A sign of Cameron's weakness as a leader

A sign of Cameron's weakness as a leader

I awoke this morning at the crack of dawn with the thought on my mind that it was strange that the Coalition is able to react quickly to a judgment of the court in one case, but appears unable to act in another case.

If David Cameron thinks his problems are over with the resignation of Liam Fox then he had better think again because the Hirst problem is only going to get worse for him if he does not deal with it now.

The obligation to abide by the judgments encompasses two main elements. As far as the applicant’s individual situation is concerned, the main obligation is to ensure that measures are taken which achieve, as far as possible, restitutio in integrum for the applicant. Such measures include notably the effective payment of the just satisfaction allocated by the Court (including the payment of default interests in case of belated payment). When the consequences of a violation cannot be adequately erased by the just satisfaction awarded, the Committee of Ministers makes sure that the domestic authorities take the other specific individual measures in favour of the applicant which may be required. Such measures can, for example, consist in the granting of a residence permit, the reopening of a judicial procedure and/or the erasure of a conviction from the criminal records.

On a more general level, the obligation also includes the prevention of violations similar to those found by the Court. General measures which may be necessary include notably constitutional changes or legislative amendments, changes in the case-law of the national courts, as well as practical measures, such as the recruitment of judges or refurbishing obsolete prison facilities. The efficiency of domestic remedies is an important element of general measures and States are notably recommended by the Committee of Ministers to review, following Court judgments which point to structural or general deficiencies in national law or practice, the effectiveness of the existing remedies and, where necessary, set up effective ones, in order to avoid repetitive cases being brought before the Court.

Labour failed to amend s.3 of ROPA 1983 following the Hirst v UK (No2) judgment. It is not as though Labour does not know how to make or amend laws. For example, Blair's 'frenzied law making' : a new offence for every day spent in office. And now under the Coalition government The 22 Bills include plans for major reform of schools, police, welfare and Britain's political system.

Not only has the Coalition ignored the ECtHR judgment but it has also passed a law since which expressly banned prisoners from voting, that is, the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011.

Frodl v Austria relied upon the Hirst test. The Coalition has tried to claim that the Frodl case goes even further than mine. Whatever, the Committee of Ministers reports that Austria has now amended its laws to fully comply with the judgment. Latvia which joined my application as an interested party has also amended its laws to fully comply with my judgment. There is no legitimate reason for the UK to not fully comply with Hirst v UK (no2).

Why did the chicken called David Cameron cross the road?