David Cameron’s criticism the European Court of Human Rights is wrong and panders to popular opinion without an understanding of the facts, Europe’s most senior judge has said.
Sir Nicolas Bratza QC, the new president of Strasbourg-based court, accused “senior British politicians” of failing to understand its role and history.
The Oxford-educated lawyer, Britain’s nominee to court, rejected widespread claims that it interferes in Britain’s legal system, insisting that “criticism relating to interference is simply not borne out by the facts”.
The 66 year-old admitted it would be "deeply regrettable" if the government's support of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is enforced by the court, was to be called into question.
His intervention comes on the eve of a speech from the Prime Minister, in which he will call for “much-needed reform” to the court’s function and operation.
In a speech in Strasbourg on Wednesday, Mr Cameron will call for a “filtering system” that would stop the ECHR dealing with cases that have already been resolved “properly” by national courts.
But writing in the Independent on Tuesday, Sir Nicolas insists that is unnecessary because its influence on human rights had been “overwhelmingly positive”.
It has also handed down “landmark rulings” on a range of issues including making sure children are not tried in adult courts and the legal recognition of transsexuals.
Critics, however, claim the judgments have been blamed for allowing dozens of foreign criminals and terrorists to claim they have a "human right" to remain in this country and also to give prisoners the right to vote.
Sir Nicolas, who became president in November, writes: “Against this background, it is disappointing to hear senior British politicians lending their voices to criticisms more frequently heard in the popular press, often based on a misunderstanding of the court’s role and history, and of the legal issues at stake.
“It is particularly unfortunate that a single judgment of the court on a case relating to UK prisoners’ voting rights, which was delivered in 2005 and has still not been implemented, has been used as the springboard for a sustained attack on the court and has led to repeated calls for the granting of powers of Parliament to override judgments of the court against the UK, and even for the withdrawal of the UK from the Convention.
"It would … be surprising if all its decisions were popular with the government of the day, or indeed understood and accepted by public opinion."
Writing under the headline "Britain should be defending European justice, not attacking it", he added: "The UK can be proud of its real contribution to this unique system and its influence in bringing about effective human rights protection throughout the European continent.
"It would be deeply regrettable if it were to allow its commitment to that system to be called into question by a failure to defend it against its detractors or to offer its strong support for the vital work of the court."
The European court has 47 judges, representing every member state of the Council of Europe including Liechtenstein, Monaco and Andorra.
New figures show that Britain has lost three out of four cases taken to the court, which was established in the wake of the Second World War.
Last week, the court was criticised after it ruled that Abu Qatada, once described as "Osama bin Laden's right hand man in Europe", cannot be extradited to Jordan even though he does not face torture.
Judges said the radical Islamist clerAbu Qatada, who featured in hate sermons found on videos in the flat of one of the 9/11 bombers, would not receive a fair trial if he was returned by Britain to his native country, where he faces terrorism charges.
Qatada, 51, whose real name is Omar Mahmoud Mohammed Othman, has been convicted twice in Jordan in his absence for conspiracy to carry out bomb attacks on two hotels in Amman in 1998, and providing finance and advice for a series of bomb attacks in Jordan planned to coincide with the Millennium. The cases were to be retried.
Frirday's judgment is not final. The Government has three months in which to request that the case be referred to the court's Grand Chamber for a final judgment, although the request may be refused.
Britain ratified the Convention in 1951 and the Labour government enabled its rights to be enforced in national courts through the 1998 Human Right Act.
No comments:
Post a Comment