LibCons: Question time - What if?
In his recent letter, the Human Rights Minister said:
Whilst the Government is bound under Article 46 of the ECHR to implement decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, such decisions do not have the effect of striking down the national law to which they relate. The UK is a dualist legal system in which international law obligations must be translated into domestic law via Parliament. Therefore, whilst the Government accepts that the Court in Hirst v UK (No 2) found that section 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 is not compliant with its international law obligations under the Convention, the domestic law continues in force. Similarly, this decision does not have any impact on the continuing validity of our current body of domestic election law.[113]
"The Government's analysis is legally accurate. The continuing breach of international law identified in Hirst will not affect the legality of the forthcoming election for the purposes of domestic law. However, without reform the election will happen in a way which will inevitably breach the Convention rights of at least part of the prison population. This is in breach of the Government's international obligation to secure for everyone within its jurisdiction the full enjoyment of those rights. We consider that the Government's determination to draw clear distinctions between domestic legality and the ongoing breach of Convention rights shows a disappointing disregard for our international law obligations".
I wonder if the government's analysis is legally accurate?
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.
Needs to be tested out.
ReplyDelete