noise made the bombs come.
"Shaker was frightened too and I can remember his face now, it was almost as pale as the colour of the cream suit he was wearing. Shaker left the village to find a safer place for us. But in the middle of the night the villagers told us we had to go with a group travelling to the safety of Pakistan."
Zin recalled: "I was pregnant with our fourth child and we were all scared. In the end, I just went. I didn't see Shaker again. Sometimes I regret that decision. What if I stayed - would we all be together now?" Shaker was captured in December 2001 by the Americans, who claim he was fighting with the Taliban. Reprieve, the human rights group with is representing him, maintains that he was sold by villagers to the Northern Alliance who in turn sold him on to the Americans.
From there he was taken to Bagram airbase and later flown on to Guantanamo Bay. He has never seen his youngest son.
Today, Shaker's family will join the family of Moazzam Begg as well as MPs and human rights lawyers at a meeting in Balham, south London, organised by the charity Caged Prisoners, where they will call on the British and US governments for the immediate release of Shaker Aamer.
* The US Supreme Court has agreed to review whether detainees at Guantanamo Bay can use the civilian court system to challenge their indefinite confinement. The Bush administration argues that a new law strips courts of their jurisdiction to hear detainee cases. The justices, who rejected an identical request in April, took the action without making comment.
Murderer wins review over use of secret parole evidence
Murderer wins review over use of secret parole evidence
By John Aston
Published: 30 June 2007
A 71-year-old man jailed 40 years ago for murdering three police officers in Shepherds Bush, west London, was given permission yesterday to seek a judicial review. The 30-year sentence passed on Harry Roberts expired nine years ago.
Lawyers for Roberts mounted a parole bid last year, but lost on the basis of secret evidence. A special advocate was appointed, who viewed the secret evidence on the prisoner's behalf. The Parole Board said sources would be at risk if Roberts was allowed to view the evidence.
His lawyers argued that he was entitled to see the evidence himself and know the reasons why he could not be released. But the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, ruled against him by a majority of three to two.
A new application for Roberts to be released on licence will come before the Parole Board later this year.
Yesterday, his lawyers went back to the High Court and successfully applied for permission to challenge the fairness of the Parole Board's procedures. The judge, Mr Justice Walker ruled that Roberts' case was "of great public interest", and gave him leave to seek a High Court judicial review.
Martin Westgate, appearing for Roberts, said there was concern that, when a fresh application for parole was made, the Parole Board would unlawfully refuse to disclose evidence which could be used to refuse his application once again.
Roberts was jailed for shooting PC Geoffrey Fox, 41, Sergeant Christopher Head, 30, and Detective Constable David Wombwell, 25. The murderof the three officers, in August 1966, was one of the most high-profile crimes of the decade.
The officers were shot in front of children playing in a street near Wormwood Scrubs prison after they approached a van in which Roberts and two other men - Jack Witney and John Duddy - were sitting.
Roberts evaded arrest for three months, camping out in woodland, and was finally captured while sleeping in a barn at Blount's Farm near Bishops Stortford in Hertfordshire.
For some time, human rights analysts have said that detaining someone without telling them the nature of the charge or the evidence against them is against the nature of the UK's justice system.
But the courts have consistently ruled that the use of a special advocate in Roberts' case was not unfair, even though his case did not raise issues of national security.
In 2001, Roberts was transferred to an open prison in what was thought to be a prelude to his release.
But he was alleged to have been involved in drug dealing, bringing contraband into prison and other activities which jeopardised his release. He was sent back to a closed prison pending a review from the Home Secretary at the time, David Blunkett, who produced the material that was withheld from Roberts.
By John Aston
Published: 30 June 2007
A 71-year-old man jailed 40 years ago for murdering three police officers in Shepherds Bush, west London, was given permission yesterday to seek a judicial review. The 30-year sentence passed on Harry Roberts expired nine years ago.
Lawyers for Roberts mounted a parole bid last year, but lost on the basis of secret evidence. A special advocate was appointed, who viewed the secret evidence on the prisoner's behalf. The Parole Board said sources would be at risk if Roberts was allowed to view the evidence.
His lawyers argued that he was entitled to see the evidence himself and know the reasons why he could not be released. But the House of Lords, the highest court in the land, ruled against him by a majority of three to two.
A new application for Roberts to be released on licence will come before the Parole Board later this year.
Yesterday, his lawyers went back to the High Court and successfully applied for permission to challenge the fairness of the Parole Board's procedures. The judge, Mr Justice Walker ruled that Roberts' case was "of great public interest", and gave him leave to seek a High Court judicial review.
Martin Westgate, appearing for Roberts, said there was concern that, when a fresh application for parole was made, the Parole Board would unlawfully refuse to disclose evidence which could be used to refuse his application once again.
Roberts was jailed for shooting PC Geoffrey Fox, 41, Sergeant Christopher Head, 30, and Detective Constable David Wombwell, 25. The murderof the three officers, in August 1966, was one of the most high-profile crimes of the decade.
The officers were shot in front of children playing in a street near Wormwood Scrubs prison after they approached a van in which Roberts and two other men - Jack Witney and John Duddy - were sitting.
Roberts evaded arrest for three months, camping out in woodland, and was finally captured while sleeping in a barn at Blount's Farm near Bishops Stortford in Hertfordshire.
For some time, human rights analysts have said that detaining someone without telling them the nature of the charge or the evidence against them is against the nature of the UK's justice system.
But the courts have consistently ruled that the use of a special advocate in Roberts' case was not unfair, even though his case did not raise issues of national security.
In 2001, Roberts was transferred to an open prison in what was thought to be a prelude to his release.
But he was alleged to have been involved in drug dealing, bringing contraband into prison and other activities which jeopardised his release. He was sent back to a closed prison pending a review from the Home Secretary at the time, David Blunkett, who produced the material that was withheld from Roberts.
Britain's broadband 'is too slow and expensive'
Britain's broadband 'is too slow and expensive'
By Harry Wallop, Consumer Affairs Correspondent
Last Updated: 5:24am BST 30/06/2007
British consumers are paying up to 17 times more for their broadband compared to some of their European neighbours, providing further evidence that the UK has become one of the most expensive places to live in the world.
The study also suggests that households, especially in rural areas, are being routinely misled by their broadband providers about how good a service they receive.
On average we are paying £5.60 a month for each megabit per second (Mbps) of broadband speed. The number of megabits per second is an indication of how quickly data can be downloaded from the internet.
The costs in this country are 17 times higher than in Sweden and seven times higher than in France. In all, 11 continental countries offer cheaper prices than are available in the UK, according to MoneySupermarket, the price comparison website, which compiled the research.
Many countries that are more expensive, however, offer a far better quality of service. Polish households, which pay £6.60 a month per Mbps, receive on average 7.5Mbps - three times faster broadband than in the UK.
British houses only receive on average 2.6Mbps and, on this measurement, we rank 16th out of 23 countries.
Jason Lloyd, head of broadband at MoneySupermarket, said customers had every right to feel annoyed, but cautioned against blaming broadband companies. "It's not the fault of the providers. We are using an antiquated system in the UK," he said.
While many European companies, especially those in Scandinavia, have invested heavily in installing fibre optic wires underground, the UK system is reliant on decades-old copper wires.
This means that many households, especially those in remote areas far away from a telephone exchange, are not receiving the broadband speeds for which they signed up.
Companies often promise super-fast, 16Mbps broadband, which should allow people to download feature films in a matter of minutes, but they are providing only half that speed or worse.
Some 16 per cent of Sky customers are subscribers to its "up to 16Mbps" package. However, only six per cent of these customers actually get the 16Mbps speed. The vast majority, some 78 per cent, get half this speed or less.
Rivals such as TalkTalk, Orange and BT offer an 8Mbps package yet less than half of their customers get this speed. Mr Lloyd said: "Customers feel misled. The maximum speed advertised is so different from what they are actually getting. The problem is that 55 per cent of people don't read the small print."
Britain routinely comes out in surveys as one of the most expensive countries in the world, especially when it comes to technology. According to Which?, the consumer group, a PlayStation 3 games console cost £425 when it launched in the UK - more than in any other Western country.
Website chief threatens to sue Google for libel
Website chief threatens to sue Google for libel
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 3:28am BST 30/06/2007
A British businessman is threatening a landmark legal action against Google, the world's leading internet search engine, after claims that it has defamed him.
Brian Retkin has warn that he will proceed with a libel case against the web giant unless it removes links to defamatory comments about his internet company.
Lawyers for Dotworlds, which registers distinctive domain names, have sent Google what lawyers call a "letter before action".
advertisement
Mr Renton, 48, the company's managing director, of Wembley, north London, said he would sue if Google did not take down the links about his company posted anonymously. "Based on what I know today, I am determined to go ahead with this," he added.
A successful legal challenge could be catastrophic for all search engines in the future as Google and its rivals might have to filter their results more carefully, excluding those that were defamatory.
Google has maintained that it is not responsible for the websites that it identifies in response to search queries, but it has shown that it is prepared, if asked, to remove links to individual sites that may break the law.
Comment: In relation to this last paragraph, I look forward to Google removing the links to FJLathome's blog now that she has been sentenced to 6 months for harassing Rachel North London.
UPDATE: Fuller and better report here.
By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor
Last Updated: 3:28am BST 30/06/2007
A British businessman is threatening a landmark legal action against Google, the world's leading internet search engine, after claims that it has defamed him.
Brian Retkin has warn that he will proceed with a libel case against the web giant unless it removes links to defamatory comments about his internet company.
Lawyers for Dotworlds, which registers distinctive domain names, have sent Google what lawyers call a "letter before action".
advertisement
Mr Renton, 48, the company's managing director, of Wembley, north London, said he would sue if Google did not take down the links about his company posted anonymously. "Based on what I know today, I am determined to go ahead with this," he added.
A successful legal challenge could be catastrophic for all search engines in the future as Google and its rivals might have to filter their results more carefully, excluding those that were defamatory.
Google has maintained that it is not responsible for the websites that it identifies in response to search queries, but it has shown that it is prepared, if asked, to remove links to individual sites that may break the law.
Comment: In relation to this last paragraph, I look forward to Google removing the links to FJLathome's blog now that she has been sentenced to 6 months for harassing Rachel North London.
UPDATE: Fuller and better report here.
The masked Muslim and the magistrate
There is something wrong with our system when a magistrate has to face an inquiry because he walked out of court upon seeing a Muslim defendant wearing a mask covering all her face except for her eyes.
The hearing was meant to justify the Muslim's alleged conduct in relation to a charge of criminal damage. In my view, it would be criminal damage to allow such defendants to put the magistrate in the dock.
The defendant is angry that she now has to explain the magistrate's conduct to her children. Surely, she should be more concerned about explaining her own alleged conduct to her children?
The hearing was meant to justify the Muslim's alleged conduct in relation to a charge of criminal damage. In my view, it would be criminal damage to allow such defendants to put the magistrate in the dock.
The defendant is angry that she now has to explain the magistrate's conduct to her children. Surely, she should be more concerned about explaining her own alleged conduct to her children?
Convicted prisoners to get vote by next election
The House of Lords and House of Commons Joint Committee on Human Rights has just published its 16th Report of Session 2006-2007 entitled Monitoring the Government's Response to Court Judgments Finding Breaches of Human Rights (HL Paper 128, HC 728).
The following are extracts taken from the Report:
(2) PRISONER VOTING
67. In Hirst v UK, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR noted that the current blanket ban on prisoners voting in the UK applied to a wide range of offenders, and did so in a way which was indiscriminate, applying irrespective of the length of sentence, gravity of the offence or individual circumstances. The general, automatic and indiscriminate nature of the ban fell outside the State's margin of appreciation and was incompatible with the right in Article 3, Protocol 1 ECHR.
68. On 2 February 2006, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs announced that a consultation document on the implementation of the Hirst judgment was in preparation and would, he hoped, be available in a "few weeks time". We welcomed the announcement of this consultation in our last Report. Mr Hirst wrote to us in 19 June 2006 highlighting the delayed introduction of the consultation paper and expressing dissatisfaction at the Government's dilatoriness in this matter.[62]
69. The DCA finally published their consultation paper on the Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners on 14 December 2006.[63] The Government envisages that this consultation - which is presented as "Stage 1" - will be followed by a further "Stage 2" process involving proposals for legislation and a Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment. Stage 1 of the consultation process "sets out the principles behind the arguments for and against convicted prisoners retaining the right to vote whilst they are detained in prison, and aims to ascertain whether any form of enfranchisement should be taken forward". When the consultation paper was published, it was clear that any necessary reforms would not be in place in time for the Northern Irish Assembly elections in March 2007 and the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, and local government elections in England and Scotland in May 2007.
70. In the Consultation Paper, the Government expressed its "firm belief" that "individuals who have committed an offence serious enough to warrant a term of imprisonment, should not be able to vote while in prison" and the consultation does not offer total enfranchisement of all prisoners as an option for change. It asked respondents to comment on retaining total disenfranchisement, despite this being the only option that the Government accepts is incompatible with the judgment of the Grand Chamber.[64]
71. In January, we wrote to the Lord Chancellor to ask for further information on the significant delay involved in the launch of the consultation process; for a timetable for the completion of the consultation stage and justification of the decision to hold a two-stage consultation process; the Government's reasons for consulting on the maintenance of a total ban in light of the ECtHR ruling and for refusing to consult on lifting the existing ban entirely.[65]
72. While we were waiting for the Government's response, the Court of Session sitting as the Registration Appeal Court Scotland made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, concluding that, in light of the judgment in Hirst v UK, the then forthcoming elections for the Scottish Parliament would "take place in a manner which was not "Convention-compliant".[66] We wrote to the Lord Chancellor to ask whether the Government agreed there was a need for urgent action to remedy the incompatibility identified in Hirst and to ask whether the Government had considered using the Remedial Order procedure to provide a remedy.[67]
73. On 2 March 2007, the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland refused to make a declaration of incompatibility in similar terms.[68] In April 2007, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the terms of the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Order 2007. An Explanatory Memorandum was presented with this Order, in which, the relevant Minister explained that he could not certify that the proposals were compatible with the Convention, as a result of Hirst. That Committee drew this incompatibility to the attention of both Houses, as an "unusual and unexpected use of powers". [69]
74. The Lord Chancellor replied to our letters on Hirst and the Court of Session declaration of incompatibility on 27 March 2007, some time after the Government consultation closed. The Lord Chancellor repeated the Government's view that prisoner enfranchisement is a "complex and difficult issue" with "considerable opponents". The new timetable for the implementation of the judgment in Hirst v UK expects Stage 2 of the consultation process to begin in July 2007. A legislative solution is not expected until at least May 2008.[70]
75. The Lord Chancellor explained that the consultation paper invites views from people who consider that it is "right in principle" that prisoners should remain disenfranchised, "in order that they can be taken into account in considering the extent of any future reform". The Lord Chancellor accepts that retaining the blanket ban is not an option. The Government has excluded the option of "full enfranchisement" from the options for change "so as to clearly indicate that it is not an option for reform that we would feel able to adopt".
76. Liberty are concerned that the consultation paper proposes only minor reforms and explicitly rules out full enfranchisement as an option. They consider that the Government's consultation "seems designed to do little more than ensure that…the UK's approach would be considered to be within its 'margin of appreciation'".[71]
77. We acknowledge that many people will question why prisoners should be entitled to vote in elections and that the Government would be taking a generally unpopular course if it were to enfranchise even a small proportion of the prison population. Nevertheless, the current blanket ban on the enfranchisement of prisoners is incompatible with the UK's obligations under the European Convention and must be dealt with.
78. We consider that the time taken to publish the Government's consultation paper and the time proposed for consultation is disproportionate. While the issues involved give rise to political controversy, they are not legally complex. The continued failure to remove the blanket ban, enfranchising at least part of the prison population, is clearly unlawful. It is also a matter for regret that the Government should seek views on retaining the current blanket ban, thereby raising expectations that this could be achieved, when in fact, this is the one option explicitly ruled out by the European Court.
79. We recommend that the Government bring forward a solution as soon as possible, preferably in the form of an urgent Remedial Order. We strongly recommend that the Government publish a draft Remedial Order as part of its second stage of consultation. We would be disappointed if a legislative solution were not in force in adequate time to allow the necessary preparations to be made for the next general election.
APPENDIX 5: LETTER DATED 23 JANUARY 2007 TO THE RT HON. LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON QC, SECRETARY OF STATE AND LORD CHANCELLOR, DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Hirst v UK
The Department for Constitutional Affairs published their consultation paper on the Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners on 14 December 2006, over ten months after the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he hoped it would be available. The information provided to the Committee of Ministers for their meeting on 17-18 October 2006 indicated that draft legislation expected in October 2007. This appears unrealistic in light of the new timetable of the proposed consultation. Although there is no new timetable presented in the DCA consultation document, this consultation will close on 7 March 2007. This consultation - which is presented as "Stage 1" - will be followed by a further "Stage 2" process involving proposals for legislation. It appears that the Government expects this consultation process to last for a significant time. The necessary reforms will not be in place in time for the Northern Irish Assembly elections in March 2007; Scottish Parliament elections; National Assembly in Wales; and local government elections in England and Scotland, all expected in May 2007.
The Consultation Paper clearly expresses the Government's "firm belief" that "individuals who have committed an offence serious enough to warrant a term of imprisonment, should not be able to vote while in prison (Foreword by the Lord Chancellor). We note that the Government have concluded that the judgment in Hirst v UK "did not conclude that the UK must enfranchise all prisoners". As a result, the consultation does not offer total enfranchisement of all prisoners as an option for change. However, we note that the Consultation Paper invites respondents to comment on retaining total disenfranchisement, despite this being the only option which the Government accepts is incompatible with the judgment of the Grand Chamber (paras 57-58, DCA Consultation Paper).
I would be grateful if you could tell us:
a) why there has been such a significant delay in the launch of this consultation process;
b) why, given the significant number of forthcoming elections, the Government considers that it is appropriate to conduct a two stage consultation process;
c) what is the proposed timetable for Stage 2 of the consultation;
d) what are the Government's reasons for consulting on maintaining the blanket ban on voting for all prisoners, which was found to breach the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights;
e) what are the Government's reasons for excluding from the options for change any prospect of full enfranchisement.
We would be grateful for a fuller explanation of the Government's views than those provided in the Consultation Paper.
APPENDIX 11: LETTER DATED 16 JUNE 2006 FROM JOHN HIRST, RE HIRST V UK (NO.2)
I note that that your remit excludes consideration of individual cases. However, given that these cases concern the individual versus the State, in my view, this anomaly needs to be rectified if you are to be effective as a watchdog.
I note the powers of The Committee; I also note that they have not been used to their full extent in my case. For example, in para 52 of the 13th Report, it states that The Committee "wrote to the DCA to inquire about implementation measures following this case as part of its scrutiny of the Electoral Administration Bill. Subsequently, in a written statement of 2 February 2006, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs stated that:
The ECtHR indicated that there should be proper debate about those issues and I have therefore concluded that the best way forward would be to embark on full public consultation in which all the options can be examined and which will give everyone the opportunity to have their say. A consultation document is therefore in preparation and I hope it will be available for discussion in a few weeks time. Thereafter there will be a period for Those with an interest to make their views known, which will help to inform the development of future policy.
In our report on the Electoral Administration Bill, we expressed regret that Parliament had not afforded the opportunity to consider the important issue of prisoner voting rights in the course of scrutiny of that Bill. We nevertheless welcomed the consultation exercise proposed. We intend to return to consider the proposals for reform of the law arising from the consultation process.
During the preparation for this case my research discovered that there had been no Parliamentary debate on the issue of prisoner voting rights. This fact was mentioned in my argument to the ECtHR. The Court accepted this point. I won this point. The UK lost this point. At para 79 of the Grand Chamber's judgment it states:
"...it cannot be said that there was any substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification in the light of modern day penal policy and of current human rights standards for maintaining such a general restriction on the right of prisoners to vote".
The Court did not say, Charles Falconer, Lord Chancellor, we indicate that you should now go and start talks about talks. The UK's obligation to the Convention is to amend the existing laws which led to the violation in human rights. This delaying tactic used by the DCA is unacceptable. See for example, Ireland's passing of a Bill to legislate to allow all prisoners the postal vote.
The Court used the principle of universal suffrage as it's starting point. The Suffragette Movement's motto became "Deeds not words", when Parliament sought to deny women the vote by offering to talk about the subject rather than pass a law to implement it. I echo this with mine, action not words.
I trust that you will now use your teeth, and stop wagging your tail.
APPENDIX 13: LETTER DATED 27 MARCH FROM THE RT HON LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON QC, SECRETARY OF STATE AND LORD CHANCELLOR, DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS, RE IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: DECLARATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY, WILLIAM SCOTT V ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER
1. Thank you for your letters of 23 January and 2 February regarding the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v UK and the declaration of incompatibility made in William Scott v Electoral Registration Office. I also take this opportunity to include details of an application for judicial review brought by two prisoners in Northern Ireland.
Hirst v UK (App. No. 74025/01)
a) Why there has been such a significant delay in the launch of this consultation process?
2. Prisoner enfranchisement is a complex and difficult issue. It also has considerable opponents. There are a number of potential options that could be pursued as a result of the Grand Chamber judgment, and the Government needed to consider these carefully before publishing the consultation paper.
b) Why, given the significant number of forthcoming elections, the government considers that it is appropriate to run a two stage consultation process?
3. The current consultation document focuses on the principles of prisoners voting, and the options available to the UK following the European Court of Human Right's judgment in Hirst. As I stated in my foreword to the consultation, the second stage consultation is to consider how any changes might work in practice, which is a separate issue and will be based on the results of the first stage document.
c) What is the proposed timetable for stage two of the consultation process?
4. A revised Action Plan for future steps, based on the actual publication date of the consultation paper on 14 December 2006, is as follows:
Action Time
Written Ministerial Statement in Parliament committing to consultation 2 February 2006
Research and Drafting of Phase 1 consultation (Principles, Context, and Options) February and March 2006
Obtain Ministerial clearance of draft Phase I paper and publication 14 December 2006
Consultation period 12 weeks minimum 7 March 2007
Analysis of responses and drafting of Phase 2 consultation (Preferred Option & Detailed implementation issues) April - June 2007
Obtain Ministerial clearance for and publish Response paper for Phase I paper and draft Phase 2 consultation paper June 2007
Consultation period (12 weeks minimum) July - September 2007
Analysis of responses and drafting of Response paper for Phase 2 October - December 2007
Obtain Ministerial clearance for and publish Response paper for Phase 2 January 2008
Drafting of appropriate legislation to effect change February - April 2008
Introduction and passage of legislation From May 2008? (Timing subject to Parliamentary business)
d) What are the Government's reasons for consulting on maintaining the blanket ban on voting for all prisoners, which was found to breach the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights?
5. The consultation paper does invite views from persons who believe that it is right in principle that prisoners should remain disenfranchised, in order that they can be taken into account in considering the extent of any future reform. It encourages such respondents to consider thoroughly the available options. However, the document also makes it clear that retaining the blanket ban is outside the margin of appreciation given by the Hirst judgment, and that it is not, therefore, an option for the future,
e) What are the Government's reasons for excluding from the options for change any prospect of full enfranchisement?
6. As I stated in my foreword to the paper, the judgment did not conclude that the UK must enfranchise all prisoners. The Government is opposed to complete enfranchisement of all convicted prisoners. It is therefore omitted from the list of possible options for change in the consultation paper, so as clearly to indicate that it is not an option for reform that we would feel able to adopt.
William Scott v Electoral Registration Officer
I would be grateful if you could give us information about the Government's views on the declaration of incompatibility in this case. In particular, I would be grateful if you could:
a) Tell us whether, in light of the declaration in Smith and the number of forthcoming elections, the Government agree that there is a need for urgent action to amend or repeal s.3(1) Representation of the People Act 1983;
b) Tell us whether, in light of the imminent elections in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the Government have considered using the Remedial Order procedure to execute the judgment in Hirst and remedy the incompatibility identified in Smith before those elections took place, and if not, why not?
c) If you did consider using the Remedial Order process, please explain why this option has been rejected in favour of the two stage consultation proposed in the OCA consultation paper.
7. The Government notes the ruling of the Registration Appeal Court that it is part of the Court of Session for the purposes of section 4 of the Human Rights Act, and therefore has power to make a declaration of incompatibility under that section. The Government is considering the implications of this ruling.
8. Before turning to the questions raised by the Committee, I take this opportunity to note that domestic proceedings have also been brought by way an application for judicial review in Northern Ireland (In the matter of an application by Toner and Walsh for leave to apply for judicial review). These proceedings were brought on 15th February 2007, shortly before the Northern Ireland Assembly elections held on 7th March. They were dismissed by the High Court of Northern Ireland (which heard the matter on 1st March and delivered judgment on 2nd March) and the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland (which heard the matter on 2nd March and gave its decision on that day). The Court of Appeal indicated that it may or may not deliver a full judgment in due course. A copy of the High Courts judgment is at Annex A, and of the affidavit evidence submitted on the behalf of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at Annex B.
9. Turning to the questions raised by the Committee in respect of the Smith v Scott case, the Government does not agree with the Committee that the judgment of the Registration Appeal Court requires urgent action to repeal the current law barring prisoners from voting at UK elections. This judgment does not establish any new principle beyond that established in the Hirst judgment
10. The Government's clear view is that an issue as fundamental - the franchise requires careful consideration and deliberation, and should not be addressed piecemeal. We are clear that any extension of the franchise must be consistent across all elections within the United Kingdom.
11. The Government already has in place the process to address these issues - the current two-stage consultation on prisoners' voting rights. As I have stated above, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concluded that a total ban was outside the margin of appreciation given by the Convention, but the judgment does not require the UK to enfranchise all convicted prisoners, nor does it dictate which categories of prisoner should be enfranchised. Indeed, the Court acknowledged that there was no common European approach to this issue, and that Contracting States had a wide margin of appreciation in deciding which convicted prisoners should have the right to vote. This leaves the UK with a number of potential options that could be pursued, and which require public consultation followed by full consideration by Parliament.
12. For these reasons, the Government considers primary legislation to be the appropriate vehicle for implementing any option for change.
APPENDIX 14: MEMORANDUM DATED 16 MARCH 2007 FROM LIBERTY, RE IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DECLARATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY
Introduction
1. On 21 February 2007, the Joint Committee of Human Rights (the "JCHR") called for evidence on: (i) the implementation of judgments in the European Court of Human Rights (the "ECtHR") finding the UK to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (the "ECHR"); and (ii) the adequacy of the Government's response to declarations of incompatibility made under the Human Rights Act 1998 (the "HRA"). In this short response we seek to draw out some general observations about the Executive's and Parliament's responses to such decisions.
2. We welcome the JCHR's recent decision to "be more proactive in relation to declarations of incompatibility, both in terms of pressing the Government to take action and, in appropriate cases, recommending what action should be taken"[188] and, similarly, to present "more regular progress reports examining the implementation of Strasbourg judgments".[189] Considering the UK's response to such decisions is, in our view, one of the JCHR's most important roles. Rather than giving our courts the final say about how our rights are protected, the HRA retains an important role for the other limbs of government: the Executive and Parliament. The JCHR helps to ensure that this role is properly performed by, for example (i) bringing adverse decisions of the Strasbourg and UK courts to Parliament's attention; (ii) scrutinising the Executive's response to such judgments and encouraging it to respond in an appropriate and timely manner; and (iii) scrutinising proposed new laws to limit the risk of future adverse decisions.
Implementation of ECtHR Judgments
Hirst v. United Kingdom[194]
8. Hirst related to the blanket ban on convicted prisoners in detention voting in elections. The applicant argued that this ban violated his right to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No.1 of the ECHR (both alone and in conjunction with Articles 10 (the right to freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination)). The ECtHR held that there was a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.1. Although the ban had a legitimate aim (i.e. preventing crime by sanctioning the conduct of convicted prisoners and enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law), it was not a proportionate measure to achieve that aim. It reached this decision on the basis that: (i) the ban applied to a significant number of individuals and encompassed a wide range of offenders and sentences; and (ii) the ban applied to only convicts with custodial sentences: it did not depend on the nature of the actual crime that had been committed. The restriction on the right to vote was thus general, automatic and indiscriminate, and it fell outside the margin of appreciation granted on the issue.
9. The Department for Constitutional Affairs (the "DCA") published a consultation paper, "Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners Detained within the United Kingdom", in December 2006. The Government's position, as outlined in the paper, is that:
loss of the right to vote is "a proper and proportionate punishment for breaches of the social contract that resulted in imprisonment";[195] and
whilst steps must be taken to respond to the ECtHR's judgment, the judgment "did not conclude that the UK must enfranchise all prisoners":[196] total enfranchisement is therefore not offered as a possible option.
The DCA notes that other European states offer various forms of partial enfranchisement and sought responses on the options of: (i) relating disenfranchisement to the length of sentences; and (ii) allowing the sentencing authority to determine whether the right to vote should be withdrawn.
10. Liberty has provided a detailed response to this consultation[197]. For the purposes of this paper, we do not repeat the arguments made in that consultation response but make instead a few observations about the way in which the Government responded to the decision.
We are disappointed that the Government did not adequately address the reasons underlying the ECtHR's decision in Hirst. Instead, the consultation paper represented the decision as a "bolt out of the blue" and a judgment from on high which the UK was bound to follow. It failed to explain why and how the court had reached the decision and why many countries around the world are now giving their prisoners the right to vote.
The Government did not adequately consider the way in which other jurisdictions had responded to this issue. This may well have been embarrassing for the Government, demonstrating how far out of line the UK is becoming. Such information would, however, have helped to identify how other countries have responded to this issue which could be of use in deciding on the UK's response.
The consultation paper sought to close off the most progressive option for protecting the right to vote addressed in Hirst: the enfranchisement of all prisoners. It only proposed more minor reforms, saying explicitly that full enfranchisement is not an option.
The Government's response seems designed to do little more than ensure that, should another similar case be taken to the ECtHR, the UK's approach would be considered to be within its "margin of appreciation". Human rights are supposed to provide a floor rather than a ceiling, and it is therefore disappointing that the UK seems intent on responding to the decision in Hirst by making as limited a change to the current legal position as possible.
What is a Remedial Order?
The following are extracts taken from the Report:
(2) PRISONER VOTING
67. In Hirst v UK, the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR noted that the current blanket ban on prisoners voting in the UK applied to a wide range of offenders, and did so in a way which was indiscriminate, applying irrespective of the length of sentence, gravity of the offence or individual circumstances. The general, automatic and indiscriminate nature of the ban fell outside the State's margin of appreciation and was incompatible with the right in Article 3, Protocol 1 ECHR.
68. On 2 February 2006, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs announced that a consultation document on the implementation of the Hirst judgment was in preparation and would, he hoped, be available in a "few weeks time". We welcomed the announcement of this consultation in our last Report. Mr Hirst wrote to us in 19 June 2006 highlighting the delayed introduction of the consultation paper and expressing dissatisfaction at the Government's dilatoriness in this matter.[62]
69. The DCA finally published their consultation paper on the Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners on 14 December 2006.[63] The Government envisages that this consultation - which is presented as "Stage 1" - will be followed by a further "Stage 2" process involving proposals for legislation and a Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment. Stage 1 of the consultation process "sets out the principles behind the arguments for and against convicted prisoners retaining the right to vote whilst they are detained in prison, and aims to ascertain whether any form of enfranchisement should be taken forward". When the consultation paper was published, it was clear that any necessary reforms would not be in place in time for the Northern Irish Assembly elections in March 2007 and the Scottish Parliament, National Assembly for Wales, and local government elections in England and Scotland in May 2007.
70. In the Consultation Paper, the Government expressed its "firm belief" that "individuals who have committed an offence serious enough to warrant a term of imprisonment, should not be able to vote while in prison" and the consultation does not offer total enfranchisement of all prisoners as an option for change. It asked respondents to comment on retaining total disenfranchisement, despite this being the only option that the Government accepts is incompatible with the judgment of the Grand Chamber.[64]
71. In January, we wrote to the Lord Chancellor to ask for further information on the significant delay involved in the launch of the consultation process; for a timetable for the completion of the consultation stage and justification of the decision to hold a two-stage consultation process; the Government's reasons for consulting on the maintenance of a total ban in light of the ECtHR ruling and for refusing to consult on lifting the existing ban entirely.[65]
72. While we were waiting for the Government's response, the Court of Session sitting as the Registration Appeal Court Scotland made a declaration of incompatibility in respect of section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983, concluding that, in light of the judgment in Hirst v UK, the then forthcoming elections for the Scottish Parliament would "take place in a manner which was not "Convention-compliant".[66] We wrote to the Lord Chancellor to ask whether the Government agreed there was a need for urgent action to remedy the incompatibility identified in Hirst and to ask whether the Government had considered using the Remedial Order procedure to provide a remedy.[67]
73. On 2 March 2007, the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland refused to make a declaration of incompatibility in similar terms.[68] In April 2007, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments considered the terms of the draft Scottish Parliament (Elections etc) Order 2007. An Explanatory Memorandum was presented with this Order, in which, the relevant Minister explained that he could not certify that the proposals were compatible with the Convention, as a result of Hirst. That Committee drew this incompatibility to the attention of both Houses, as an "unusual and unexpected use of powers". [69]
74. The Lord Chancellor replied to our letters on Hirst and the Court of Session declaration of incompatibility on 27 March 2007, some time after the Government consultation closed. The Lord Chancellor repeated the Government's view that prisoner enfranchisement is a "complex and difficult issue" with "considerable opponents". The new timetable for the implementation of the judgment in Hirst v UK expects Stage 2 of the consultation process to begin in July 2007. A legislative solution is not expected until at least May 2008.[70]
75. The Lord Chancellor explained that the consultation paper invites views from people who consider that it is "right in principle" that prisoners should remain disenfranchised, "in order that they can be taken into account in considering the extent of any future reform". The Lord Chancellor accepts that retaining the blanket ban is not an option. The Government has excluded the option of "full enfranchisement" from the options for change "so as to clearly indicate that it is not an option for reform that we would feel able to adopt".
76. Liberty are concerned that the consultation paper proposes only minor reforms and explicitly rules out full enfranchisement as an option. They consider that the Government's consultation "seems designed to do little more than ensure that…the UK's approach would be considered to be within its 'margin of appreciation'".[71]
77. We acknowledge that many people will question why prisoners should be entitled to vote in elections and that the Government would be taking a generally unpopular course if it were to enfranchise even a small proportion of the prison population. Nevertheless, the current blanket ban on the enfranchisement of prisoners is incompatible with the UK's obligations under the European Convention and must be dealt with.
78. We consider that the time taken to publish the Government's consultation paper and the time proposed for consultation is disproportionate. While the issues involved give rise to political controversy, they are not legally complex. The continued failure to remove the blanket ban, enfranchising at least part of the prison population, is clearly unlawful. It is also a matter for regret that the Government should seek views on retaining the current blanket ban, thereby raising expectations that this could be achieved, when in fact, this is the one option explicitly ruled out by the European Court.
79. We recommend that the Government bring forward a solution as soon as possible, preferably in the form of an urgent Remedial Order. We strongly recommend that the Government publish a draft Remedial Order as part of its second stage of consultation. We would be disappointed if a legislative solution were not in force in adequate time to allow the necessary preparations to be made for the next general election.
APPENDIX 5: LETTER DATED 23 JANUARY 2007 TO THE RT HON. LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON QC, SECRETARY OF STATE AND LORD CHANCELLOR, DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Hirst v UK
The Department for Constitutional Affairs published their consultation paper on the Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners on 14 December 2006, over ten months after the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs indicated that he hoped it would be available. The information provided to the Committee of Ministers for their meeting on 17-18 October 2006 indicated that draft legislation expected in October 2007. This appears unrealistic in light of the new timetable of the proposed consultation. Although there is no new timetable presented in the DCA consultation document, this consultation will close on 7 March 2007. This consultation - which is presented as "Stage 1" - will be followed by a further "Stage 2" process involving proposals for legislation. It appears that the Government expects this consultation process to last for a significant time. The necessary reforms will not be in place in time for the Northern Irish Assembly elections in March 2007; Scottish Parliament elections; National Assembly in Wales; and local government elections in England and Scotland, all expected in May 2007.
The Consultation Paper clearly expresses the Government's "firm belief" that "individuals who have committed an offence serious enough to warrant a term of imprisonment, should not be able to vote while in prison (Foreword by the Lord Chancellor). We note that the Government have concluded that the judgment in Hirst v UK "did not conclude that the UK must enfranchise all prisoners". As a result, the consultation does not offer total enfranchisement of all prisoners as an option for change. However, we note that the Consultation Paper invites respondents to comment on retaining total disenfranchisement, despite this being the only option which the Government accepts is incompatible with the judgment of the Grand Chamber (paras 57-58, DCA Consultation Paper).
I would be grateful if you could tell us:
a) why there has been such a significant delay in the launch of this consultation process;
b) why, given the significant number of forthcoming elections, the Government considers that it is appropriate to conduct a two stage consultation process;
c) what is the proposed timetable for Stage 2 of the consultation;
d) what are the Government's reasons for consulting on maintaining the blanket ban on voting for all prisoners, which was found to breach the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights;
e) what are the Government's reasons for excluding from the options for change any prospect of full enfranchisement.
We would be grateful for a fuller explanation of the Government's views than those provided in the Consultation Paper.
APPENDIX 11: LETTER DATED 16 JUNE 2006 FROM JOHN HIRST, RE HIRST V UK (NO.2)
I note that that your remit excludes consideration of individual cases. However, given that these cases concern the individual versus the State, in my view, this anomaly needs to be rectified if you are to be effective as a watchdog.
I note the powers of The Committee; I also note that they have not been used to their full extent in my case. For example, in para 52 of the 13th Report, it states that The Committee "wrote to the DCA to inquire about implementation measures following this case as part of its scrutiny of the Electoral Administration Bill. Subsequently, in a written statement of 2 February 2006, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs stated that:
The ECtHR indicated that there should be proper debate about those issues and I have therefore concluded that the best way forward would be to embark on full public consultation in which all the options can be examined and which will give everyone the opportunity to have their say. A consultation document is therefore in preparation and I hope it will be available for discussion in a few weeks time. Thereafter there will be a period for Those with an interest to make their views known, which will help to inform the development of future policy.
In our report on the Electoral Administration Bill, we expressed regret that Parliament had not afforded the opportunity to consider the important issue of prisoner voting rights in the course of scrutiny of that Bill. We nevertheless welcomed the consultation exercise proposed. We intend to return to consider the proposals for reform of the law arising from the consultation process.
During the preparation for this case my research discovered that there had been no Parliamentary debate on the issue of prisoner voting rights. This fact was mentioned in my argument to the ECtHR. The Court accepted this point. I won this point. The UK lost this point. At para 79 of the Grand Chamber's judgment it states:
"...it cannot be said that there was any substantive debate by members of the legislature on the continued justification in the light of modern day penal policy and of current human rights standards for maintaining such a general restriction on the right of prisoners to vote".
The Court did not say, Charles Falconer, Lord Chancellor, we indicate that you should now go and start talks about talks. The UK's obligation to the Convention is to amend the existing laws which led to the violation in human rights. This delaying tactic used by the DCA is unacceptable. See for example, Ireland's passing of a Bill to legislate to allow all prisoners the postal vote.
The Court used the principle of universal suffrage as it's starting point. The Suffragette Movement's motto became "Deeds not words", when Parliament sought to deny women the vote by offering to talk about the subject rather than pass a law to implement it. I echo this with mine, action not words.
I trust that you will now use your teeth, and stop wagging your tail.
APPENDIX 13: LETTER DATED 27 MARCH FROM THE RT HON LORD FALCONER OF THOROTON QC, SECRETARY OF STATE AND LORD CHANCELLOR, DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS, RE IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS, HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: DECLARATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY, WILLIAM SCOTT V ELECTORAL REGISTRATION OFFICER
1. Thank you for your letters of 23 January and 2 February regarding the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Hirst v UK and the declaration of incompatibility made in William Scott v Electoral Registration Office. I also take this opportunity to include details of an application for judicial review brought by two prisoners in Northern Ireland.
Hirst v UK (App. No. 74025/01)
a) Why there has been such a significant delay in the launch of this consultation process?
2. Prisoner enfranchisement is a complex and difficult issue. It also has considerable opponents. There are a number of potential options that could be pursued as a result of the Grand Chamber judgment, and the Government needed to consider these carefully before publishing the consultation paper.
b) Why, given the significant number of forthcoming elections, the government considers that it is appropriate to run a two stage consultation process?
3. The current consultation document focuses on the principles of prisoners voting, and the options available to the UK following the European Court of Human Right's judgment in Hirst. As I stated in my foreword to the consultation, the second stage consultation is to consider how any changes might work in practice, which is a separate issue and will be based on the results of the first stage document.
c) What is the proposed timetable for stage two of the consultation process?
4. A revised Action Plan for future steps, based on the actual publication date of the consultation paper on 14 December 2006, is as follows:
Action Time
Written Ministerial Statement in Parliament committing to consultation 2 February 2006
Research and Drafting of Phase 1 consultation (Principles, Context, and Options) February and March 2006
Obtain Ministerial clearance of draft Phase I paper and publication 14 December 2006
Consultation period 12 weeks minimum 7 March 2007
Analysis of responses and drafting of Phase 2 consultation (Preferred Option & Detailed implementation issues) April - June 2007
Obtain Ministerial clearance for and publish Response paper for Phase I paper and draft Phase 2 consultation paper June 2007
Consultation period (12 weeks minimum) July - September 2007
Analysis of responses and drafting of Response paper for Phase 2 October - December 2007
Obtain Ministerial clearance for and publish Response paper for Phase 2 January 2008
Drafting of appropriate legislation to effect change February - April 2008
Introduction and passage of legislation From May 2008? (Timing subject to Parliamentary business)
d) What are the Government's reasons for consulting on maintaining the blanket ban on voting for all prisoners, which was found to breach the ECHR by the European Court of Human Rights?
5. The consultation paper does invite views from persons who believe that it is right in principle that prisoners should remain disenfranchised, in order that they can be taken into account in considering the extent of any future reform. It encourages such respondents to consider thoroughly the available options. However, the document also makes it clear that retaining the blanket ban is outside the margin of appreciation given by the Hirst judgment, and that it is not, therefore, an option for the future,
e) What are the Government's reasons for excluding from the options for change any prospect of full enfranchisement?
6. As I stated in my foreword to the paper, the judgment did not conclude that the UK must enfranchise all prisoners. The Government is opposed to complete enfranchisement of all convicted prisoners. It is therefore omitted from the list of possible options for change in the consultation paper, so as clearly to indicate that it is not an option for reform that we would feel able to adopt.
William Scott v Electoral Registration Officer
I would be grateful if you could give us information about the Government's views on the declaration of incompatibility in this case. In particular, I would be grateful if you could:
a) Tell us whether, in light of the declaration in Smith and the number of forthcoming elections, the Government agree that there is a need for urgent action to amend or repeal s.3(1) Representation of the People Act 1983;
b) Tell us whether, in light of the imminent elections in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, the Government have considered using the Remedial Order procedure to execute the judgment in Hirst and remedy the incompatibility identified in Smith before those elections took place, and if not, why not?
c) If you did consider using the Remedial Order process, please explain why this option has been rejected in favour of the two stage consultation proposed in the OCA consultation paper.
7. The Government notes the ruling of the Registration Appeal Court that it is part of the Court of Session for the purposes of section 4 of the Human Rights Act, and therefore has power to make a declaration of incompatibility under that section. The Government is considering the implications of this ruling.
8. Before turning to the questions raised by the Committee, I take this opportunity to note that domestic proceedings have also been brought by way an application for judicial review in Northern Ireland (In the matter of an application by Toner and Walsh for leave to apply for judicial review). These proceedings were brought on 15th February 2007, shortly before the Northern Ireland Assembly elections held on 7th March. They were dismissed by the High Court of Northern Ireland (which heard the matter on 1st March and delivered judgment on 2nd March) and the Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland (which heard the matter on 2nd March and gave its decision on that day). The Court of Appeal indicated that it may or may not deliver a full judgment in due course. A copy of the High Courts judgment is at Annex A, and of the affidavit evidence submitted on the behalf of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at Annex B.
9. Turning to the questions raised by the Committee in respect of the Smith v Scott case, the Government does not agree with the Committee that the judgment of the Registration Appeal Court requires urgent action to repeal the current law barring prisoners from voting at UK elections. This judgment does not establish any new principle beyond that established in the Hirst judgment
10. The Government's clear view is that an issue as fundamental - the franchise requires careful consideration and deliberation, and should not be addressed piecemeal. We are clear that any extension of the franchise must be consistent across all elections within the United Kingdom.
11. The Government already has in place the process to address these issues - the current two-stage consultation on prisoners' voting rights. As I have stated above, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights concluded that a total ban was outside the margin of appreciation given by the Convention, but the judgment does not require the UK to enfranchise all convicted prisoners, nor does it dictate which categories of prisoner should be enfranchised. Indeed, the Court acknowledged that there was no common European approach to this issue, and that Contracting States had a wide margin of appreciation in deciding which convicted prisoners should have the right to vote. This leaves the UK with a number of potential options that could be pursued, and which require public consultation followed by full consideration by Parliament.
12. For these reasons, the Government considers primary legislation to be the appropriate vehicle for implementing any option for change.
APPENDIX 14: MEMORANDUM DATED 16 MARCH 2007 FROM LIBERTY, RE IMPLEMENTATION OF JUDGMENTS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND DECLARATIONS OF INCOMPATIBILITY
Introduction
1. On 21 February 2007, the Joint Committee of Human Rights (the "JCHR") called for evidence on: (i) the implementation of judgments in the European Court of Human Rights (the "ECtHR") finding the UK to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (the "ECHR"); and (ii) the adequacy of the Government's response to declarations of incompatibility made under the Human Rights Act 1998 (the "HRA"). In this short response we seek to draw out some general observations about the Executive's and Parliament's responses to such decisions.
2. We welcome the JCHR's recent decision to "be more proactive in relation to declarations of incompatibility, both in terms of pressing the Government to take action and, in appropriate cases, recommending what action should be taken"[188] and, similarly, to present "more regular progress reports examining the implementation of Strasbourg judgments".[189] Considering the UK's response to such decisions is, in our view, one of the JCHR's most important roles. Rather than giving our courts the final say about how our rights are protected, the HRA retains an important role for the other limbs of government: the Executive and Parliament. The JCHR helps to ensure that this role is properly performed by, for example (i) bringing adverse decisions of the Strasbourg and UK courts to Parliament's attention; (ii) scrutinising the Executive's response to such judgments and encouraging it to respond in an appropriate and timely manner; and (iii) scrutinising proposed new laws to limit the risk of future adverse decisions.
Implementation of ECtHR Judgments
Hirst v. United Kingdom[194]
8. Hirst related to the blanket ban on convicted prisoners in detention voting in elections. The applicant argued that this ban violated his right to free elections under Article 3 of Protocol No.1 of the ECHR (both alone and in conjunction with Articles 10 (the right to freedom of expression) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination)). The ECtHR held that there was a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No.1. Although the ban had a legitimate aim (i.e. preventing crime by sanctioning the conduct of convicted prisoners and enhancing civic responsibility and respect for the rule of law), it was not a proportionate measure to achieve that aim. It reached this decision on the basis that: (i) the ban applied to a significant number of individuals and encompassed a wide range of offenders and sentences; and (ii) the ban applied to only convicts with custodial sentences: it did not depend on the nature of the actual crime that had been committed. The restriction on the right to vote was thus general, automatic and indiscriminate, and it fell outside the margin of appreciation granted on the issue.
9. The Department for Constitutional Affairs (the "DCA") published a consultation paper, "Voting Rights of Convicted Prisoners Detained within the United Kingdom", in December 2006. The Government's position, as outlined in the paper, is that:
loss of the right to vote is "a proper and proportionate punishment for breaches of the social contract that resulted in imprisonment";[195] and
whilst steps must be taken to respond to the ECtHR's judgment, the judgment "did not conclude that the UK must enfranchise all prisoners":[196] total enfranchisement is therefore not offered as a possible option.
The DCA notes that other European states offer various forms of partial enfranchisement and sought responses on the options of: (i) relating disenfranchisement to the length of sentences; and (ii) allowing the sentencing authority to determine whether the right to vote should be withdrawn.
10. Liberty has provided a detailed response to this consultation[197]. For the purposes of this paper, we do not repeat the arguments made in that consultation response but make instead a few observations about the way in which the Government responded to the decision.
We are disappointed that the Government did not adequately address the reasons underlying the ECtHR's decision in Hirst. Instead, the consultation paper represented the decision as a "bolt out of the blue" and a judgment from on high which the UK was bound to follow. It failed to explain why and how the court had reached the decision and why many countries around the world are now giving their prisoners the right to vote.
The Government did not adequately consider the way in which other jurisdictions had responded to this issue. This may well have been embarrassing for the Government, demonstrating how far out of line the UK is becoming. Such information would, however, have helped to identify how other countries have responded to this issue which could be of use in deciding on the UK's response.
The consultation paper sought to close off the most progressive option for protecting the right to vote addressed in Hirst: the enfranchisement of all prisoners. It only proposed more minor reforms, saying explicitly that full enfranchisement is not an option.
The Government's response seems designed to do little more than ensure that, should another similar case be taken to the ECtHR, the UK's approach would be considered to be within its "margin of appreciation". Human rights are supposed to provide a floor rather than a ceiling, and it is therefore disappointing that the UK seems intent on responding to the decision in Hirst by making as limited a change to the current legal position as possible.
What is a Remedial Order?
Friday, June 29, 2007
Should the AGs job be subject to separation of powers?
Now here's an interesting suggestion from Nearly Legal. In particular, "I wouldn’t be at all surprised if the Attorney General role was split shortly, with an independent chief prosecutor role and a government legal advisor role".
Tesco "every little helps"
I was pissed off the other day when we had lots of rain and flooding and I noticed that Tesco were selling umbrellas priced at £1 in Pound Shops for £5. Talk about cashing in and every little extra £4 helps their profit.
Worse still, Tesco has been aware that for over a year now that its Cape Fruits are picked by women working 11 hour shifts and being paid just 38p per day.
Tesco says it is not a problem. But, it should be a problem because people shold refuse to shop in Tesco's until they ensure that workers who's produce they sell are paid a decent living wage.
Not only does Tesco make huge profits from child labour in China, it makes profits from women in South Africa.
Every little helps...every little pay to the workers helps profits.
UPDATE: Tesco shareholders in revolt over CEO's £11M pay rise.
Worse still, Tesco has been aware that for over a year now that its Cape Fruits are picked by women working 11 hour shifts and being paid just 38p per day.
Tesco says it is not a problem. But, it should be a problem because people shold refuse to shop in Tesco's until they ensure that workers who's produce they sell are paid a decent living wage.
Not only does Tesco make huge profits from child labour in China, it makes profits from women in South Africa.
Every little helps...every little pay to the workers helps profits.
UPDATE: Tesco shareholders in revolt over CEO's £11M pay rise.
US Supreme Court rules in favour of Guantanamo Bay detainees
In a common sense move the US Supreme Court reversed its decision not to allow detainees in Guantanamo Bay to have their detention examined by US courts, on the basis that they are not US citizens, perhaps because a US military lawyer has made a statement criticising the procedure set up by the administration to decide whether detainees should be held any longer.
No democratic country would be able to give the detainees a fair hearing following the administrations unlawful false arrests and torture and false imprisonment. Therefore, I welcome the US Supreme Court's decision to reverse it's early decision. In my view, it is irrelevant whether the detainees are not US citizens. It is a US administration which is in violation of international law, therefore the courts have jurisdiction.
This has got to be an American joke from the Bush administration "Honour bound to defend freedom", like detention without charge and trial? Go on try and defend it in court...
Bomb threat or much ado about nothing?
I am aware that gas canisters can be explosive under certain conditions. For example, liable to explode if they get too hot during a fire. The wording used in this report and others would indicate that this is not really a bomb threat and it is not linked to a terrorist threat. If this was a test for the new Home Secretary Jacqui Smith, she's failed it already because Jack Straw who is the new Minister of Justice and Lord Chancellor (and it has nothing to do with his department at all) has grabbed the media attention.
2,000 prisoners freed to ease prison overcrowding
Floodgates open...
2,000 prisoners are to be released today, the first wave of 20,000 due to be released, to ease the prison overcrowding crisis caused by the Labour government's incompetence in the area of law and order. It is good news to hear that they will each be paid £200 because all too often prisoners are released with only £46, which they have to make do with until they get paid something from the Department of Works and Pensions 3 weeks later. Some will be able to rent accommodation, and no doubt some will blow the money on heroin or crack cocaine.
2,000 prisoners are to be released today, the first wave of 20,000 due to be released, to ease the prison overcrowding crisis caused by the Labour government's incompetence in the area of law and order. It is good news to hear that they will each be paid £200 because all too often prisoners are released with only £46, which they have to make do with until they get paid something from the Department of Works and Pensions 3 weeks later. Some will be able to rent accommodation, and no doubt some will blow the money on heroin or crack cocaine.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Madeliene: Police arrest two suspects
There is an irony here in that Gerry and Kate McCann have obtained money by deception, and now two people have been arrested by police for attempting to extort money from the McCanns. Whilst it is only right that the police have arrested this pair for their alleged crime, I am still waiting for them to question and arrest the main culprits in Madeliene's disappearance.
Gallows humour
I have never been a fan of capital punishment. However, a blanket policy which allows no exception to the rule is unlawful. Therefore, for this war criminal he can have this honour for nothing.
Hat-Tip Theo Spark.
Hat-Tip Theo Spark.
Jack Straw's first act as Minister of Justice should be a new Prison Act
Professor Dirk van Zyl Smit recently argued at the annual International Centre for Comparative Criminological Research, that not since the end of sentences for hard labour has any statute provided formally for the purpose of punishment, except for loss of liberty. It remains the view, first expressed by Paterson, that prisoners are sent to prison as a punishment and not for punishment. Therefore, a priority for the new Minister of Justice, Jack Straw MP, must be to draft a new bill to become a new Prison Act. Moreover, the new Prison Act should specify prisoners legal rights. For example, it is a human right for all convicted prisoners of voting age to be allowed to vote in general and local elections.
There needs to be a new Prison Act for the simple reason that the last one was passed in 1952, and times have moved on particularly in the area of prisoners rights. Whilst it is accepted that a prisoner loses his right to liberty by the fact of his imprisonment, there is evidence that prisoners are losing other rights without justification. For example, in the prisoners media case it was argued by the prison authorities that because I was a prisoner I was not allowed to contact the media without the permission of the prison authorities. I argued that this restriction breached my human right under Article 10 of the Convention as it prohibited my freedom of expression. The judge ruled in my favour.
The main problem, as Professor Dirk van Zyl Smit points out, is that the Prison Act 1952 was not drafted to spell out prisoners rights, but rather to enable government to manage its prisons. By including prisoners rights and duties into statute would resolve the uncertainty which surrounds the law in this area at present.
There needs to be a statutory footing to resolve the anomaly of a life sentence prisoner who has become post-tariff. By this I mean that within the life sentence is a period which serves the twin aims of retribution and deterrence (the punitive element), and a post tariff lifer then enters the treatment stage or is detained purely for public protection, and it is both legally and morally wrong to continue to punish that lifer by subjecting him to the same regime as those undergoing punishment.
There needs to be a new Prison Act for the simple reason that the last one was passed in 1952, and times have moved on particularly in the area of prisoners rights. Whilst it is accepted that a prisoner loses his right to liberty by the fact of his imprisonment, there is evidence that prisoners are losing other rights without justification. For example, in the prisoners media case it was argued by the prison authorities that because I was a prisoner I was not allowed to contact the media without the permission of the prison authorities. I argued that this restriction breached my human right under Article 10 of the Convention as it prohibited my freedom of expression. The judge ruled in my favour.
The main problem, as Professor Dirk van Zyl Smit points out, is that the Prison Act 1952 was not drafted to spell out prisoners rights, but rather to enable government to manage its prisons. By including prisoners rights and duties into statute would resolve the uncertainty which surrounds the law in this area at present.
There needs to be a statutory footing to resolve the anomaly of a life sentence prisoner who has become post-tariff. By this I mean that within the life sentence is a period which serves the twin aims of retribution and deterrence (the punitive element), and a post tariff lifer then enters the treatment stage or is detained purely for public protection, and it is both legally and morally wrong to continue to punish that lifer by subjecting him to the same regime as those undergoing punishment.
Youth Justice Board's negligence led to boy's death in custody
Gareth Myatt was the first child to die while being restrained in custody. He was subjected to restraint techniques after being in custody for 3 days. Unfortunately, the jury did not reach a verdict of unlawful killing, which is what it really is if you think about it, but instead decided that it was an accident. However, the jury did criticise the YJB: "They said the YJB's failure to review the medical safety of the system of restraints was a cause of the death".
It is worth noting that the Home Office approved the method of restraint which led to Gareth Myatt's death, and following his death no longer approved the method.
I find it difficult to accept that 3 grown ups who were restraining Gareth Myatt were unable to tell that he was choking to death at the time.
Home Office has first female boss
Behind every great man, and following in the footsteps of John Reid as Home Secretary, is a woman. Jacqui Smith has been appointed as the first female Home Secretary in Gordon Brown's new cabinet. I can't say that I have heard of her, but she has a track record.
UPDATE: Jacqui Smith's profile from the Telegraph.
Blair questioned again by police
Tony Blair has been questioned for the third time by police investigating the cash for honours scandal.
Suspected Lockerbie bomber allowed second appeal
The Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission has recommended that the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing is granted a second appeal.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Ch ch ch changes
Gordon Brown has said that there will be changes. Jack Straw was Home Secretary between 1997-2001, and he was the Secretary of State responsible for prisons. Since that time the Ministry of Justice has been created and is responsible for prisons. For Jack Straw to be appointed as the Minister of Justice and put in charge of prisons again does not exactly signal the kind of change that is noticeable. Jack Straw did not do a good job of it first time around, I don't expect that will change now either.
Is smart CCTV really that smart?
I am a bit sceptical about smart CCTV which it is claimed can track terrorists. For example, it is supposed to detect unusual behaviour like an individual moving against the general crowd flow. However, some years ago I was struck by the fact that I was going against the flow at Preston Station. Commuters were coming into town to work as I was leaving for Leeds having just been released from prison having served 15 months for robbery. There is nothing unusual about going in a different direction.
Mad judge loses dry cleaning case
I reported about the mad judge here. It would appear that common sense has prevailed at last, at least before the first judge who has dismissed the mad judge's case as unreasonable. The idiot is only intending to appeal. If he goes ahead, I hope the appeal judge hammers him and ruins his life for trying to ruin the lives of the people who have the dry cleaning business.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
Not in our name
This latest bill to be introduced by Tony Blair should be kicked into touch because it has been made on the hoof and owes its thinking to kneejerkism and not rational thought. From the Telegraph: "Later today, Labour will publish another criminal justice Bill - the 54th law and order measure of Tony Blair's premiership - aimed at "rebalancing'' the system to favour the victim.
The legislation will introduce violent and prolific offender orders, similar to sex offender orders.
Parole panels will be required to release prisoners only by a unanimous, rather than majority, verdict and will have to take the "victim's voice" into account.
Victims will also be able to sue offenders who later benefit from a windfall".
The main piece of the article I take with a pinch of salt once I read that Civitas has had a hand in it.
The legislation will introduce violent and prolific offender orders, similar to sex offender orders.
Parole panels will be required to release prisoners only by a unanimous, rather than majority, verdict and will have to take the "victim's voice" into account.
Victims will also be able to sue offenders who later benefit from a windfall".
The main piece of the article I take with a pinch of salt once I read that Civitas has had a hand in it.
BAE corruption to be investigated by US Department of Justice
It is just as well that the US Department of Justice is to investigate BAE for corruption over the Saudi arms scandal, because the BAE inquiry chaired by Lord Woolf has a remit which excludes examining the Saudi arms deal and past deals. Where is the ethics in a whitewash?
Tory defection is an ill wind blowing for Dave Cameron
Tory MP defects over Cameron's 'PR agenda'
By staff and agencies
Last Updated: 3:30pm BST 26/06/2007
Tory MP Quentin Davies has defected to Labour on the eve of Gordon Brown taking over as prime minister.
Mr Davies, MP for Grantham and Stamford, made his decision public in a letter to Conservative leader David Cameron.
He wrote: "Under your leadership the Conservative Party appears to me to have ceased collectively to believe in anything, or to stand for anything.
"It has no bedrock. It exists on shifting sands. A sense of mission has been replaced by a PR agenda."
Mr Davies, a former shadow Northern Ireland secretary, wrote to Mr Cameron: "You had come to office as leader of the party committed to break a solemn agreement we had with the European People's Party to sit with them in the EPP-ED Group during the currency of this European Parliament.
"For seven months you vacillated, and during that time we had several conversations.
"It was quite clear to me that you had no qualms in principle about tearing up this agreement, and that it was only the balance of prevailing political pressures which led you ultimately to stop short of doing so (though since then you have hardly acted in good faith in continuing with the agreement, for example you never attend the EPP-ED Summits claiming that you are "too busy" - even though half a dozen or more Prime Ministers are always present.)
Mr Davis also criticised Mr Cameron's "shambles of a foreign policy".
"You are the first leader of the Conservative Party who (for different reasons) will not be received either by the President of the United States, or by the Chancellor of Germany (up to, and very much including, Iain Duncan Smith every one of your predecessors was most welcome both in the White House and in all the chancelleries of Europe).
"It is fair to say that you have so far made a shambles of your foreign policy, and that would be a great handicap to you - and, more seriously, to the country - if you ever came to power."
Mr Cameron's carefully managed public image also came in for a stinging attack.
"The PR pressures had overridden any considerations of economic rationality or national interest, or even what would have been to others normal businesslike prudence.
"Equally it seems that your hasty rejection of nuclear energy as a 'last resort' was also driven by your PR imperatives rather than by other considerations. Many colleagues hope that that will be the subject of your next u-turn.
"You regularly (I think on a pre-arranged PR grid or timetable) make apparent policy statements which are then revealed to have no intended content at all. They appear to be made merely to strike a pose, to contribute to an image.
Mr Davies went on: "Believe it or not I have no personal animus against you. You have always been perfectly courteous in our dealings. You are intelligent and charming.
"As you know, however, I never supported you for the leadership of the Party - even when, after my preferred candidate Ken Clarke had been defeated in the first round, it was blindingly obvious that you were going to win.
"Nor, for the same reasons, have I ever sought office in your shadow administration.
"Although you have many positive qualities you have three, superficiality, unreliability and an apparent lack of any clear convictions, which in my view ought to exclude you from the position of national leadership to which you aspire and which it is the presumed purpose of the Conservative Party to achieve.
"Believing that as I do, I clearly cannot honestly remain in the Party. I do not intend to leave public life. On the contrary I am looking forward to joining another party with which I have found increasingly I am naturally in agreement and which has just acquired a leader I have always greatly admired, who I believe is entirely straightforward, and who has a towering record, and a clear vision for the future of our country which I fully share.
"Because my constituents, to whose interests of course I remain devoted, are entitled to know the full background, I am releasing this letter to the press."
Gordon Brown said he was "delighted" that Mr Davies was joining the Labour Party, saying the MP "commands respect on all sides for his dedication to public service".
Mr Davies became an MP in 1987. He was promoted to the front bench by William Hague in 1998 as spokesman on social security.
After the 2001 election he joined Iain Duncan Smith's cabinet. Under Mr Duncan Smith he worked as shadow secretary of state for Northern Ireland. He has since become a member of the International Development Select Committee.
He has rebelled against Mr Cameron several times in Parliament. Most recently he voted against the Communications Allowance Bill.
UPDATE: I did query the Tory leader here, and here. Iain Dale shouldn't really be surprised...
The Great Pay Off
There is more than a touch of irony in the war monger Tony Blair being appointed as the international Middle East peace envoy. Historically, knights would be rewarded with titles and land grants for following the king into battle. With Iraq, it was not clear what Tony Blair would get out of all of it for his loyalty to the Bush regime. Now we know what his price tag was, to become an international statesman. Just as going to war with Iraq was a done deal in private, which then had to be justified to the rest of the world. So, with this job as the international Middle East peace envoy. Bush has bullied the UN, EU, US and Russia into accepting what he and Tony Blair had agreed in private.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Good Lord, no actually, bad Lord.
Guido is on Levy's case again. I can't say I blame him.
Leave the parties to diarists
I was disturbed to learn that at least three editors attended a farewell party in honour of Lord Levy at Lancaster House last Tuesday. His Lordship, who was Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, remains on police bail, and still faces possible charges in the so-called "cash for honours" inquiry. The party was paid for out of the public purse, and is said to have cost £6,000.
Lord Levy may, of course, be as innocent as the day is long. But until that is established, editors should steer clear of him. The three in question were Will Lewis of the The Daily Telegraph, Matthew D'Ancona of The Spectator, and Patience Wheatcroft of The Sunday Telegraph. Are any of them close friends of Lord Levy's? I doubt it. They were asked as prominent editors. Their attendance inevitably bestowed a degree of benediction on his Lordship, which is presumably why they were invited. The police and the prosecuting authorities may have got the message that Lord Levy has powerful editors on his side.
I don't complain that several lobby journalists were at the party, since it was an event of some news significance. Nor am I going to get worked up by the presence of former editors. Tony Blair's attendance may even do him some credit, since he is standing by his old friend, though it would have done him more credit if he had footed the bill rather than making the taxpayer do so.
But existing editors should not have gone. They should be more careful with the good name of their publications. They are not private individuals who can behave as they want. Incidentally, I was surprised that Londoner's Diary in The Evening Standard carried no account. I hope the newspaper's coyness had nothing to do with the presence of one of its own senior editorial executives at the party.
Leave the parties to diarists
I was disturbed to learn that at least three editors attended a farewell party in honour of Lord Levy at Lancaster House last Tuesday. His Lordship, who was Tony Blair's chief fundraiser, remains on police bail, and still faces possible charges in the so-called "cash for honours" inquiry. The party was paid for out of the public purse, and is said to have cost £6,000.
Lord Levy may, of course, be as innocent as the day is long. But until that is established, editors should steer clear of him. The three in question were Will Lewis of the The Daily Telegraph, Matthew D'Ancona of The Spectator, and Patience Wheatcroft of The Sunday Telegraph. Are any of them close friends of Lord Levy's? I doubt it. They were asked as prominent editors. Their attendance inevitably bestowed a degree of benediction on his Lordship, which is presumably why they were invited. The police and the prosecuting authorities may have got the message that Lord Levy has powerful editors on his side.
I don't complain that several lobby journalists were at the party, since it was an event of some news significance. Nor am I going to get worked up by the presence of former editors. Tony Blair's attendance may even do him some credit, since he is standing by his old friend, though it would have done him more credit if he had footed the bill rather than making the taxpayer do so.
But existing editors should not have gone. They should be more careful with the good name of their publications. They are not private individuals who can behave as they want. Incidentally, I was surprised that Londoner's Diary in The Evening Standard carried no account. I hope the newspaper's coyness had nothing to do with the presence of one of its own senior editorial executives at the party.
Down came the rain again and again and again
Man trapped in manhole by flood
Rescuers are battling to free a man trapped in a flooded manhole in Hull where officials have declared a state of emergency amid torrential downpours.
Emergency crews and a police marine unit have been trying to rescue the man, who became trapped on Monday in Astral Close, Hessle.
A woman and three children were earlier rescued from a flooded car in the city.
More than 70 schools were closed and incident rooms set up across the region to deal with the flooding.
Health warning
Emergency services were inundated with hundreds of calls on Monday as flooding hit roads, businesses and homes.
The city's cemeteries and crematorium were all closed due to extensive flooding.
Hull City Council advised members of the public not to travel unless absolutely essential.
Sewage was reported to be flowing into some homes, prompting health officials in Hull and North East Lincolnshire to issue a health warning.
Director of public health for North East Lincolnshire Primary Care Trust, Dr Tony Hill, advised people to try and avoid coming into contact with contaminated water.
He also advised parents not to let their children play in the flood water.
Glenn Ramsden, of Humberside Fire and Rescue Service, said firefighters had received more than 300 calls in just three hours and urged the public to contact the service only in an emergency.
UPDATE: And here is the weather forcast for the rest of England. Quick build Noah's Ark the Great Flood has arrived.
Breaking news
No police or military personnel to be charged over 1989 murder of Belfast solicitor Pat Finucane. More soon ...
UPDATE: Story here.
UPDATE: Story here.
Judge dies in fall from fourth-floor flat
Judge dies in fall from fourth-floor flat
12.15pm
Fred Attewill and agencies
Monday June 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
A crown court judge fell 50ft to his death from his home in an exclusive block of flats last week, it was reported today.
Rodney McKinnon fell from a window of his flat in Dolphin Square, central London, suffering fatal head injuries. He was declared dead after being found in the building's courtyard garden.
Scotland Yard is not treating his death as suspicious, although it is not clear whether the 64-year-old had meant to take his own life or died accidentally. A police report has been passed to the coroner.
It had been reported the judge, who sat at Southwark crown court, lost his balance after climbing onto a desk in his fourth-floor flat, but police have refused to comment on the circumstances surrounding his death.
"A 64-year-old man fell from a window in Dolphin Square on Thursday," a police spokesman said. "He suffered fatal head injuries."
Mr McKinnon lived alone in at the block of flats in Pimlico, which has long been home to peers, wealthy businessmen and high society figures. He had lived there for 10 years.
"Everybody is completely devastated that something so awful could have happened in our midst," Patricia McVicar, a resident at the complex, told The Times.
Brendan Martin, the chairman of the tenants' association, said Mr McKinnon was "very well known and well liked, particularly among the older residents".
Police said a post mortem examination would be carried out tomorrow, and an inquest will be held at Westminster coroner's court. Toxicology tests to establish whether the judge had been drinking when he fell last Thursday could be ordered after the post mortem.
Mr McKinnon, who was sworn in as a judge on the same day as his brother, Warwick, in 1998, has presided over several high-profile cases.
In 2005, he ordered ex-public schoolboy Julian de Vere Whiteway-Wilkinson to pay £2.1m in illegal profits for his part in a multi-million pound operation to supply cocaine to City workers and celebrities, or face a further 10 years in jail.
12.15pm
Fred Attewill and agencies
Monday June 25, 2007
Guardian Unlimited
A crown court judge fell 50ft to his death from his home in an exclusive block of flats last week, it was reported today.
Rodney McKinnon fell from a window of his flat in Dolphin Square, central London, suffering fatal head injuries. He was declared dead after being found in the building's courtyard garden.
Scotland Yard is not treating his death as suspicious, although it is not clear whether the 64-year-old had meant to take his own life or died accidentally. A police report has been passed to the coroner.
It had been reported the judge, who sat at Southwark crown court, lost his balance after climbing onto a desk in his fourth-floor flat, but police have refused to comment on the circumstances surrounding his death.
"A 64-year-old man fell from a window in Dolphin Square on Thursday," a police spokesman said. "He suffered fatal head injuries."
Mr McKinnon lived alone in at the block of flats in Pimlico, which has long been home to peers, wealthy businessmen and high society figures. He had lived there for 10 years.
"Everybody is completely devastated that something so awful could have happened in our midst," Patricia McVicar, a resident at the complex, told The Times.
Brendan Martin, the chairman of the tenants' association, said Mr McKinnon was "very well known and well liked, particularly among the older residents".
Police said a post mortem examination would be carried out tomorrow, and an inquest will be held at Westminster coroner's court. Toxicology tests to establish whether the judge had been drinking when he fell last Thursday could be ordered after the post mortem.
Mr McKinnon, who was sworn in as a judge on the same day as his brother, Warwick, in 1998, has presided over several high-profile cases.
In 2005, he ordered ex-public schoolboy Julian de Vere Whiteway-Wilkinson to pay £2.1m in illegal profits for his part in a multi-million pound operation to supply cocaine to City workers and celebrities, or face a further 10 years in jail.
Freedom of Information Act
It would appear that common sense might prevail at last over the Freedom of Information Act. It does seem rather pointless to have such an Act and then give ministers power to prevent the public and the media getting access to information, this would be an act of folly.
Honestly dishonest
Why should Margaret Thatcher be so surprised that someone as respectable looking as Tony Blair has attempted to steal her handbag? According to this study, two-thirds of the nation are dishonest and not as law-abiding as they would lead us to believe. This leaves me wondering how honest and law-abiding in reality are the other third? Given this study, does it not show that the condemnation of convicted criminals and prisoners is really rank hypocrisy, and the emotion that really should be shown is: There but for the grace of God go I?
Updated photo by Ron.
Lord Goldsmith was Tony Blair's sock puppet
I had not thought of Lord Goldsmith the out-going with shame Attorney General as Tony Blair's sock puppet, but this writer has seen the similarity and I find myself agreeing with the image portrayed.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Who was the last person to see Madeliene and when?
It may be the case that the McCann's were appalled by the German reporter, Sabine Mueller's question, however, it hardly constitutes a slur as reported by Martin Fricker. A slur is an insult. I cannot see any insult in the legitimate question asked by Sabine Mueller: "How do you feel that more and more people seem to imply you might have something to do with it?". Moreover, Martin Fricker claims that she asked this question: "Were you involved in abduction?". However, she clearly refers to "it" and does not mention the word "abduction". It could mean the disappearance of Madeliene as opposed to the McCann version of her abduction. I prefer to use the word disappearance rather than abduction simply because it is a fact that Madeliene has disappeared, whereas there is no evidence to support an abduction. So, it was not a slur. It was a legitimate question, because more and more people are not convinced by the explanations they have so far heard from the McCanns. And, Martin Fricker twisted Sabine Mueller's words to suit his story rather than report what she actually asked.
There was nothing cruel about the McCann's being put on the spot. They were not forced to deny being involved, at all, they volunteered to issue denials. Again, Martin Fricker chooses to use a word not used by the German reporter. He uses "kidnap". Do we know that there has been a kidnap? The truth is, no we don't. So, why is he using a term which is not a fact? There is nothing wrong with anybody reporting what the McCanns say, however, it is wrong to report what they say as being the truth and factual. At best it is hearsay.
It shows how devoid from reality Kate McCann is to reply: "I don't think that's the case". You only have to visit the Daily Mirror forum online to read all the comments doubting the McCanns version of events. As for Gerry McCann saying: "There's no way Kate and I are involved". I for one can certainly think of ways that would involve them. As Sabine Mueller said: "Either they're very good actors or they're telling the truth". Personally, I think they're very good actors. Their stories lack corroboration for them to be truthful. There is truth in their having a meal and drinks at a tapas bar. But, that's as far as it goes. If as they claim, "We're responsible parents", why did they leave the twins for 3 hours without supervision? It is not true that they checked on the children regularly. The Mark Warner staff are certain that the McCanns never left their table once between 7 and 10pm. The big question is, who was the last person to see Madeliene, other than the McCanns, and when? I doubt that anybody saw her immediately prior to 7pm. If it can be established when she was last seen, then the McCanns can be questioned to fill in the gaps between that time and when they claim that they last saw her.
There was nothing cruel about the McCann's being put on the spot. They were not forced to deny being involved, at all, they volunteered to issue denials. Again, Martin Fricker chooses to use a word not used by the German reporter. He uses "kidnap". Do we know that there has been a kidnap? The truth is, no we don't. So, why is he using a term which is not a fact? There is nothing wrong with anybody reporting what the McCanns say, however, it is wrong to report what they say as being the truth and factual. At best it is hearsay.
It shows how devoid from reality Kate McCann is to reply: "I don't think that's the case". You only have to visit the Daily Mirror forum online to read all the comments doubting the McCanns version of events. As for Gerry McCann saying: "There's no way Kate and I are involved". I for one can certainly think of ways that would involve them. As Sabine Mueller said: "Either they're very good actors or they're telling the truth". Personally, I think they're very good actors. Their stories lack corroboration for them to be truthful. There is truth in their having a meal and drinks at a tapas bar. But, that's as far as it goes. If as they claim, "We're responsible parents", why did they leave the twins for 3 hours without supervision? It is not true that they checked on the children regularly. The Mark Warner staff are certain that the McCanns never left their table once between 7 and 10pm. The big question is, who was the last person to see Madeliene, other than the McCanns, and when? I doubt that anybody saw her immediately prior to 7pm. If it can be established when she was last seen, then the McCanns can be questioned to fill in the gaps between that time and when they claim that they last saw her.
Gordon Brown supports convicted prisoners getting the vote
Gordon Brown, who was crowned as Leader of the Labour Party today, is to support a change in the law to enable all convicted prisoners to vote. Although Gordon Brown did not expressly refer to this at a special Labour Party conference in Manchester, however, it may be implied from this statement: "Wherever we find opportunity denied, aspirations unfulfilled, potential unrealised; wherever and whenever we find injustice and unfairness, there we must be also - and it is our duty to act."
It may be remembered that Tony Blair publicly stated that he was against convicted prisoners getting the vote, in spite of the European Court of Human Rights deciding that it was a breach of human rights to deny prisoners the franchise. Gordon Brown promised change. He indicated that Blair operated without morals, whereas he would have a moral compass to guide him. Also he said his values included honesty (we know that this was not the case with Blair), and duty. If Gordon Brown is a man of conviction, as he claims, then he cannot sidestep this issue.
Censors want 18 ratings on internet
Censors want 18 ratings on internet
By Chris Hastings and Beth Jones, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:35am BST 24/06/2007
Cinema-style ratings are to be introduced on the internet in an attempt to protect children from hardcore pornography and graphic violence.
The British Board of Film Classification wants the most explicit online material to carry a new version of the R18 certificate which normally only applies to material bought in sex shops or screened in specially licensed cinemas.
The new online R18 ratings, subject of a pilot scheme now being run by the board, could be introduced as early as next month if, as expected, the Government backs the scheme. It will be the first time that a British watchdog has tried to regulate access to internet material.
There was concern last night, however, that the scheme would not go far enough to protect the millions of children who daily surf the web.
The system, which is backed by the sex industry, would see porn available for download or streaming clearly labelled as being unsuitable for children. Access to such material would be via a "landing page" which would contain clear warnings, be free of sexual images and require users to verify their age.
Details of the scheme are contained in correspondence between the film board and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act.
In March, David Cooke, the board's director, wrote to Phil Clapp, who leads the department's creative industries division, saying that the board believed the scheme "will allow UK customers to avoid inadvertently being exposed to material which may be illegal and/or harmful".
But John Beyer, the director of the watchdog Mediawatch UK, said the system was "utterly useless" as people would still be able to access the material. "A lot of children have their own money and bank accounts and so it's not a problem for teenagers to download 18-rated films," he said.
By Chris Hastings and Beth Jones, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:35am BST 24/06/2007
Cinema-style ratings are to be introduced on the internet in an attempt to protect children from hardcore pornography and graphic violence.
The British Board of Film Classification wants the most explicit online material to carry a new version of the R18 certificate which normally only applies to material bought in sex shops or screened in specially licensed cinemas.
The new online R18 ratings, subject of a pilot scheme now being run by the board, could be introduced as early as next month if, as expected, the Government backs the scheme. It will be the first time that a British watchdog has tried to regulate access to internet material.
There was concern last night, however, that the scheme would not go far enough to protect the millions of children who daily surf the web.
The system, which is backed by the sex industry, would see porn available for download or streaming clearly labelled as being unsuitable for children. Access to such material would be via a "landing page" which would contain clear warnings, be free of sexual images and require users to verify their age.
Details of the scheme are contained in correspondence between the film board and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, obtained by The Sunday Telegraph under the Freedom of Information Act.
In March, David Cooke, the board's director, wrote to Phil Clapp, who leads the department's creative industries division, saying that the board believed the scheme "will allow UK customers to avoid inadvertently being exposed to material which may be illegal and/or harmful".
But John Beyer, the director of the watchdog Mediawatch UK, said the system was "utterly useless" as people would still be able to access the material. "A lot of children have their own money and bank accounts and so it's not a problem for teenagers to download 18-rated films," he said.
Internet spreads terror to Britain
Internet spreads terror to Britain
By Andrew Alderson and Miles Goslett, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 12:35am BST 24/06/2007
It is 11pm on Tuesday and Omar Bakri Mohammed's loyal band of followers hunch over computers and laptops at secret locations across Britain to listen to his defiant message to the west.
Many are hoping that the Muslim cleric, who lives in the Lebanese capital Beirut after being banned from the UK, will spell out his views on the Government's decision to give Salman Rushdie a knighthood. Bakri does not disappoint them.
After listening to Bakri's lecture for more than two hours on a secretive internet chat room, one participant asks in a written question: "Is there a new fatwa against salman and the queen for giving [the knighthood]?"
Speaking with a heavy middle eastern accent, Bakri responds: "Salman Rushdie, no doubt what he did was an apostasy… not because he get knighthood but because he insulted the honour of the prophet Mohammed (with his book The Satanic Verses)… He is murtadd (a traitor for rejecting Islam) anyway so there isn't any need for a new fatwa… People like him deserve to get the capital punishment."
Bakri and his followers had their discussion on a webcast. The webcasts can run several times a week, and up to 70 people a night log in, each with an individual password.
The Sunday Telegraph monitored a range of extremist websites and chatrooms last week as part of an investigation into the spread of Islamist militancy on the internet. MI5, the security service, and Scotland Yard are increasingly concerned that the internet is being used by terrorists to incite attacks in Britain and to recruit volunteers.
We discovered extremists posting messages and images on a recently established, password-protected pro-Islamist site. It is on sites like this that Bakri's broadcasts are referred to openly, with advice on what time they begin and even requests not to "arrive" in the chatroom late. There are also dozens of photographs celebrating, among others, Osama bin Laden, and a tasteless message expressing "amusement" at photographs of American soldiers killed by terrorists.
Vigil, a privately funded intelligence group, believes much of the extremist material comes from al-Qaeda sympathisers in Britain.
Many secretive websites had urged Muslims to protest against Sir Salman's knighthood by attending a rally in London on Friday. On the same day, the Muslim Council of Britain attacked Tony Blair for rewarding an author who had "vilified" Islam.
The growing use of webcasts and websites by extremists has been highlighted by Ed Husain, a London-born former jihadi who turned his back on militancy.
"There is an unchallenged, unreported Islamist underworld in the UK in which talk of jihad, bombings, stabbings, killings and executions is usual," he warned recently. "Rhetoric is an indication of a certain mindset and, I think, the prelude to terror.
"In internet chatrooms… the Islamists break news of beheadings in Iraq, the downing of US helicopters and discuss who is next on their agenda of killing and destruction."
Mr Husain, 32, formerly a member of the extremist group Hizb ut-Tahir but now a PhD student, had his own chilling insight into the sinister activities of his political opponents when he read a poem about him posted on several websites. Supposedly written in the "first person" by Mr Husain, it likened him to Judas and included the lines: "I dread the return of the Caliphate (Islamic government) / Who will apply to extradite me / Put me on trial / And then execute me / As a traitor."
Mr Husain believes the poem is a coded call for Muslims to murder him and warned: "Unless we stem the rising tide of radical Islamist rhetoric in Britain, a prelude to jihadism, then the carnage of Baghdad may well erupt in Bradford and Birmingham."
Last week was not the first time that Bakri has been discovered spreading his message of hate on the internet. Vigil has also obtained recordings of Bakri encouraging his followers to behead their enemies and kidnap Westerners. Bakri was excluded from the UK last year on the grounds that his presence was not conducive to the public good.
Vigil is alarmed by the increased use of the internet by Muslim extremists. Its director, Dominic Whiteman, said: "It is not a coincidence that the rise of the internet and al-Qaeda were simultaneous. The internet is al-Qaeda's oxygen."
According to security sources, there are two ways of tackling the growing problem - physically destroying the websites using expert technology or infiltrating them to obtain intelligence.
Glen Jenvey, a freelance counter-intelligence investigator, set up an internet sting - purporting to be a Muslim extremist website operator - which provided evidence linking Abu Hamza, the British radical Muslim cleric, to terror camps.
Hamza was jailed for seven years last year for inciting murder and race hate. He is seeking to overturn the verdicts and is fighting moves to extradite him to America.
Last week, the Government revealed that there are currently 52 people who are not permitted into the UK because they are suspected of involvement in terrorism. However, the internet means that, despite their ban, their extremist views can still be "exported" to Britain through the worldwide web.
The EU announced a month ago that it wanted to strengthen its monitoring of militant Islamist websites. "Terrorists use the internet not only as a means to communicate and spread propaganda, but also to radicalise, recruit and train terrorists, to spread instructions on how to carry out concrete offences and to transfer covert information," a meeting of ambassadors concluded.
Patrick Mercer, the former Conservative spokesman for homeland security, said of the growing use of the internet by militants: "This is a much greater threat than people realise. Radicalisation is taking place on a number of different fronts and more people are sympathetic than we dare believe. The only way to penetrate this is by the careful development of intelligence sources and a clear understanding of the radicalisation process."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)