Dear Jack

Dear Jack

The Association of Prisoners welcomes the fact that the MoJ has decided to enter into dialogue with us on the Prisoners Votes Case.

We would have preferred not to have taken you hostage in this situation. Whatever you are feeling right now it is not torture, unless we are talking about the Chinese water torture; the constant drip, drip, drip of media headlines in the run up to the general election.

However, as you have decided to go along with the trial by media that’s fine by us. We have nothing to lose, but our chains. You have your seat and an election to lose.

In response to our press release to the Press Association, you have stated to the PA:

“Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "The Human Rights Act does not limit Parliament's freedom to pass legislation.

"If primary legislation is incompatible with the ECHR, the domestic courts may make a declaration of incompatibility but the provisions remain in force.

"It is for Parliament to decide how to respond to that declaration, taking into account the UK's international obligations.

"Under the Human Rights Act, no damages are available in relation to the introduction, making or incompatibility of primary legislation."

end”.

The AoP agrees that:

"The Human Rights Act does not limit Parliament's freedom to pass legislation”.

However, this fails to address the issue that it is the Sec. of State of Justice, Jack Straw, who has the legal responsibility to lay a draft Bill before Parliament to free Parliament to pass legislation.

Is Jack Straw now going to claim that what he states on the MoJ website is lies? It states he must ensure human rights are given to citizens. How does one do that sat with ones head up one’s rear end? This case requires Jack Straw to pull his head out of the dark and see the light at the end of the tunnel.

"If primary legislation is incompatible with the ECHR, the domestic courts may make a declaration of incompatibility but the provisions remain in force”.

The AoP states this is not a case of “if”. S.3 of the RPA 1983 is incompatible with the HRA 1998. Domestic courts have made such a declaration. Whilst it is agreed that these courts do not have the jurisdiction to strike down the offending legislation, the AoP does not accept that s.3 still stands. It was knocked down by Art 3 of the First Protocol to the Convention, in the ECtHR’s judgment which is international law and European law and therefore superior to English law.

"It is for Parliament to decide how to respond to that declaration, taking into account the UK's international obligations”.

The AoP accepts that it is for Parliament to decide how to respond. Once, that is, Jack does his bit first. We reject most strongly the claim that the UK is taking into account its international obligations. The evidence the AoP intends to make public over the next few days will expose this lie for what it is.

"Under the Human Rights Act, no damages are available in relation to the introduction, making or incompatibility of primary legislation."

The AoP notes your legal advice. However, it appears that you are Labouring under a misapprehension as to how we intend to claim the monetary damages. See you in court.