Bratza bemused by UK's disdain for Strasbourg

Bratza bemused by UK's disdain for Strasbourg

The 'democratic override' that some in Britain favour would be "totally destructive", Sir Nicolas tells the Guardian in an exclusive interview

Sir Nicolas Bratza: "When I was elected as president of this court... I thought it would be widely praised that at last they had a UK president." Photograph: Patrick Hertzog/AFP/Getty Images

Allowing states to override decisions of the human rights court would be contrary to the rule of law and "totally destructive of the system," Sir Nicolas Bratza, the court's British president, has told the Guardian.

Although some campaigners have argued that governments should have a veto over rulings by the Strasbourg court, Bratza said he was glad to see that this idea was not included in David Cameron's speech to the Council of Europe last week or among the UK's draft proposals for a meeting taking place in Brighton in April of ministers from the 47-nation body.

In a rare interview, the court's 66-year-old president said he had mistakenly believed that critics of the court would have welcomed the decision by its members last year to elect a British judge as their head. Instead, press reports focused on Bratza's partly-foreign ancestry.

Bratza told a news conference in Strasbourg last Thursday that, whatever some newspaper headlines might suggest, "there is no open conflict" between the court at the British government. "We don't, of course, agree on everything," the judge said. But he had read the prime minister's "very measured" speech to the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly a day earlier and "found much in it to which we, as a court, can subscribe".

Bratza agreed with Cameron that the backlog of inadmissible cases was unacceptably high; that the court should not simply give claimants a fourth bite of the cherry; it should not act as an immigration tribunal; and it must not "substitute its own judgment for that of reasonable national processes".

But he rejected the suggestion that this was what the court was doing, pointing out that it had found against the British government in just eight cases out of around 1,000 decided last year.

In his speech to the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly, Cameron said that where an issue such as prisoners' votes had been "subjected to proper, reasoned democratic debate and has also met with detailed scritiny by national courts in line with the [human rights] convention, the decision made at a national level should be treated with respect."

But Bratza did not see that proposal as comparable to the "democratic override" which, as the government's commission on a bill of rights disclosed last July, is supported by some of its members.

According to the commission, this would allow the effect of a court decision to be overridden by the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly or the international body's ruling committee of ministers. Alternatively, the committee of ministers could decide that a judgment should not be enforced "in the light of a clear expression of opinion by the relevant member state's most senior democratic institution".

Speaking to me last Friday at the modernist 1990s building designed for the Strasbourg court by by Richard Rogers, Bratza did not mince his words.

"One of the central pillars of the Council of Europe and the [human rights] convention system is that of the rule of law. The rule of law must mean that where a court decides and delivers a final and binding judgment, it is complied with - whether it is approved of or not by the authorities concerned.

"I believe it would be totally destructive of the system if one was to have any kind of system of democratic override: that is, that members of the national parliaments, the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe or, indeed, the committee of ministers could simply say: 'This is a decision we don't like and we are not going to implement it.'"

Noting that the override had both proponents and opponents within the UK's commission on a bill of rights, Bratza said he was "very glad to see that the [British] government has never suggested this as a measured reform which would be regarded as one they would espouse or one that would be acceptable".

And if some sort of veto were put forward, presumably the judges would regard it as unacceptable?

"I hope it wouldn't just be us. I hope there would be a large number of member states of the Council of Europe who would make it clear that this was something they couldn't possibly contemplate."

What, though, if we were to reach some impasse on the issue of prisoners voting? The issue is currently under consideration in an Italian case called Scoppola, and a decision is expected later this year. Assuming, as seems likely, that the court will not overturn its previous decision in the Hirst case, Britain would then have six months to end the blanket ban on voting by prisoners. What if Cameron were to dig in his heels and insist that the UK's refusal to comply with the court's ruling should be "treated with respect"?

"I would like to treat this as a hypothetical question because I don't think we have ever faced that situation," Bratza said. "It's one that would be a matter for the committee of ministers to try to resolve through negotiation. Other than through persuasion and peer pressure though other states, the only sanction for non-compliance or some other breach of the obligations of the member state is expulsion of the member state. But this is inconceivable in the case of the United Kingdom, who are a very important part of the convention system and always have been a leading state within the Council of Europe."

But for how much longer? Might Britain simply pull out?

"Again, I'm glad to say that, so far as I can judge, the UK have ruled this out," Bratza told me. "The secretary of state for justice [Kenneth Clarke] has made it quite clear that this is not something which is in the UK's contemplation. I welcome that."

But there is no denying that some sections of the media would support withdrawal. I show him an article in last week's Daily Mail headlined Arrogant Judges Trample on UK Law. A caption in the print edition describes him as "not the best qualified" judge. The online version of the story has a different headline and claims he seems to have "gone native". Why, I ask him, is the human rights court seen in such a toxic way in Britain?

"Your guess is as good as mine on this," he replied. "I do find it very puzzling as to why there is this strong feeling. It's not just a feeling against the court or against the convention. It's a feeling directed more generally against the Human Rights Act."

That was seen as the "whipping-boy", in his view.

"I think this is clear from the attacks that are made not just on our court but even on national courts, where they take a decision which is unpopular: the problem is always seen in terms of the Human Rights Act which grants rights but doesn't actually impose responsibilities on the individual. I think there is an anti-European element in this. I think there is to some extent the rather insular feeling that we should not have a foreign court - and we are seen as a foreign court - interfering in matters which are better dealt with domestically.

"But I think there is also this sense that, when anything goes wrong, it must be the result of the Human Rights Act. And, in the great majority of cases, where something has gone wrong, it has nothing whatever to do with the act."

The Human Rights Act is based, of course, on the human rights convention, ratified by the UK as long ago as 1951. The convention, and the court, are the responsibility of the Council of Europe, which is chaired for six months at a time by each of the member states. As the UK is currently in the chair, Britain is responsible for developing the latest proposals to reform the court. These will be put to an international ministerial conference in Brighton in April, although any decisions will be for foreign ministers to take back in Strasbourg in May.

The latest draft of these propoals, known quaintly as a "non-paper", offers three main options: a "sunset clause", new admissibilty criteria and a "pick-and-choose" discretion for the court. As far as Bratza is concerned, none of these options would involve any transfer of powers from the court to member states.

"I don't think any of them are intended to prevent cases coming here," he told me. Under the planned sunset clause, applications would drop off the court's list of pending cases if they had not been notified by the court to the government concerned with a specified period of a year or two. "But of course it would still be for the court to avoid that by communicating the case within the time allowed," Bratza pointed out.

The thinking behind proposed new admissibility criteria - the second option - is that cases would not come before the court if they had already been examined by a national court applying the convention. An exception would be made if the national court had "manifestly erred" or if the case raised a serious question of interpretation. The British non-paper argues that this would reduce the number of cases in which the court could substitute its own view for that of the national court.

Not quite. "A new inadmissibility criterion would of course, if it were adopted, be for the court to apply," Bratza insisted. "We would have to decide whether there was a manifest error on the part of the state authorities concerned, and in particular of the national courts concerned, before we could reject a case as inadmissible under the new criterion... Ultimately, in those cases we would be the ones who would be interpreting the provision and applying it."

The third option - giving the court the discretion to choose its own cases - would seem to put the judges in the driving seat. But Bratza feared it could let governments off the hook.

"The problem with a pick-and-choose idea is: who does the picking when we have that number of cases [nearly 65,000 applications last year] coming in in 39 different languages and from 47 different legal systems?"

Surely the judges would continue to do so?

But that would leave the court deciding hundreds of cases rather than thousands as at present, he reckoned. What should it do with the cases that were not picked and chosen?

Send them back for a decision by the national courts, I suggested, perhaps with some guidance.

"It's fine sending cases back if one were satisfied that the national authorities would - where there has been, on the face of it, some non-compliance with the convention - do something to remedy that at national level... That's admirable; but only if one is satisfied that the national authorities would deal seriously with a case where they have already let down the applicant in the first place."

So that would mean trusting some countries and not others, I suggest: an invidious choice for a court to make. But doesn't the US supreme court choose its own docket?

"We are not in the same position as the US supreme court," Bratza explained. They could refuse to hear a particular case knowing that it had already been heard by at least two federal courts and probably by one or two state courts as well. That's not the case with some of the emerging democracies of Europe.

The president saw difficulties in moving to a system under which the court might have no regard to cases that raised substantive problems. "Only if we were really satisfied that by returning them to the respondent state they would be dealt with would we really espouse such a system."

But that would still benefit the UK, I suggest, because Strasbourg would have to put more trust in British courts.

"The [Strasbourg] court is not a problem for the UK anyway. If less than one per cent of [UK] cases end up with a finding of a violation, it's very difficult to see any need to send cases back. We are rejecting the great majority of cases against the UK and in summary form."

Bratza is a very private man and this is only the second press interview he has ever given as a judge. The first, also with me, was in 2003. He has not given any broadcast interviews since taking over a president last November, and he must retire when his term of office finishes at the end of October this year.

Indeed, he was apparently not at all sure whether it was worth doing the president's job for just a year. What seems to have persuaded him to put his name forward to his fellow judges was the constant criticism he read in the press that the human rights court did not have anyone at the very top who was familiar with a common law system.

But Bratza clearly didn't understand the British media.

"When I was elected as president of this court... I thought it would be widely praised that at last they had a UK president. And it is interesting that the focus was, instead, about the fact that my father was born in Serbia and that he was a musician and that I hadn't been a true judge at home because I'd only been a recorder [part-time judge in England and Wales] for 10 years.

"It seems to me that you can never succeed. If they have a British president well, he's not really British. And if you don't, then you don't have anyone who understands the national system. Well, when I was born, bred, educated, practised law, became a judge in the United Kingdom, I thought I did have quite strong UK qualifications. But perhaps not."

I reminded him that he is descended on his mother's side from the Russell of Killowen family, which produced three successive generations of law lords.

"That was conveniently ignored as well," he noted ruefully. "My great-grandfather was the lord chief justice; my grandfather was a lord of appeal and my uncle was a lord of appeal as well."

Is that where he would like to end up? He is already a judge of the high court, on secondment, and would certainly sit in the court of appeal if he chose to return to London. He would be a valauble asset to the supreme court. Bratza refused to be drawn, protesting that there were plenty of judges in Britain with "profound knowledge" of human rights.

But none has his 40 years experience as advocate and judge. If the courts don't snap him up, there will be plenty of others who'll value his skills and expertise. What direction Strasbourg will take after he retires in October is altogether another question.

Comment:

When Sir Nicolas Bratza was elected President of the Court I did see reports in the press welcoming this move. However, there were expectations that he would suddenly automatically support the UK simply because he is British. When this expectation was not met it led to criticisms of him and I did see a reference to him being the son of a Serbian violinist, as though he is not really British at all but instead a foreigner. This anti-foreign attitude in the gutter press sickens me.

I was alarmed when I first heard mention that there should be a democratic override of decisions of the Court. I agree that such a move would be contrary to the rule of law and have a negative impact upon the whole system.

I don't think it is enough to simply say that there is no open conflict between the Court and the British government. The statement fails to tackle the inaccurate media reporting claiming that a war exists. Article 10 of the ECHR is not absolute and Sir Nicolas Bratza could have reminded the media that it should act responsibly when reporting the Court's judgments. This problem must be tackled head on and not ducked because otherwise the media will continue to take liberties if not challenged.

Sir Nicolas Bratza also failed to tackle this issue. “In his speech to the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly, Cameron said that where an issue such as prisoners' votes had been "subjected to proper, reasoned democratic debate and has also met with detailed scrutiny by national courts in line with the [human rights] convention, the decision made at a national level should be treated with respect"”. As he was a judge in Hirst v UK (No2) he knows that I argued and the Court accepted that there had been no proper, reasoned democratic debate on the issue in Parliament. Too late the Backbench Business Committee put forward an unlawful motion which was followed by a sham debate in the Commons. The High Court abdicated responsibility and there was no detailed scrutiny of the issue Had it been in line with the ECHR then the High Court would have issued the declaration that s.3 of ROPA 1983 was incompatible with the HRA and Article 3 of the First Protocol of the ECHR. A failure to decide at a national level deserves no respect.

Sir Nicolas Bratza did not answer this question: “What, though, if we were to reach some impasse on the issue of prisoners voting?”. In my view, over 6 years has passed since Hirst v UK (No2) was decided and if the stand off is not an impasse then I don't know what is. It is not a hypothetical question but a valid question requiring a proper answer. It beggars belief that Sir Nicolas Bratza can say “ I don't think we have ever faced that situation”. In my view, the Court, Council of Europe and Committee of Ministers have not faced up to the situation. That is, the act of defiance by the UK. It is no good saying that it is for the Committee of Ministers to try to resolve. That is according to the rules. But neither the UK nor the Committee of Ministers are playing by the rules. Therefore the impasse must be resolved if the ECHR and Court are to be effective in protecting human rights for all citizens in Europe. As a recent BBC documentary showed the corruption within the Committee of Ministers prevents Member States attacking other Member States for non compliance with the Courts judgments for fear that the finger pointing Member State will in turn be finger pointed for its non compliance with the Court judgments. It is a weakness of the system that the Court judgments do not have direct effect. Another weakness is that there is no complaint mechanism allowing the individual to air a grievance when the system fails to protect human rights. Sir Nicolas Bratza is part of the problem and not the cure when he states it is inconceivable in the case of the United Kingdom that it can be expelled. Instead of requiring a two-thirds majority of the Committee of Ministers to send a case back to the Court for a ruling that a Member State has failed to comply with a judgment, this should be the right of the individual whose case has not been complied with. The UK has shown that given an inch it will take a mile. This margin of appreciation must be reduced to fully comply with a judgment within 6 months or else face immediate sanctions.

I am disappointed that Sir Nicolas Bratza saw fit to give an audience to Jack Straw and David Davis both of whom have attacked the Court decision on prisoners votes, and yet neither my barrister, nor my solicitor, nor myself were allowed an audience with the President of the Court! He has given Joshua Rozenberg two bites at the cherry whilst denying us even one bite. The Committee of Ministers rules are clear, there is to be no rehashing of arguments lost before the Court. And yet, the UK has done precisely that in Greens and MT v UK, and Scoppola v Italy (No3). If Sir Nicolas Bratza is to have any credibility he must demand that the UK fully complies with Hirst v UK (No2) without any more undue delay, otherwise the President of the Court is just as guilty as the UK in allowing the principle of justice delayed is justice denied to be meaningless.

Dead Man Walking?

Dead Man Walking?

I wasn't worried until I sat on the bus and it started moving towards Castle Hill hospital. Then I did get a bit concerned. I put it out of my mind. Then I saw a funeral cortege as the bus pulled off Newland Avenue onto Cottingham Road. Not long after we passed Cottingham Cemetary. As I sat in the hospital waiting room I saw a sign reading Way Out...

I was called for my blood pressure to be tested, and weighed upon my appointment time. But, then I was kept waiting 45 minutes to see the consultant. I didn't actually get to see the consultant but instead a nice young woman assistant. She said that she was worried, very worried about my X-ray. I asked to see it, but first she wanted to ask me some questions. She said I drank too much. I replied only since I retired. I was given a medical examination. But for the shadow on my lung she said I was very healthy young man. I replied I am almost 62! She said we needed to get me healthy again by tackling the shadow on my lung.

Next week I have to have a CT Scan. And 2 days later see the consultant. There was talk about other tests and a biopsy was mentioned. External and internal examination of the shadow on my lung.

I saw the X-ray, and the assistant pointed out the shadow causing concern. It reminded me of a still from Adam Westbrook's video interview he did with me, where he captured the smoke from my fag. The shadow is in the lower third of my right lung, it appeared to take up the whole of the lower third. She said whilst it looks like cancer, it might be something else hence the need for more tests.

I think we both did not hold out much hope it would be something else. She agreed that if it is cancer then it is quite advanced.

Shrugs

Shrugs

Hello,

We'd like to inform you that we've received the court order referred to in
your blog http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com.

In accordance with the terms of the court order, we have removed content
previously located at:
http://jailhouselawyersblog.blogspot.com/2011/05/charles-martyn-hemphill-seeks-to-jail.html

Thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
The Blogger Team

Scottish prison service tried to gag me, says Tommy Sheridan

Scottish prison service tried to gag me, says Tommy Sheridan

Solidarity party leader says he was asked to sign gagging order as he is released from prison a year after being jailed for perjury

Prison executives have dropped "illegal" plans to ban the socialist leader Tommy Sheridan from meeting the media and making speeches after his release from jail, his lawyer has said.

Sheridan walked free from Castle Huntly open prison on Monday morning, a year after being jailed for perjury during his libel trial against the News of the World, to live at home under curfew and wearing an electronic tag until July.

The Solidarity party leader had been poised to issue proceedings for a judicial review later on Monday, claiming he had originally been asked to sign early release papers with an explicit gagging order that prevented him speaking to the media for the next six months.

Talking outside his home in Glasgow, with his wife Gail beside him, Sheridan said: "Up until a few hours ago, I didn't know I would be able to speak because up until a couple of hours ago, I was still gagged. I was told two hours ago that gag has now been lifted."

Aamer Anwar, his lawyer, said that just before his release on Monday morning, Sheridan was handed new release papers with that restriction deleted.

"There was no rhyme or reason why the Scottish prison service should want to impose a condition that he mustn't speak directly to the media. It was illegal; it was a breach of his human rights and it would have been challenged," Anwar said.

Sheridan claimed he was confident he would soon be fighting a successful appeal against his "unfair, unsafe and unsound" perjury conviction in December 2010.

The former MSP was jailed for three years in January 2011 after being found guilty by a majority verdict, after the longest perjury trial in Scottish history, of several perjury offences when he won a £200,000 libel case against the now defunct tabloid.

His trial hit the international headlines after the prime minister's then head of communications, Andy Coulson, a former News of the World editor, was made to appear as a defence witness.

Sheridan personally questioned Coulson on whether he knew about hacking at the newspaper after Sheridan's name and mobile number appeared in papers belonging to Glenn Mulcaire, the private detective retained by the NoW and jailed for hacking.

Professor Gregor Gall, a former friend of Sheridan's and author of a critical new biography of the former MSP, Tommy Sheridan: From Hero to Zero?, said Sheridan risked any chance of resuming his political career if he continued to insist he was innocent.

"Tommy faces a critical juncture in his political life," said Gall, a professor of industrial relations at Hertfordshire University. "Either he locks himself into maintaining his innocence and victimhood lest he undo all his previous work, and open himself and others up to charges of perjury.

"If he goes down this path, he will become a one-trick pony. Or, he could choose to take the bold step and admit his guilt. Then he might at least gain forgiveness from some and redemption from others. Only through this admission can he have any hope of making a genuine political return."

Comment:

The Probation Service tried to gag me but I said I would challenge it by judicial review and they backed off.

Paddy Ashdown responds to the Independent's gaffe over Lord Ashcroft

Paddy Ashdown responds to the Independent's gaffe over Lord Ashcroft

Lord Ashdown of Belize

Lord Ashdown originally made his £1.1bn fortune

"Sir,

It is one thing deliberately to misrepresent my position on the Benefit Cap as you did last week, but quite another to mistake me with Lord Ashcroft the Tory funder of Belize fame, as you did yesterday in your front page lead of yesterday.

Please re-assure your readers that I am a quiet little herbivorous Lib Dem living living a life which offends no-one in a small cottage in Somerset and not a Tory supporter who "originally made his £1.1bn fortune " in Belize the "Caribbean state whose government was brought down by corruption scandals."

I am beginning to think you guys have it in for me!!"

Paddy

Kenneth Clarke is denying ex-criminals a right to be treated equally

Kenneth Clarke is denying ex-criminals a right to be treated equally

The justice secretary's decision to ban ex-offenders from claiming compensation for crimes against them is discriminatory

Justice secretary Ken Clarke's announcement that people with criminal convictions will be banned from claiming compensation from the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority when they themselves have been victims of crime is a massive smack in the face for his much touted criminal justice "rehabilitation revolution". For some time, Clarke has been trying to persuade the wider community and the more cynical in his party that it makes good fiscal sense to allow people in prison to use their time constructively in work and education so that when they are released, they are less likely to reoffend. So far so good. More than half of all crime is committed by people with previous convictions, and reoffending by people who have served time in jail is estimated to cost the rest of society between £9bn and £11bn a year.

But this does not mean they are not human. In any case so long as we have a prison system which lets the majority of people out – the current prisoner population is over 88,000 and rising – then it is vital that they are let out motivated and able to succeed as social contributors. But successful rehabilitation requires a two-way commitment. If we really want our system to work effectively then once people who have committed crimes have served their time, completed their sentence, paid their debt and shown that they want to live crime-free lives, then society needs to demonstrate a greater level of acceptance.

Discrimination against people with criminal convictions is already rife in the job market. Accessing financial services once you have declared that you have been in prison is almost impossible. Even finding accommodation is made more difficult when you state on the application form that you are an ex-offender. Recently, a new tax was also imposed on the earnings of prisoners who are lucky enough to find work when they get to open prisons and are nearing the end of their sentences. As well as their income tax and national insurance, they have to pay a 40% surcharge on what they have left to the charity Victim Support. The merits of the scheme are debatable, but the reality is that it is just another discriminatory obstacle on the path to a fresh start. It was already the case that people with criminal convictions were treated differently by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme.

While they could indeed submit a claim, any money that might be received is reduced dependent on the extent of their past criminal behaviour. This policy includes compensation payments to the families of people with criminal convictions. Last year, the family of a man killed in the 2010 Cumbrian shooting spree had to make do with only half the compensation offered to the families of Bird's other victims: it had been 20 years since their loved one had been convicted of any crime other than a litter-dropping offence two years before he was killed. It made no difference – in the eyes of those running the compensation scheme, he was less valuable than the other victims.

A source "close to the justice secretary" told a tabloid newspaper "thugs make a claim if they end up inured in a punch-up. We've got to get compensation to victims". Nobody can deny that anyone who has been traumatised by someone else in some type of criminal action deserves to be compensated. But such political claptrap will serve only to bolster discrimination and widen the social division of which people with criminal convictions are already on the lower side. There are eight million people on the government's "offender index." Ken Clarke is saying that they are all less valuable and by definition less human than others. A disappointing take from a minister that I always thought had more about him.

Coment:

I find that the police discriminate against me in the community because of my past criminal record.

Then there is the convicted prisoners human right to vote. The government is claiming that they are less eligible for human rights because the are being dehumanised by the regime.

Rate of deaths in custody is higher than officials admit

Rate of deaths in custody is higher than officials admit

Independent investigation shows cases are left off the list if the deceased was not formally arrested

Restraint techniques that have an 'ever-present' risk of death

Comment:

It's a fact that there have been more deaths in police custody in this country than in South Africa during the Aparthied regime.

I recall the time prison officers decided to restrain me when it was not needed. True I had assaulted a prison officer, but I was offering no resistance at the time. Therefore the so-called restraint was being used as a tool of revenge. I recall my blood and air supplies being severely restricted, and a prison officer saying in my ear "We can kill you if we want to!".

Some of the deaths will be deliberate and some will be the result of over use of force by inexperienced officers.

Twitter to support dictatorship!

Twitter to support dictatorship!

Evidence.

Do we need to have an "age" at which people can vote?

Do we need to have an "age" at which people can vote?

Guest post by Alex Hilton

For unrelated purposes I have been doing some interesting reading around the field of medical capacity and it strikes me that a similar approach could be applied to entitlement to vote, thereby obviating the periodic debates over which arbitrary age should mark this right.

The major problem with the status quo is its inconsistency. When people say that under-16s are too puerile to vote, they don't propose a corresponding test of the seriousness of those over 18. Similarly people refer to a lack of understanding, yet never question the understanding of people over the age of 18. In fact there are considerable issues surrounding the voting entitlements of people who lack capacity through age, illness or disability, particularly when such people vote with help through proxy or postal voting.

So if mental capacity, understanding of politics, seriousness or indeed the ability to speak and read English are not criteria on which the right to vote is limited, what is the logic that determines why a young person should not be able to vote?

It's worth looking at how young people's medical capacity is determined. To put it briefly, all young people are deemed to be able to make potentially life and death decisions about their healthcare if they assert that capacity and if the doctors believe they have sufficient understanding. Crucially, it is only when someone, a parent or doctor for example, seeks to overrule this assertion that the government gets involved. All people are deemed to have the capacity to make decisions about their medical care from the age of 16 unless there is an additional reason, such as a learning disability, that might equally apply to an adult.

So thinking about this important, legal, life and death precedent, how could this principle be applied to voting? Actually, it could be done simply. You could just give the right to vote to any young person who wants it, regardless of their age.

From the age of 18 it's illegal not to complete the electoral register accurately. I don't see any reason why you couldn't have an additional box asking if there are any younger people in the household who would like to vote but who are not yet 18. You could require the date of birth and signature of the person at this stage.

Similarly to the principle of medical capacity, it could be at the point that someone challenges this assertion that the capacity of the voter is tested. And just to make sure there isn't an "arms race" of complaints about capacity, you would charge a fee to challenge that covers the council's costs of administering the complaint, and if it is upheld, the complainant would be reimbursed through a fine chargeable to the person responsible for completing the electoral registration form.

This would be testing the young person's autonomy. And what better qualification could there be for earning the right to vote that you would be prepared to apply to adults too if you had to. We already withhold the right to vote from adults who are insane or imprisoned - what's that if not a test of autonomy?

And you have to admit there is a graceful symmetry in the qualification to vote being the act of asserting your right to do so.

@alexhilton

“Feisty woman” becomes Yorkshire & Humber MEP (1 of 3)

“Feisty woman” becomes Yorkshire & Humber MEP (1 of 3)

Rebecca Taylor will be the Yorkshire and Humber’s newest MEP. The vacancy was a result of the resignation earlier this month of Lib Dem, Diana Wallis. Under UK European election rules it is usual for the next person on the party list to be offered the seat – that was Diana Wallis’ husband, Stewart Arnold. After criticism – including from within the party – of nepotism, he declined the seat. That left the way clear for third of the list – Rebecca Taylor to be offered the post. She accepted it today. And according to Lib Dem colleague, Andrew Duff MEP, she will make a “formidable parliamentarian” for Yorkshire and the Humber.

Source.

Beyond Abu Qatada: Why The UK Shouldn't Split From the European Court of Human Rights

Beyond Abu Qatada: Why The UK Shouldn't Split From the European Court of Human Rights

Helen Wilson, Huffington Post, 30/1/2012

David Cameron's alleged plans to remove the UK from the European Court of Human Rights have gained an alarming level of support over the past few days. No doubt distracted by the furor surrounding the recent overruling of the UK's deportation of Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, people have been casually dismissing their need for a last line of defence against the state left, right and centre, taking the prime minister at his word when he defended the possible separation by saying that Britain is "not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust."

Perhaps it's because we have very little to be proud of as a nation right now, and in the face of emerging economies such as India and China, the only high ground the once-great Britain can reasonably take, is the moral one. But while it is true that the UK protects its citizens' rights far better than China, when compared to developed European countries - surely a better basis for comparison - the UK's human rights record is nowhere near as laudable, and many of the policies that the UK champions as proof of its forward-thinking and moral mindedness have only come about thanks to the European Court of Human Rights.

For instance it has taken a great level of intervention by the court to correct, repeal or implement legislation to ensure that the UK's LGBT community is afforded many of the same basic rights as non-LGBT citizens, and indeed LGBT citizens in other European nations.

At the turn of the millennium, while countries such as Turkey, Italy, France and Germany had been affording transsexuals full legal recognition of their acquired sex for well over a decade, the UK was simultaneously offering gender reassignment treatment on the NHS and refusing to acknowledge the new gender in law. This added an unnecessary layer of complexity to the process of social integration, meaning that transsexuals could not change their gender on documents such as driving licences and passports. This was in stark contrast to the attitude of countries such as France, where a person's legal change of gender was dealt with in the same way as a correction of an administrative error would be.

When, in 2004, legislation was finally introduced that allowed legal acknowledgement of a change of gender in the UK, it was only thanks to a 2002 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights, in which the UK's existing policy was found to be in violation of Articles 8 and 12 of the European Convention of Human Rights.

The UK was also one of the last northern European countries to lift the ban on allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military, trailing behind pioneers such as the Netherlands (1974), Norway (1979) and Denmark (1981), and nearly a decade behind Ireland (1993). When the UK's military finally reversed its position, in 2000, again it was thanks not to the repeals of British lawmakers or politicians, but to the European Court of Human Rights, which ruled that the UK's current policy was a breach of Article 8.

And these haven't been the only times when the European Court of Human Rights has had to step in to correct the UK's less than LGBT-friendly policies. In 1996, it called for an amendment of the UK's ruling that placed the age of consent for homosexuals at 18 - two years older than the age of consent for heterosexuals. A lot of kicking and screaming from the House of Lords meant that the age of consent wasn't equalised for another four years, and even then it was only approved when the little-used Parliament Act was invoked, forcing the legislation through without approval from the House of Lords.

Some might argue that these incidents are all in the past and - following his recent promise to legalise gay marriage - David Cameron can be trusted to uphold and advance the progress of the LGBT rights movement, without the need for the European Court of Human Rights to intervene. To those, I suggest a glance at Mr Cameron's track record of voting on some other key LGBT issues.

Mr Cameron has voted twice in favour of banning gay couples from adopting, and in 2008 he once again made his opinion felt by voting against allowing lesbians access to IVF. He put up a staunch defense of Section 28, a ban on local authorities promoting the acceptance of homosexuality, and in Europe he has palled up with some of the most unreservedly homophobic figures, such as Polish politician Michal Kaminski.

When it comes down to the issue of human rights, we are entirely in the hands of the government. So when your government (and prime minister) has such a questionable reputation with regards to human rights as the UK's, those that believe in equality should really think twice before supporting the country's evolution beyond a need for the European Court of Human Rights.

Retired lawyer faces jail for 'harassing' Kate and Gerry McCann

Retired lawyer faces jail for 'harassing' Kate and Gerry McCann

A retired lawyer who has repeatedly accused Kate and Gerry McCann of covering up their daughter Madeleine's death is facing jail for harassment.

For almost five years, Kate and Gerry McCann have suffered the anguish of not knowing what happened to their daughter Madeleine.

Through it all, they have also had to contend with a sustained campaign of harassment conducted by a small band of fanatics convinced they had a hand in their daughter's disappearance.

Now, one of their main tormentors is facing jail for refusing to leave the McCanns' alone.

Tony Bennett has waged a campaign since 2007 against the couple – repeatedly accusing them of covering up the girl's death in leaflets, books and on internet postings.

On one occasion, the Madeleine Foundation, which he runs, handed out 1,500 pamphlets in Rothley, the couple's home village in Leicestershire, entitled "10 key reasons which suggest she was not abducted."

Another booklet has been posted by registered delivery to the McCanns' home.

Next month, a court will decide whether to jail Mr Bennett, 64, for contempt of court.

The action is being brought by Mr and Mrs McCann who have grown increasingly disturbed by Mr Bennett's attacks on them.

Mr Bennett is accused of flouting an agreement in the High Court – made in November 2009 – that he would stop repeating allegations that the McCanns were in some way involved in their daughter's abduction.

Since then, Mr Bennett, a grandfather-of-two from Harlow in Essex, who is obsessed with the case, has posted on the subject of Madeleine McCann's disappearance an astonishing 3,800 times on one website alone.

Lawyers acting for the McCanns accuse him of breaching the undertaking on at least 149 occasions. The list of alleged breaches is not exhaustive.

The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell said: "This has gone on for a long time and Kate and Gerry now feel enough is enough. It is obviously very distressing for them. The fact they are taking legal action speaks for itself.

"Tony Bennett is his own worst enemy by persistently doing what he does, he has brought this action on himself."

The couple, both doctors, live in hope their daughter may still be alive and continue the search for her.

A Metropolitan police review of the evidence, put together by Portuguese detectives, continues but is not thought to have produced any significant new leads in the search for Madeleine.

A draft order seen by The Sunday Telegraph, which a judge is expected to rule upon at a hearing in February, includes an option for Mr Bennett to be "committed to HM Prison for a period" to be determined.

Mr Bennett could also be fined and ordered to pay costs that are likely to bankrupt him.

The undertaking Mr Bennett signed – he will now claim he only agreed it under duress – prevents him from making a number of claims in relation to Madeleine's disappearance from her parents' holiday apartment in the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz on May 3rd 2007.

At the time she was just three-year-old.

The agreement signed in court states: "The defendant [Mr Bennett] undertakes not to repeat allegations that the claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/ or of disposing of her body and/ or of lying about what happened and/ or of seeking to cover up what they had done."

The undertaking also included the destruction of a book "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 60 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted" and a leaflet "What really happened to Madeleine McCann? 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted."

But since that November 2009 undertaking, Mr Bennett has continued many of his activities.

The list of 149 alleged breaches, compiled by the McCanns' lawyers Carter Ruck, includes a book: "The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1" and a series of postings on the social networking website Twitter.

Mr Bennett runs the Madeleine Foundation, whose website has been subject to scrutiny by the McCanns' legal team, while also putting up 3,800 posts on another website The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann at a rate of about five a day.

Speaking to The Sunday Telegraph, Mr Bennett was largely unrepentant and seemingly happy to repeat some of the allegations that put him under threat of contempt.

He first became interested in the case while watching it unfold on television in 2007.

He attempted to bring a private prosecution against the couple in November 2007 for child neglect – on the grounds the couple were eating dinner with friends when Madeleine was abducted – but the case was thrown out in a magistrates' court.

Mr Bennett said: "I have done my best to comply with the undertaking but I would argue to the courts it was an unreasonably wide undertaking to sign.

"In the last two years I have not written specifically about the details of how she [Madeleine] might have died or how the body was hidden.

"It is my sincere conviction that one day I will be proved right. I truly believe that one day the truth will be told. And yes I am risking a breach of the order by saying that."

Asked how he felt about harassing a couple, grieving over the disappearance of their daughter, Mr Bennett replied: "The thing that came closest to harassment was when we distributed the '10 reasons' leaflet in Leicestershire in August 2009.

"Three of my colleagues in the Madeleine Foundation distributed a small quantity of leaflets in Rothley. I would honestly say that perhaps that was a leaflet distribution too far.

"If Madeleine was abducted I would accept what I have done is a wicked campaign of harassment. If I am wrong I am evil. But if I am right, I am a victim of simply having the desire to pursue the truth."

Comment:

The McCanns version of abduction is not the truth therefore it is valid to express an opposing view of events such as accusing Kate and Gerry McCann of covering up their daughter Madeleine's death.

The McCanns know full well what happened to their daughter. The McCanns anguish is that one day they will have to face justice.

You don't have to be a fanatic to be convinced that the McCanns are responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

I have very little time for Tony Bennett, but I will defend his Article 10 human right to freedom of expression. He should not have agreed to stop making his allegations.

I don't accept that the McCanns have searched for Madeleine. They know what happened to her, so why bother? Their fund has been to try and steer the investigation away from their involvement in her disappearance.

I agree with Tony Bennett's comment: "I am a victim of simply having the desire to pursue the truth".

Baby sleeping on dog

Baby sleeping on dog

Hat-Tip to Prisoners Families Voices

Politicians told to stop 'exaggerated' criticism of human rights court

Politicians told to stop 'exaggerated' criticism of human rights court

European court of human rights president Sir Nicolas Bratza says any criticism should be based on evidence not emotion

The ECHR president, Nicolas Bratza (left) and his predecessor, Jean-Paul Costa. Photograph: Patrick Hertzog/AFP/Getty Images

The president of the European court of human rights has warned political leaders against using "emotion and exaggeration" to criticise the court's workings.

Sir Nicolas Bratza made his comments as he released figures detailing the court's rulings during 2011. The figures reveal that the court ruled against the UK on just eight occasions, compared with 159 violations found against Turkey, 121 against Russia and 105 against Ukraine.

Of the western European nations, Greece and Italy had the largest number of adverse rulings – 69 and 32 respectively.

Earlier in the week, David Cameron had called for reform of the court, saying the volume of cases and the triviality of some meant it was in danger of becoming a "small claims court".

The court's breakdown of its judgments cast some doubt on the prime minister's claim that serious cases risked "being stuck in the queue".

The human rights violations most frequently found by the court were in the length of proceedings (341), the right to liberty and security (241) and the right to a fair trial (211). The court found 70 instances in which the right to life had been improperly violated, 53 of them in Russia.

Russia also had the most rulings against it for inhumane or degrading treatment – 62 of 183 – and, with a total of 488, was the country with the most human rights violations in 2011.

In an annual press conference, Bratza warned that human rights should not be forgotten amid the eurozone's financial crisis.

"Human rights, the rule of law and justice seem to be slipping down the political agenda in the current economic climate," he said. "It is in times like these that we must remember that human rights are not a luxury and that the burden of their protection must be a shared one.

"We must continue to ensure that the court remains strong, independent and courageous in its defence of the European convention on human rights."

In an accompanying statement, the court said the 47 countries that make up the Council of Europe had collectively failed to remedy structural problems with the court's backlog of cases, which stands at 30,000.

In a possible rebuke to Cameron, however, the statement warned that criticism of the court should be evidence-based.

"It was also important that its [the court's] independence and authority should not be undermined and that criticism by governments, even where legitimate, should rely on reasoned argument rather than emotion and exaggeration," it said.

The human rights charity Liberty said Cameron's "small claims court" comments made light of the serious cases handled by the ECHR.

"Whatever your views on the decisions, deportation to places of torture, DNA retention and the rights of rape victims can hardly be described as 'small claims' to the people concerned," Shami Chakrabarti, the organisation's director, said.

"Trivialising rights and freedoms is a real mistake: more worthy of a Bullingdon spirit than a bulldog one."

The ECHR handed out judgment on 1,157 cases over the course of 2011, of which 19 related to the UK. Of these, the court found the UK had violated at least one human right on eight occasions.

Nine of the remaining cases were found not to have violated human rights law, while two were "friendly settlements".

One of these cases was when the UK opted to apologise through the court to the family of Christopher Alder, a black ex-soldier who choked to death in police custody, conceding that it had breached human rights law.

It was found against for lack of effective investigation on five occasions, not to have offered a fair trial on three occasions, and to have failed its duty on prohibition of torture twice.

The majority of cases brought to the court are struck out as inadmissible without receiving a full hearing. In the UK's case, 97% of cases filed at the court between 1966 and 2010 were dismissed during this preliminary stage.

European court of human rights: which countries get the most judgments?

The judgments of the ECHR are in the news following criticisms by David Cameron. Find out which countries get ruled against most

Pigasus

Pigasus

The prison population is neither justifiable nor sustainable

The prison population is neither justifiable nor sustainable

Juliet Lyon

With numbers rocketing at the rate of a small jail a week, the Ministry of Justice has a straight choice: hold its nerve and redouble its efforts to cut any unnecessary use of imprisonment or cave in and go cap in hand to the Treasury for more money to pour down the prisons drain.

Sensible spending to cut crime should range from intensive work with serious and violent offenders in custody, for whom there are enough places already, through to breaking addictions and effective work with petty offenders in the community. The current prison population is neither justifiable nor sustainable.

There are important footholds for change. The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill, currently before Parliament, should limit custodial remand to those on trial facing a real prospect of imprisonment. The Bill will sweep away the Kafkaesque indeterminate sentence for public protection and pave the way for a case by case review of the 3,500 people held beyond their sentence tariff. New clauses on women, young adults, restorative justice and rehabilitation of offenders could make for a fairer legislative framework.

Many of the solutions to prison overcrowding lie in public health and welfare measures. Enabling people to break addictions to drugs and drink would cut acquisitive crime, public disorder and violent offences like a stone. Funding just announced by the Department of Health puts a further £19.3million into ensuring that many people who are mentally ill, and those with learning disabilities, are diverted at police stations and courts into the care and health treatment they need. This move is supported by over one million professionals including the Royal College of Nursing, the Police Federation and both the Prison Governors and the Prison Officers Associations who form part of the ‘Care not Custody’ coalition led by the WI.

There is public backing for reform. A YouGov poll released this week shows that just 11% of people think that shoplifters should be jailed and most would rather see them paying a fine or doing community service. An ICM poll commissioned by the Prison Reform Trust four weeks after the August riots revealed overwhelming popular support for constructive ways for offenders to make amends for crime and disorder.

Juliet Lyon is Director of the Prison Reform Trust

Not fit for purpose: crisis in Britain's prisons worsens

Not fit for purpose: crisis in Britain's prisons worsens

Overcrowding in prison "warehouses" is causing violence behind bars as tensions soar among inmates, prison officers warned last night. New figures show that the population of Britain's jails has jumped by 1,000 in the past three weeks.

The surprise surge has caused dismay at the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and raised fears that coping with the growing prison population could force budget cuts elsewhere in an already embattled department.

The Independent disclosed last month that officers had warned the Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke that the combined pressure of prison closures, budget cuts and a shortage of officers risked riots in jails.

As the rise in numbers of prisoners continues, offenders may have to be housed further away from their homes or mothballed prison wings may have to be brought back into service.

The prison population in England and Wales stood at 87,668 yesterday – a rise of 407 since the previous Friday and more than 1,000 above the total just three weeks ago.

Jails are 1,730 below capacity and, at the current rate, the country's prisons could be full by early March. Two new jails, in south-east London and in the West Midlands, are due to open that month in an attempt to relieve the pressure. The sharp increase over the last five months has been mainly fuelled by convictions after the August riots, with 2,200 fewer people behind bars before the disturbances.

Prison governors also suggested the proportion of offenders being jailed was rising because of the hard-line language used by politicians.

The figures came at the end of a grim week for the prison system, with the escape of a violent inmate and the deaths of two teenagers in young offender institutions.

MoJ officials hope the new year spike in the prison population will work its way through the system as rioters serving relatively short sentences leave jail. The department said it would "explore contingency arrangements" – likely to include holding prisoners in police or court cells – if the numbers in jail continued to rise sharply.

One source said: "We're watching the situation very closely, but we're not near to panic."

However, the problems facing the MoJ were underlined this week when Sir Suma Chakrabarti, its Permanent Secretary, said the cost of the rising prison population was "one of the biggest risks we face". He told the Commons Justice Select Committee that the MoJ currently had the funds to cope with growing numbers, but warned that "if that rate of rise continues we will have to revisit all the figures" in the department's budget.

Four months ago Mr Clarke protested that the prison population had "soared pointlessly" and said: "I would like to stabilise the situation."

But his hopes of a more liberal approach to sentencing have been thwarted by the reaction to the riots. Eoin McLennan-Murray, president of the Prison Governors Association, said the increase had been caused by a "rush to custody" after the summer's violence. He added: "Historically, when the use of prison is talked up by politicians you see the population rise even if there has been no change in sentencing policy."

Steve Gillan, the general secretary of the Prison Officers' Association, said his officers, who were attacked 2,800 times last year by inmates, were feeling the effects of overcrowding and budget cuts. He said: "The assaults are getting more serious. Prisoners are being warehoused and they take their frustration out on officers."

A Prison Service spokeswoman said: "We currently have enough places for those remanded and sentenced to custody. Capacity will continue to increase throughout 2012. We will continue to explore contingencies arrangements."

Sadiq Khan, the shadow Justice Secretary, attacked the Government for vetoing Labour's prison-building programme and for closing prisons.

He said: "If the prison population rises much further there is a possibility the Government will need to fork out £385 a night to place prisoners in court and police cells."

Timeline: A bad week for the prison service

Monday

John Anslow escapes when a van carrying inmates from Hewell prison in Worcestershire is ambushed.

Tuesday

Jake Hardy, 17, dies after being found hanging in his cell at Hindley Young Offender Institution.

Wednesday

Andrew Farndon, 26 escapes when a gunman threatens his two guards as he arrives for treatment at West Suffolk Hospital, Bury St Edmunds.

Thursday

Alex Kelly, 15, dies after being found unconscious in his cell at Cookham Wood Young Offender Institution.

Friday

Figures reveal the prison population has soared to 87,668 inmates.

One last fling

One last fling

Dear Caroline Lucas

This issue is too important to sidestep with I am not a constituent of yours in Brighton. Not that I am saying you will sidestep the issue, only that I am aware Parliament tries to prevent a MP raising an issue outside of their area.

I am aware that you did not support the unlawful motion and sham debate on prisoners votes on 10 February 2011.

The UK has played for more time by becoming an interested party in Scoppola v Italy (No3) before the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR. On 20 December 2011 Kenneth Clarke appeared before the JCHR and stated that the UK was waiting for the Scoppola judgment and report of the UK Bill of Rights Commission to decide what it will do on the issue of prisoners votes, and how to abide by the Convention and comply with the Court judgments.

Hirst v UK (No2) is the leading case on prisoners votes. It was relied upon in Frodl v Austria, which referred to the Hirst test. Then came Greens and MT v UK which also relied upon Hirst No2. Finally, Scoppola relied upon Hirst No2. Why is the UK waiting for the decision in an Italian case when it should be fully complying with Hirst No2 which was against the UK?

Hirst No2 was decided in October 2005. Member States are obliged to produce a plan to implement the decisions within 6 months. The UK has not honoured its obligations under international law. The objectives of the Council of Europe; Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of law have been ignored by the UK by ignoring the Hirst No2 judgment. It’s a national disgrace.

Under English law we have the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Over 6 years delay is not acceptable in a country laying claim to being a liberal democracy.

Yesterday my doctor phoned me to say that a shadow has been discovered on my lungs during my chest X-ray. I have to see a consultant next week about tests for its malignancy. The dry cough and chest pain tell me that it is at the advanced stage rather than something which has just reared its ugly head. Time is of the essence and time is short. I don’t have the time for anymore delaying tactics by the UK. My dying wish is to see all convicted prisoners get the vote before I go.

Will you please help me achieve this?

Yours sincerely

John Hirst

Bullied inmates at Wealstun 'self-harming', report says

Bullied inmates at Wealstun 'self-harming', report says

Inmates being bullied at a West Yorkshire prison are deliberately self-harming to be transferred out of jail, inspectors have warned.

Prisoners at HMP Wealstun near Leeds felt unsafe and were often bullied over drugs debts, the report said.

Chief Inspector of Prisons Nick Hardwick said the jail was "clearly slipping backwards".

The National Offender Management Service said an action plan would address the weaknesses identified.

HMP Wealstun was originally two separate prisons which were brought together some years ago to form one prison with a category C and a category D side.

'Disturbing perception'

In 2008 the open prison closed and Wealstun began operating a year ago as a large category C training prison with 800 inmates.

The HM Inspectorate of Prisons report noted this was a major physical and cultural change and safety had deteriorated since its last inspection.

Mr Hardwick said there were examples to support the "disturbing perception among prisoners and staff" that inmates were self-harming to try to persuade authorities to move them to another jail.

He said: "Staff and prisoners alike described a culture of managing bullying by removing the victim to the segregation unit and, in many cases, subsequent transfer out of the prison."

Inspectors also noted staff and prisoner relationships were mixed and inconsistent and action to tackle drug availability was not "sufficiently rigorous".

The report highlighted good work at the jail including excellent mental health work.

It found most prisoners had good time out of the cell and there was sufficient work, activity and training places available.

Michael Spurr, chief executive officer of the National Management Service, said: "I am pleased that the outcomes for prisoners remain reasonably good but accept that the prison needs to improve in a number of key areas."

Cameron loses on prisoners votes

Cameron loses on prisoners votes

Should the ECtHR listen to Cameron?

David Cameron addressed the Council of Europe yesterday, urging Strasbourg to reform or risk losing its credibility. What's your verdict on his case?

guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 January 2012 13.48 GMT

David Cameron Council of Europe

David Cameron used his speech at the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe to call for reforms to the ECHR. Photograph: Vincent Kessler/Reuters

Should the European Court of Human Rights listen to Cameron?
31.1% Case admissible
68.9% Case inadmissible

Autism can be detected in babies, say scientists

Autism can be detected in babies, say scientists

Researchers used sensors placed on babies' scalps to measure the brain's response when the infants were shown faces

Signs of autism can be detected in six-month-old babies by measuring their brain activity, research has shown.

Scientists say the test could help identify infants most at risk of developing the disorder later in life.

Autism, a lifelong developmental disability that impairs a person's ability to connect socially and communicate, is not officially diagnosed until after the age of two, but many experts believe children affected would benefit if therapy could be started at a younger age.

An estimated 600,000 children and adults in the UK suffer from the condition, which covers a range of symptoms of varying severity.

The research focused on six- to 10-month-old babies believed to be at increased risk because they had an older brother or sister with the disorder.

Sensors placed on the babies' scalps measured brain activity while the infants were shown faces that switched between looking at them or away from them.

An association was seen between the responses and later diagnoses of autism.

The study suggests the "autistic brain" processes social information differently right at the start of life.

Study leader Professor Mark Johnson from Birkbeck College, University of London, said: "Our findings demonstrate for the first time that direct measures of brain functioning during the first year of life associate with a later diagnosis of autism – well before the emergence of behavioural symptoms.

"Differences in the use of eye gaze to regulate social interaction are already a well-recognised early feature in many children with autism from the second year of life and at present it is these increasingly well-documented 'first signs' that will alert parents and professionals to possible differences.

"Future studies will be required to determine whether measurements of brain function such as those used in our study might one day play a role in helping to identify children at an even earlier age."

The findings are published on Friday in the journal Current Biology.

Prof Johnson stressed the observed trend did not apply in all cases. Some babies that showed the unusual responses in brain activity were not later diagnosed with autism, and vice versa.

He said: "The method would require further refinement, most likely in combination with other factors, to form the basis of a predictor accurate enough for clinical use in the general population."

The work was funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and a consortium led by the charity Autistica.

Christine Swabey, the charity's chief executive, said: "Autism currently affects 1% of the UK population and the hope is that this important research will lead to improved identification and access to services for future generations. Ultimately, the earlier we can identify autism and provide early intervention, the better the outcomes will be in later childhood and adult life."

Professor Christopher Kennard, from the MRC, said: "This is a very interesting study which suggests that early signs of brain responses to eye contact can contribute to an earlier diagnosis for children at high risk of autism – crucial for ensuring that they receive appropriate care."

Deciding the future of human rights court ... in Brighton

Deciding the future of human rights court ... in Brighton

Optimism in Strasbourg that worthwhile reforms to the court can be achieved following Cameron's speech

Joshua Rozenberg
guardian.co.uk, Thursday 26 January 2012 17.26 GMT

The ministerial conference to decide reforms to the Strasbourg court may be held in Brighton Photograph: Gareth Fuller/PA

The process of reforming the human rights court that began at Interlaken in 2010 and continued at Izmir in 2011 will not be completed this year at Ipswich or Inverness. Instead, Brighton has been chosen by the UK, which currently chairs the Council of Europe, as the venue for a ministerial conference at which member states will approve reforms to the council's most important institution.

That, at least, is the plan. British diplomats are currently sounding out the other 46 member states in the Council of Europe and will table proposals by the end of next month. These will be discussed by governments during March with the hope of producing a declaration that can be approved at the Brighton meeting, which runs from April 18 to 20. Any decisions will then need the support of the committee of ministers, which holds its final meeting under the UK's chairmanship in mid-May.

And what will those proposals be? We can get some idea of these from a confidential discussion document, known as a "non-paper", reported by Nicholas Watt and by me on Thursday for the Guardian.

In essence, they boil down to giving the human rights court more control over its own workload. What they do not do, according to British officials, is to give member states any sort of opt-out from the court's jurisdiction - the so-called "democratic override" that some pressure groups have been hoping for. That would have run into the obvious objection that it would have been used the most by states with the worst record on human rights.

British officials well understand that the court would never give its support to anything that diluted its powers. This was confirmed by Sir Nicolas Bratza, president of the human rights court.

"We must continue to ensure that the court remains strong, independent and courageous in its defence of the European convention on human rights," the British judge told reporters on Thursday.

Asked about David Cameron's speech in Strasbourg a day earlier, Bratza described it as "very measured" and there was much in it to which the court could subscribe. The court agreed that there was room for improvement in its procedures and much was being done to speed up cases using new single-judge procedures.

What Bratza did not accept was the prime minister's suggestions that the Strasbourg judges were acting as a "court of fourth instance", giving litigants yet another bite at the cherry, or that the court was acting as if it was an immigration tribunal or a small claims court.

"Nor is it true that we are ready to substitute our own judgment for that of the national courts," the president insisted.

The mood in Strasbourg is one of optimism. Insiders believe that under the UK chairmanship it will be possible to achieve worthwhile reforms to the court. Cameron's speech has not been seen as that of a prime minister who is trying to attack or undermine the court, despite the political briefing that preceded it.

There is even a feeling that Britain might be willing to make some minor concession on votes for prisoners, though the government will probably not have to do anything until 2013.

The issue is currently back before the court and a further ruling is expected towards the end of this year. Though it seems unlikely that the court will reverse its earlier ruling that a blanket ban on votes by prisoners is a breach of their human rights, reconsideration of the issue at least gives the UK a breathing space.

Meanwhile, the court is waiting to see what proposals Britain is tabling for its all-important ministerial conference. If they find favour, perhaps the Brighton Declaration will be seen as more of a milestone than a millstone.

Comment:

I am not interested in minor concessions for a major breach of human rights! And, 2013 is too long to wait for a Court decision in 2005!

Sir Nicolas Bratza: “The year ahead will be decisive for the European Court”

Sir Nicolas Bratza: “The year ahead will be decisive for the European Court”

Governments must share the responsibility for protecting human rights in Europe, Sir Nicolas Bratza, President of the European Court of Human Rights, said today.

Addressing reforms to the Court, he said the year ahead will be “decisive.” The Court’s president claimed the impact of changes to the institution, following the conferences of Interlaken and Izmir, were “visible for all to see, ” pointing to the effectiveness of the pilot judgement procedure, a new prioritisation policy and the impact of Protocol 14.

Sir Nicolas said: “What is less visible is the follow-up at national level.” He called on governments to make reasoned and not emotional arguments for reform, so that the Court is able to continue the “supervisory role” for which it was designed.

“The burden of human rights protection must be a shared one,” he added. “It requires a collective effort. European governments must assume their part of the shared responsibility for the protection of human rights across the continent.

“It is important that the independence and authority of the Court not be undermined and that criticism of the court by governments, which can be legitimate, rely on reasoned argument rather than emotion and exaggeration.

“The Court should be able to assume the supervisory role for which it was designed. This it can only do with the help of the 47 governments which have ratified the convention.”

Podcast.

Why isn't this human rights abusing dictator on trial at the UN?

Why isn't this human rights abusing dictator on trial at the UN?

David Cameron, listens to the debate after he made a statement at the Council of Europe

EUROPE MUST STOP BULLYING BRITAIN ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SAYS CAMERON

By Macer Hall, Political Editor, Daily Express

DAVID CAMERON delivered an unequivocal warning to EU judges to stop undermining UK defences against terrorism and immigration.

In a defiant speech to European human rights chiefs in Strasbourg, he demanded an end to rulings stopping the Government from deporting suspects and illegal immigrants.

He also said some European Court of Human Rights decisions put the lives of British citizens at risk.

“We still cannot fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them,” the Prime Minister said.

His unexpectedly robust message came at the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the Strasbourg-based quango that oversees European human rights legislation.

The 25-minute address – heard in silence – was followed by 40 minutes of overwhelmingly hostile questions.

Critics said Britain blocked European progress and blamed the financial crisis on the City of London.

But Mr Cameron said European judges had a “corrosive effect on people’s support for human rights”.

In a reference to the European Court of Human Rights bar to Britain’s bid to kick out the Al Qaeda-supporting radical Islamic cleric Abu Qatada, the Prime Minister said the court was making it virtually impossible to deport any terror suspects.

“In Britain we have gone through all reasonable national processes including painstaking international agreements about how they should be treated and scrutiny by our own courts and yet we are still unable to deport them,” he said.

He added: “Protecting a country from terrorism is one of the most important tasks for any government. Again, no one should argue that you defend our systems of rights and freedom by suspending those freedoms.

“But we do have a real problem when it comes to foreign nationals who threaten our security.”

Mr Cameron also raised concerns that the European Court of Human Rights undermined national governments’ controls of their borders.

He argued that there was general agreement across the 47 nations in the Council of Europe that the court had gone too far.

“All states agreed that the court was, in some cases, too ready to substitute its judgment for that of reasonable national processes and all agreed that was not its role. In other words, it should not see itself as an immigration tribunal,” he said.

“At the heart of this concern is not antipathy to human rights; it is anxiety that the concept of human rights is being distorted.

“As a result, for too many people, the very concept of rights is in danger of slipping from something noble to something discredited – and that should be of deep concern to us all.”

Mr Cameron said: “We are not and never will be a country that walks on by while human rights are trampled into the dust. This has a lot to do with Britain’s national character – a love of freedom and an instinctive loathing of over-mighty authority.” Mr Cameron warned that the court was getting bogged down in tens of thousands of trivial cases.

He cited a case of a claimant who took a bus company to the European Court of Human Rights for around £75 in compensation for an allegedly uncomfortable trip.

He urged the respect of laws made by democratically elected parliaments and cited a ruling from the court calling for the scrapping of Britain’s blanket ban on prisoners voting in elections. “The decision made at a national level should be treated with respect,” he said.

At his conclusion, some politicians applauded politely but many sat on their hands or tinkered with hand held devices.

During the question-and-answer session following his speech, Lithuanian socialist Birute Vesaite sparked cheers from fellow Euro politicians by telling Mr Cameron: “I have a feeling that the world is governed not by democratically elected parliament but by the banks. The big part of them are situated in London.”

Greek socialist Konstantinos Vrettos called on Britain to do more to share the “unbearable burden” of immigration into the European Union. And a string of Left-wing members attacked Mr Cameron for blocking proposals for an EU financial transaction tax.

Mr Cameron was snubbed by the European Court of Human Rights’ top judge, British-born Sir Nicolas Bratza. Officials said he was “too busy” to meet Mr Cameron, despite writing a scathing article earlier this week about demands from British politicians for reform of the court.

Comment:

To follow...

The Sun writing lies again!

The Sun writing lies again!

Court of Human frights

David Cameron's blast at Europe's daft judges

DAVID Cameron yesterday blasted European judges in Strasbourg for crazy rulings that could leave Britain open to terrorist outrages.

He launched a blistering attack on frightening decisions from the European Court of Human Rights — such as its BAN on Britain deporting hate preacher Abu Qatada.

The PM said it left the Government unable to "fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them".

In a keynote speech to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, Mr Cameron bluntly accused the court of sabotaging the UK's war on terror.

He also unleashed a broadside at rulings on illegal migrants — saying the court acted like an "immigration tribunal" — and prisoners' rights.

Mr Cameron's uncompromising message enraged many in his audience of European parliamentarians.

The Court's president Sir Nicolas Bratza — who blasted Mr Cameron this week — even snubbed an invitation to meet him, saying he was "busy".

But Mr Cameron is furious at convicted criminals and terrorists using the ECHR to torpedo UK court decisions. Britain loses three out of four cases taken to the ECHR.

The PM was unapologetic about condemning the ruling on Abu Qatada.

Britain jumped through every hoop and even won pledges that Qatada would not be tortured if he was sent back to Jordan.

Mr Cameron said: "The problem is that you can end up with someone who has no right to live in your country, who you are convinced — and have good reason to be convinced — means to do your country harm.

"Yet there are circumstances in which you cannot try them, you cannot detain them and you cannot deport them.

"So having put in place every possible safeguard to ensure that ECHR rights are not violated, we still cannot fulfil our duty to our law-abiding citizens to protect them."

The court was also guilty of trampling over British decisions on immigration and prisoners' votes, said the PM.

On immigration, he said the court is "too ready to substitute its judgment for that of reasonable national processes".

The PM said: "In other words, it should not see itself as an immigration tribunal."

He also said the court should respect Parliament's view that prisoners should not be able to vote.

Mr Cameron declared: "At the heart of this concern is not antipathy to human rights, it is anxiety that the concept of human rights is being distorted. It is in danger of slipping from something noble to something discredited — and that should be of deep concern to us all."

He slammed the way the court had let itself be swamped by potty cases.

In one example someone sought 90 euros compensation because their bus journey from Bucharest to Madrid had been uncomfortable. Mr Cameron called on Strasbourg to stop acting like a "small claims court" and start slashing the growing backlog of more than 160,000 cases.

Just 45,000 cases faced the court in its first 40 years — but in 2010 alone it was asked to consider 61,300 applications.

The PM wants a new British Bill of Rights to replace Labour's Human Rights Act.

He thinks the ECHR should focus on big human rights issues and leave national courts to deal with everything else. Mr Cameron made it clear that the court should concentrate on serious abuses in countries such as Belarus, rather than lecturing Britain.

His message triggered a series of hostile questions from his audience afterwards.

Several parliamentarians challenged his stance — while others blamed the City of London for sparking the economic crisis in Europe.

There was loud applause when Lithuanian left-winger Biruté Vésaité said: "I have a feeling that the world is governed not by democratically elected parliaments but by the banks. The big part of them are situated in London."

Socialist politicians condemned Mr Cameron for opposing plans for a Europe-wide tax on the City.

Last night Labour MP Paul Flynn — who heard the PM's speech — accused him of a "cheap shot that will not achieve anything".

But Tory MEP Sajjad Karim said: "Courts should serve the well-being and safety of our citizens, not have the opposite effect. Reform is long overdue.

Barmy ECHR rulings

John Hirst

THE axe-killer was twice backed by the ECHR in his fight to win prisoners the vote. Hirst was jailed for 15 years for hacking his landlady to death.

Abdi Sufi

THE serial criminal — who entered Britain illegally — was allowed to stay in the UK after judges said he could face inhuman treatment if sent back to his native Somalia.

Akindoyin Akinshipe

THE Nigerian rapist, 24, escaped deportation after judges ruled he had a right to a private life in the UK — despite having no wife, partner or children here.

Sean Taylor Sabori

THE drugs baron won £3,000 for invasion of privacy — after cops intercepted his pager messages.

He moaned about "interference with private life".

Abu Qatada

HATE preacher Abu Qatada — once described as Osama Bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe — last week won his appeal at the ECHR against deportation to his native Jordan.

The radical cleric is linked to al-Qaeda attacks and is wanted there for conspiring to carry out bombings. Euro judges said the UK could not deport him in case he did not get a fair trial.

The court accepted that he would not have been ill-treated there. Now Qatada — currently in a UK jail — could be released in days.

Churchill's bid to beat fascism

THE European Court of Human Rights was created in 1959 — a decade after Sir Winston Churchill first championed the idea.

After the horrors of the Second World War, Churchill believed the court — and Europe's convention on human rights — were vital defences against fascism.

For decades, the Strasbourg court lived up to his vision by successfully defending fundamental freedoms. When the Berlin Wall fell, it was a bulwark for human rights in former communist countries.

But in recent years the institution has been accused of losing focus of those original, noble goals. Instead it has become a haven for terrorists, criminals and chancers and is being swamped by a tidal wave of cases.

Labour incorporated the European Convention into English law in 1998, with the introduction of the Human Rights Act. This has spawned a booming UK human rights industry, which is largely reliant on barmy cases.

The Big C?

The Big C?

Yesterday afternoon I went for a chest X-Ray.

This morning my doctor phoned me up to say he had the result of my X-Ray.

He said they found a shadow on my right lung. He said I needed to go for further tests to determine whether it is malignant.

It could be lung cancer.

UPDATE:

I have to see a consultant next week.

My new blog The Condemned Cell.

Cameron warned his reforms will lead to rise in human rights abuses

Cameron warned his reforms will lead to rise in human rights abuses

Countries such as Russia and Turkey could be encouraged to flout the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights if David Cameron succeeds in his aim of reforming of the institution, it was claimed last night.

Human rights organisations warned that the Prime Minister's demands could backfire by undermining the basic protections the court offers to citizens of Central and Eastern Europe.

Speaking in Strasbourg yesterday to the Council of Europe, of which the court is part, Mr Cameron argued that anger over some of its decisions were having a "corrosive effect" on support for human rights. His proposals to streamline its operation to prevent it becoming bogged down in trivial cases included a call for long-running applications to the court to be automatically thrown out after a set period.

The plans, which follow a row last week when the court blocked the deportation of the extremist preacher Abu Qatada to Jordan, have pleased Tory MPs and sections of the press. But they have dismayed the court's president, Sir Nicolas Bratza, who protested in an article in The Independent this week that "senior British politicians" had betrayed their ignorance of the court's history and legal position.

One minister also admitted yesterday that the tabloid-driven onslaught on the court risked undermining Mr Cameron's attempts to win support for his reform blueprint in other European capitals. The Prime Minister is aiming to reach the outline of a deal among the Council's 47 members before Britain hands over the six-month chairmanship of the Council to Albania in May.

Benjamin Ward, deputy director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch, warned: "Criticism of the court by UK government ministers, or failure to correct misleading reporting about it in the British media, emboldens other governments, such as Russia and Turkey, that would prefer to ignore its rulings."

Tara Lyle, a policy adviser at Amnesty International UK, said Mr Cameron's commitment to upholding human rights was welcome but was "undermined by UK proposals that would make it harder for individuals to seek redress for human rights violations".

Mr Cameron warned that the court risked undermining its own reputation by "going over national decisions where it does not need to". He admitted that some British criticism of the court's application of the European Convention on Human Rights was based on "misinterpretation". But he insisted there was "credible democratic anxiety" that the decisions of national parliaments on issues such as the Court's ruling that prisoners should be given the vote were not being given enough weight.

Mr Cameron said it was "not surprising that people start asking questions about whether the current arrangements are sensible" when Britain could not deport terror suspects despite painstaking efforts to ensure they would not face torture after their return.