Expenses fiddling Brian Binley MP criticises European Court of Human Rights

Expenses fiddling Brian Binley MP criticises European Court of Human Rights

MPs' expenses: Tory claims £57,000 to rent flat from own company

A Conservative MP broke parliamentary rules by claiming more than £50,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to rent a flat from his own company.

Brian Binley rented a flat from his own company

Brian Binley: Those who are blindly defending the European Court of Human Rights are only aiding its demise

Brian Binley is Conservative MP for Northampton South and a UK delegate to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. After the House of Commons voted in defiance of the ECHR ruling on giving the vote to prisoners, Christos Pourgourides - a Cypriot who chairs the Council of Europe's Committee on Legal Affairs and Human Rights - was quoted as saying that he had hoped that "the Parliament of one of Europe’s oldest democracies - regarded as playing a leading role in protecting Human Rights - would have encouraged the United Kingdom to honour its international obligations". Here Brian Binley responds to him in the form of an open letter.

Dear Mr. Pourgourides,

I am sure I don’t need to remind you of the case of Mr Imad Al Khawaya, a British Medical Consultant, who was convicted in a British Court of assaulting two of his patients whilst they were under the influence of hypnosis some six years ago.

One of his victims, who suffered from multiple sclerosis and thereafter committed suicide before the trial, had given testimony to a legal officer which was properly allowed to be submitted to the Court as evidence.

The disgraced doctor thereafter appealed to the European Court of Human Rights who ruled that his human rights had been violated because he had not been able to cross examine the victim who had died and he was duly awarded compensation.

No wonder the remaining victim asked “where are my human rights?”

I could quote many other equally farcical judgements which have not only brought the Court into disrepute in the UK but across Western Europe but I am sure you are well aware of them.

Many of Britain’s most eminent jurists are now questioning the credibility of the Court.

The former Law Lord, Lord Hoffman, who has been widely quoted on the issue, has lately argued that the Court seems to be “laying down a federal law of Europe.”

Lord Phillips, head of our newly created Supreme Court, warned that Strasbourg faced defiance of its ruling’s unless it reconsidered some of them and Lord Hope added “we won’t lie down in front of what they tell us.”

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said it would be wrong for the Court to be given precedence over Britain’s own courts.

These are serious lawyers voicing serious concerns and I could quote many more. You would do well to take them seriously yourself not least because you clearly value the efficacy of our institutions as your comments suggest. Consequently, to do otherwise would be illogical.

But the real concern doesn’t spring from the uttering’s of politicians or lawyers. It resounds in the voice of the people who are beginning to express distaste every time the ECHR hits the headlines and that concern doesn’t only relate to the Court but to the wider European institutions.

The foolishness of the Court regarding its seemingly apparent wish to micro-manage all law vaguely related to Human Rights without thought for national practices or traditions is potentially damaging to the harmony of the E.U. itself.

The writers of the Convention, way back in the 1940s, would have been horrified to learn of the extent to which the Court now feels it right to dabble in local matters and would be equally concerned at the way it seems to turn justice on its head and change perpetrators into victims.

The Convention was initially designed to ensure that the abhorrent abuses of European Dictators of the twentieth century would never be inflicted upon our peoples again and I am sure we all pay tribute to the Court for the work it has done in that respect over the years.

However, it’s time we paid heed to the expressions of the people themselves who are beginning to feel a little unnerved at the direction of travel the Court is now taking and the interpretations it is sometimes delivering.

It’s about time we recognised that the Court isn’t a perfect body above sanction but a Court of Law which operates with the assent of the people and not in spite of them.

Of course the ECHR plays an important role within British and European jurisprudence.

Of course its projection and protection of Human Rights is vital to our social wellbeing.

But, equally, the peoples' representatives need to review and to fine tune the ECHR from time to time as they would with any other institution.

Perhaps the time has come to do just that whilst at the same time understanding that blind adherence to a faltering structure simply aids its demise. I am certain none of us want that point to be reached. Do we?

Brian Binley MP
UK Delegate of the Council of Europe

Dear Mr Binley

I am sure I don't need to remind you that you broke parliamentary rules by claiming £57,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to rent a flat from your own company.

I could quote many other examples of dishonest MPs in the UK, which has led to Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, to state that Parliament has lost the moral authority to govern.

You may recall that in Hirst v UK (No2) it had been argued that convicted prisoners by committing their crimes and a custodial sentence being imposed that they had lost the moral authority to the vote. However, moral authority has never been a criterion for the franchise in the UK. Perhaps, you could enlighten me as to where is the moral authority to fiddle taxpayer-funded expenses?

As a result of the UK failing to fully comply with the Hirst v UK (No2) decision in over 5 years, there are now 75,000 convicted prisoners asking "Where are our human rights?".

With the UK's credibility in tatters throughout Europe, it is a bit rich that some of the guilty UK jurists are now questioning the ECtHR instead of ensuring that the UK fully complies with its obligations under the Convention.

It is illogical to claim sovereignty of the UK when this was surrendered for the common good of the Council of Europe when the UK signed up to the Convention.

It is being claimed that there is a public distate for the ECtHR decisions in the UK, however, this distaste has been expressed by the extreme right wing tabloids and some MPs, and not the public who's distaste still appears to be for the expenses scandal.

If Brian Binley MP took the time to read the Human Rights Act 1998, he will see that it quite clearly states that anyone who's human rights are abused by a public authority is a victim, therefore, to try to blame the ECtHR for making perpetrators into victims is a misconception.

As Brian Binley MP points out "The Convention was initially designed to ensure that the abhorrent abuses of European Dictators of the twentieth century would never be inflicted upon our peoples again", which is why the ECtHR has recently warned David Cameron that he is beginning to act like a Greek Military Dictator from the 1960s when Greece withdrew from the Convention.

Brian Binley MP tries to hide his personal attack upon the ECtHR as "the expressions of the people themselves who are beginning to feel a little unnerved at the direction of travel the Court is now taking and the interpretations it is sometimes delivering". However, if Brian Binley MP took the time to read Hirst v UK (No2) he will see that the case is the Individual v the State and that public opinion is not a feature of the case and was rightly excluded by the Court. The guilty parties in the case are the Executive, Parliament and the Judiciary (the 3 arms of the State within the UK) and not the public.

The Court operates with the assent of the 800m citizens in Europe, and cannot face sanction by a rogue or pariah State, such as the UK, failing to honour its obligations under the Convention. The Court and the Council of Europe and not the UK Parliament are the representatives of the people in Europe. Sovereignty of Parliament is at odds with the doctrine of the sovereignty of the people. Therefore, Parliament has no power to interfere with the Court's jurisdiction at any time let alone from time to time as claimed by Brian Binley MP.

The Court rejects the UK's challenge to its jurisdiction, and insists that the UK honours its obligations and fully complies with the Convention and Court decisions including giving all convicted prisoners the vote.