Health update: My life is in my hands
I went to the hospital to have an X-ray, weight and blood pressure checked, and to see the consultant.
He said I could be discharged. Showed me that the shadow on my lung has disappeared. He said that the bout of pneumania just after Xmas was severe (I thought it was a mild bout!). He said I have to stop smoking (I am on patches at the moment), or the emphysema would finish me.
I have cutdown on the smoking. The pills did not work. Today I went from 7 until lunchtime before smoking...
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Nobody should vote for a government that flouts the rule of law
Nobody should vote for a government that flouts the rule of law
The headline is Joshua Rozenberg's bottom line in this article.
He might have added "or breaches human rights and is opposed to democracy". Then, at least, he would have covered the 3 objectives of the Council of Europe.
But, to be fair, after all, he is only a legal commentator and not a legal expert.
Joshua Rozenberg's first line is "How did the government get itself into such a mess over prisoners voting?". However, he fails to answer his own question within the article. The short answer is because I decided to legally challenge the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners.
"After human rights judges stretched out the hand of friendship to the UK last week, David Cameron promptly bit it off, willingly giving parliament an undertaking that he would not succumb to what one MP had described as the European court’s ‘diktat’".
I am naturally suspicious why the ECtHR, the supposedly guardian of 800,000,000 Europeans human rights, would bend over backwards to appease a human rights violating State? I would question the tactic of rewarding bullies for their bad behaviour. Interested parties should not stand by and watch victims of human rights abuse and due process be usurped.
"Cameron’s problem seems to be that he pays more attention to some of the newspapers than he does to those who could give him sound legal advice". He might have added "and to some of his backbenchers". Joshua Rozenberg appears to be ignorant of the fact that it is the role of Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, to provide the government with legal advice. Unless he is submitting an unorthodox job application for the Prime Minister's legal adviser?
"Similarly, a lawyer would have advised Cameron that the Strasbourg decision on prisoner voting was a limited, though significant, climbdown by the court - and one that could have formed the basis of an acceptable compromise. Indeed, the prime minister could have learned all he needed to know by reading the first paragraph of a carefully written court press release that had clearly been aimed at the British media".
There's good legal advice and bad legal advice. Which Strasbourg decision on prisoner voting? There have been several to my knowledge. I suspect that he is referring to Scoppola v Italy (No3). Whilst it is accepted that "limited, though significant" are not necessarily incompatible, I would advise caution against reading too much into the claim that the ECtHR has climbed down to a human rights violating State. My good legal advice to Joshua Rozenberg is to read the bottom line of the press statement he is keen to advise the PM on: "This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments...". It may well have been aimed at the British media, for all the good it did because the British media responded in typical fashion...
Baldrick-like Joshua Rozenberg announces with great fanfare "I have a cunning plan".
Images of Joshua Rozenberg as Baldrick
However, Joshua Rozenberg has failed to take into account the famous Scots poem by Rab C Nesbitt.
"The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy! ".
C'mon Joshua Rozenberg, are you a man or a mouse? Squeak up!
"Crucially for the government, though, the bill really does not have to go very far to ensure there is no longer a blanket ban. Minor, largely cosmetic changes are all that is needed and it would be years before the court could decide whether they complied with the first protocol to the human rights convention, which guarantees free elections. So here is my plan. We know that remand prisoners - those awaiting trial - are allowed to vote, presumably by post or proxy. Why not extend this privilege for the first three months of a prisoner’s sentence? That would, in effect, reserve disenfranchisement for those sentenced to six months or more. It should pose no greater administrative problems than allowing remand prisoners to vote and it would probably be enough to satisfy the court".
Either Joshua Rozenberg has failed to read or understand the Hirst v UK (No2) judgment. In particular, that any restriction upon the franchise must not be arbitrary. So he arbitrarily plucks a 3 month cut off point out of thin air. Duh! The judgment cleary states that voting is a human right and not a privilege. Duh! It is not an administrative problem for Remand prisoners to vote. Administrative inconvenience is not a valid ground for denying any legal, civil, political or human rights to prisoners. In fact, the former Director General of NOMS, Phil Wheatley, assured me that administrative plans had been drawn up and could be put into practice once the government had given the green light. The problem is lack of Parliamentary will for reform.
For someone who claims to care passionately about politicians knee-jerk reactions, Joshua Rozenberg has a funny way of showing it. Perhaps, he should instead be a stand up comedian than a clown in this media circus? One thing is for sure, I won't be calling on him for his legal advice pretty soon. The first rule of journalism is to only write what you know about. The legal maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to Joshua Rozenberg. This is a specialist area of knowledge. Joshua Rozenberg has failed to pass the Hirst test. His case is dismissed. Next!
The headline is Joshua Rozenberg's bottom line in this article.
He might have added "or breaches human rights and is opposed to democracy". Then, at least, he would have covered the 3 objectives of the Council of Europe.
But, to be fair, after all, he is only a legal commentator and not a legal expert.
Joshua Rozenberg's first line is "How did the government get itself into such a mess over prisoners voting?". However, he fails to answer his own question within the article. The short answer is because I decided to legally challenge the disenfranchisement of convicted prisoners.
"After human rights judges stretched out the hand of friendship to the UK last week, David Cameron promptly bit it off, willingly giving parliament an undertaking that he would not succumb to what one MP had described as the European court’s ‘diktat’".
I am naturally suspicious why the ECtHR, the supposedly guardian of 800,000,000 Europeans human rights, would bend over backwards to appease a human rights violating State? I would question the tactic of rewarding bullies for their bad behaviour. Interested parties should not stand by and watch victims of human rights abuse and due process be usurped.
"Cameron’s problem seems to be that he pays more attention to some of the newspapers than he does to those who could give him sound legal advice". He might have added "and to some of his backbenchers". Joshua Rozenberg appears to be ignorant of the fact that it is the role of Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, to provide the government with legal advice. Unless he is submitting an unorthodox job application for the Prime Minister's legal adviser?
"Similarly, a lawyer would have advised Cameron that the Strasbourg decision on prisoner voting was a limited, though significant, climbdown by the court - and one that could have formed the basis of an acceptable compromise. Indeed, the prime minister could have learned all he needed to know by reading the first paragraph of a carefully written court press release that had clearly been aimed at the British media".
There's good legal advice and bad legal advice. Which Strasbourg decision on prisoner voting? There have been several to my knowledge. I suspect that he is referring to Scoppola v Italy (No3). Whilst it is accepted that "limited, though significant" are not necessarily incompatible, I would advise caution against reading too much into the claim that the ECtHR has climbed down to a human rights violating State. My good legal advice to Joshua Rozenberg is to read the bottom line of the press statement he is keen to advise the PM on: "This press release is a document produced by the Registry. It does not bind the Court. Decisions, judgments...". It may well have been aimed at the British media, for all the good it did because the British media responded in typical fashion...
Baldrick-like Joshua Rozenberg announces with great fanfare "I have a cunning plan".
However, Joshua Rozenberg has failed to take into account the famous Scots poem by Rab C Nesbitt.
"The best-laid schemes o' mice an' men
Gang aft agley,
An' lea'e us nought but grief an' pain,
For promis'd joy! ".
C'mon Joshua Rozenberg, are you a man or a mouse? Squeak up!
"Crucially for the government, though, the bill really does not have to go very far to ensure there is no longer a blanket ban. Minor, largely cosmetic changes are all that is needed and it would be years before the court could decide whether they complied with the first protocol to the human rights convention, which guarantees free elections. So here is my plan. We know that remand prisoners - those awaiting trial - are allowed to vote, presumably by post or proxy. Why not extend this privilege for the first three months of a prisoner’s sentence? That would, in effect, reserve disenfranchisement for those sentenced to six months or more. It should pose no greater administrative problems than allowing remand prisoners to vote and it would probably be enough to satisfy the court".
Either Joshua Rozenberg has failed to read or understand the Hirst v UK (No2) judgment. In particular, that any restriction upon the franchise must not be arbitrary. So he arbitrarily plucks a 3 month cut off point out of thin air. Duh! The judgment cleary states that voting is a human right and not a privilege. Duh! It is not an administrative problem for Remand prisoners to vote. Administrative inconvenience is not a valid ground for denying any legal, civil, political or human rights to prisoners. In fact, the former Director General of NOMS, Phil Wheatley, assured me that administrative plans had been drawn up and could be put into practice once the government had given the green light. The problem is lack of Parliamentary will for reform.
For someone who claims to care passionately about politicians knee-jerk reactions, Joshua Rozenberg has a funny way of showing it. Perhaps, he should instead be a stand up comedian than a clown in this media circus? One thing is for sure, I won't be calling on him for his legal advice pretty soon. The first rule of journalism is to only write what you know about. The legal maxim "ignorance of the law is no excuse" applies to Joshua Rozenberg. This is a specialist area of knowledge. Joshua Rozenberg has failed to pass the Hirst test. His case is dismissed. Next!
From Russia With Love
From Russia With Love
Prime Minister “Puking” meets Prime Minister Putin
There was a Ministry of Justice under Hitler's regime. Russia has a Ministry of Justice as has the UK. Presently Russia is seeking to evade the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights by advocating that the bad example set by the UK, in the Prisoners Votes Case, should be followed.
Recently Dominic Raab MP, who's father came to Britain to escape Hitler's regime, observed that Russia has a bad record of non-compliance with ECtHR judgments and suggested that the UK follow Russia's bad example.
Russia and the UK are signatories to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
“Noting that the principles of free consent and of good faith and the pacta sunt servanda rule are universally recognized,
Article 27
Internal law and observance of treaties
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46”.
Both Russia and the UK are signatories of the Treaty of London 1949 (Statute of the Council of Europe):
“Article 3
Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I”.
Russia and the UK are both seeking to claim that by invoking the sovereignty principle that they do not have to amend domestic law following an adverse judgment in the ECtHR. Furthermore, the UK claims, via Dominic Raab MP, that the ECtHR has no enforcement powers and it is unlikely that the sanctions of suspension and expulsion would be invoked against the UK. One has to wonder why Dominic Raab MP should be referred to as the honourable in the House of Commons when he advocates that the UK should act dishonourably in relation to our international law obligations? Dominic Raab MP is a international business lawyer who would appear to be out of his depths with international human rights law. He worked at the FCO during the Labour administration when the FCO lost Hirst v UK (No2) before the Chamber and lost the appeal before the Grand Chamber. Later he went to work in Parliament and was Chief of Staff to Dominic Grieve, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice. Recently, in Scoppola v Italy (No3), the Attorney General failed to persuade the Grand Chamber to overturn Hirst No2.
What sort of wimps are Eton and Oxford turning out when the thought of giving prisoners the vote makes David Cameron feel physically ill? The only way he can claim to be the heir to Blair is that both of them have told the HoC that they would not comply with Hirst No2. Observers might note that the Hirst problem has not gone away in almost 8 years. The Hirst test is still standing firm. As David Cameron has gambled his political career upon this issue, an appropriate response would be to raise the ante. His legacy is to be the sick man of Europe.
The 3 objectives of the Council of Europe are Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. If the UK does not want to honour these then it should leave the Council of Europe. If the UK takes this course it follows that the UK cannot remain a Member of the European Union. The United Nations would declare the UK a rogue or pariah State.
Human rights as higher law may be too much for David Cameron to stomach. In the UK it would mean having a written constitution. Russia has a constitution. It would be unconstitutional to pass a law which violated human rights. This approach would mean that sovereignty of the people along with the constitution supplants the doctrine of the Supremacy of Parliament. We need to move on from the days when Parliament declared its supremacy by beheading King Charles the First. Back then the peasants did not have any democracy. Eventually the franchise was extended but democracy stopped outside of the prison gates. In 1989, the democratic revolution started in Hull Prison Special Unit. The aim being to change the policy of there are no votes in prison. Selfish MPs believed that they would lose votes if they argued for prison reforms. The Prison Reform Trust argued that politicians misread public opinion. In any event, the ECtHR in Hirst No2 excluded the element of public opinion. The ECtHR pointed out that its task was to protect human rights and not pander to public opinion. In other words, it was a case of the Individual v the State. The State being Parliament, Executive and Judiciary. All taken hostage just because a convicted prisoner asked the question 'why are there no votes in prison?'.
One answer is because of s.3 of ROPA 1983. Another answer now is because the thought of amending it makes the Prime Minister physically ill. Does the latter accord with the rule of law? Of course it doesn't.
The system expects offenders to reform. One would have thought that reform from a law breaker to a law-maker would be welcomed by the MoJ. Instead, the response was for the law-makers to become law breakers. Not only setting a bad example for prisoners to follow but also inciting Russia to follow suit. The ECtHR has identified that the UK is a failing State. That is, there are systemic failures and structural faults requiring reform. A reading of constitutional and administrative law shows this. Prison case law shows that prisoners tend to establish rights when the Judiciary feels its independence is threatened. Hirst No2 shows that the separation of powers in the UK does not exist. The UK State has no option but to hand over the White Flag of Surrender.
There was a Ministry of Justice under Hitler's regime. Russia has a Ministry of Justice as has the UK. Presently Russia is seeking to evade the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights by advocating that the bad example set by the UK, in the Prisoners Votes Case, should be followed.
Recently Dominic Raab MP, who's father came to Britain to escape Hitler's regime, observed that Russia has a bad record of non-compliance with ECtHR judgments and suggested that the UK follow Russia's bad example.
Russia and the UK are signatories to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties:
“Noting that the principles of free consent and of good faith and the pacta sunt servanda rule are universally recognized,
Article 27
Internal law and observance of treaties
A party may not invoke the provisions of its internal law as justification for its failure to perform a treaty. This rule is without prejudice to article 46”.
Both Russia and the UK are signatories of the Treaty of London 1949 (Statute of the Council of Europe):
“Article 3
Every member of the Council of Europe must accept the principles of the rule of law and of the enjoyment by all persons within its jurisdiction of human rights and fundamental freedoms, and collaborate sincerely and effectively in the realisation of the aim of the Council as specified in Chapter I”.
Russia and the UK are both seeking to claim that by invoking the sovereignty principle that they do not have to amend domestic law following an adverse judgment in the ECtHR. Furthermore, the UK claims, via Dominic Raab MP, that the ECtHR has no enforcement powers and it is unlikely that the sanctions of suspension and expulsion would be invoked against the UK. One has to wonder why Dominic Raab MP should be referred to as the honourable in the House of Commons when he advocates that the UK should act dishonourably in relation to our international law obligations? Dominic Raab MP is a international business lawyer who would appear to be out of his depths with international human rights law. He worked at the FCO during the Labour administration when the FCO lost Hirst v UK (No2) before the Chamber and lost the appeal before the Grand Chamber. Later he went to work in Parliament and was Chief of Staff to Dominic Grieve, Shadow Secretary of State for Justice. Recently, in Scoppola v Italy (No3), the Attorney General failed to persuade the Grand Chamber to overturn Hirst No2.
What sort of wimps are Eton and Oxford turning out when the thought of giving prisoners the vote makes David Cameron feel physically ill? The only way he can claim to be the heir to Blair is that both of them have told the HoC that they would not comply with Hirst No2. Observers might note that the Hirst problem has not gone away in almost 8 years. The Hirst test is still standing firm. As David Cameron has gambled his political career upon this issue, an appropriate response would be to raise the ante. His legacy is to be the sick man of Europe.
The 3 objectives of the Council of Europe are Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. If the UK does not want to honour these then it should leave the Council of Europe. If the UK takes this course it follows that the UK cannot remain a Member of the European Union. The United Nations would declare the UK a rogue or pariah State.
Human rights as higher law may be too much for David Cameron to stomach. In the UK it would mean having a written constitution. Russia has a constitution. It would be unconstitutional to pass a law which violated human rights. This approach would mean that sovereignty of the people along with the constitution supplants the doctrine of the Supremacy of Parliament. We need to move on from the days when Parliament declared its supremacy by beheading King Charles the First. Back then the peasants did not have any democracy. Eventually the franchise was extended but democracy stopped outside of the prison gates. In 1989, the democratic revolution started in Hull Prison Special Unit. The aim being to change the policy of there are no votes in prison. Selfish MPs believed that they would lose votes if they argued for prison reforms. The Prison Reform Trust argued that politicians misread public opinion. In any event, the ECtHR in Hirst No2 excluded the element of public opinion. The ECtHR pointed out that its task was to protect human rights and not pander to public opinion. In other words, it was a case of the Individual v the State. The State being Parliament, Executive and Judiciary. All taken hostage just because a convicted prisoner asked the question 'why are there no votes in prison?'.
One answer is because of s.3 of ROPA 1983. Another answer now is because the thought of amending it makes the Prime Minister physically ill. Does the latter accord with the rule of law? Of course it doesn't.
The system expects offenders to reform. One would have thought that reform from a law breaker to a law-maker would be welcomed by the MoJ. Instead, the response was for the law-makers to become law breakers. Not only setting a bad example for prisoners to follow but also inciting Russia to follow suit. The ECtHR has identified that the UK is a failing State. That is, there are systemic failures and structural faults requiring reform. A reading of constitutional and administrative law shows this. Prison case law shows that prisoners tend to establish rights when the Judiciary feels its independence is threatened. Hirst No2 shows that the separation of powers in the UK does not exist. The UK State has no option but to hand over the White Flag of Surrender.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Enforcement of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia
Enforcement of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia
Enforcement of the Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in Russia
Monday, May 28, 2012
Two serious articles on prisoners votes
Two serious articles on prisoners votes
The Economist
Ballot and chain David Cameron picks another silly fight with Europe
New Europe Online
When two worlds collide there is a constitutional clash
The Economist
Ballot and chain David Cameron picks another silly fight with Europe
New Europe Online
When two worlds collide there is a constitutional clash
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Animal pictures of the week: 25 May 2012
Animal pictures of the week: 25 May 2012
A fox is pictured in a sea of bluebells. The scene was captured by wildlife photographer Brian Bevan near his home in Potton, Biggleswade, Bedfordshire. He rescued the orphaned vixen after her mother was hit by a car and killed.Picture: BRIAN BEVAN / ARDEA / CATERS
Source
Source
Friday, May 25, 2012
Tiny owl who can't stop laughing
Tiny owl who can't stop laughing
Very amused: This baby Saw-whet owl appears to be laughing for the camera near Moraga, San Francisco
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Who guards the guards?
Who guards the guards?
Good morning UK.
The people have to decide whether they trust MPs to protect their civil, political and human rights without the necessary legislation in place to enforce these rights from the political whims of MPs.
This is a constitutional issue. Traditionally the UK has operated without a written constitution. Has the time now come to have a written constitution which a constitutional court will uphold against the unconstitutional acts of the Executive and or the legislature?
We are told that we have rights. However is a subject able to enforce those rights in a locked prison cell? It is no good staring at a notice on the back of the cell door proclaiming your rights, and when the guard unlocks the cell door denying you those rights. Somebody has to guard the guards.
Good morning UK.
The people have to decide whether they trust MPs to protect their civil, political and human rights without the necessary legislation in place to enforce these rights from the political whims of MPs.
This is a constitutional issue. Traditionally the UK has operated without a written constitution. Has the time now come to have a written constitution which a constitutional court will uphold against the unconstitutional acts of the Executive and or the legislature?
We are told that we have rights. However is a subject able to enforce those rights in a locked prison cell? It is no good staring at a notice on the back of the cell door proclaiming your rights, and when the guard unlocks the cell door denying you those rights. Somebody has to guard the guards.
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Respect court judgement on prison vote, says MEP
| Respect court judgement on prison vote, says MEP | Report Number: 9336 |
Date: 23/5/2012
|
|
Title: Respect court judgement on prison vote, says MEP (1 of 2) |
|||
Of interest to: Yorkshire and the Humber |
|||
Script details: |
|||
The
UK should respect the European Court of Human Rights and get rid of the
blanket ban on prisoner voting – that’s according to Rebecca Taylor. At
the moment almost all prisoners are excluded from voting in elections
in the UK. The court view is that the blanket ban contravenes the
European Convention on Human Rights. But judges also made it clear that
which prisoners can or can’t get the vote is up to the government to
decide. The Liberal Democrat MEP for Yorkshire and the Humber, Rebecca
Taylor, has defended the ruling by the Strasbourg court. She says these
are rules that apply, not just to the UK, but to every country signed up
to the European Convention on Human Rights.
|
|||
Interviewee: Rebecca Taylor MEP (Liberal Democrat, Yorkshire & Humber) |
|||
Duration: 0 minutes 18 seconds |
|||
Out-words: Should do this | |||
Daily Mail backsdown to JHL libel threat
Daily Mail backsdown to JHL libel threat
Dear Mr Hirst,
Thank you for your email.
We have amended the online article and appended a note at the bottom of the piece.
Regards,
Managing Editors Office,
Daily Mail Northcliffe House,
2 Derry Street, London, W8 5TT
(t) 020 7938 6000 (f) 020 7937 3981
"In an earlier version of this article we described Mr John Hirst as an 'axe murderer'. He was convicted of manslaughter after killing a woman with an axe".
Dear Mr Hirst,
Thank you for your email.
We have amended the online article and appended a note at the bottom of the piece.
Regards,
Managing Editors Office,
Daily Mail Northcliffe House,
2 Derry Street, London, W8 5TT
(t) 020 7938 6000 (f) 020 7937 3981
"In an earlier version of this article we described Mr John Hirst as an 'axe murderer'. He was convicted of manslaughter after killing a woman with an axe".
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Scoppola v Italy some analysis
Scoppola v Italy some analysis
"IV. COMPARATIVE LAW
A. The legislative framework in the Contracting States
45. Nineteen of the forty-three Contracting States examined in a comparative law study place no restrictions on the right of convicted prisoners to vote: Albania, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine.
46. Seven Contracting States (Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Russia and the United Kingdom) automatically deprive all convicted prisoners serving prison sentences of the right to vote.
47. The remaining sixteen member States (Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia and Turkey) have adopted an intermediate approach: disenfranchisement of prisoners depends on the type of offence and/or the length of the custodial sentence. Italy’s legislation on the subject resembles that of this group of countries.
48. In some of the States in this category the decision to deprive convicted prisoners of the right to vote is left to the discretion of the criminal court (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and San Marino). In Greece and Luxembourg, in the event of particularly serious offences disenfranchisement is applied independently of any court decision".
Given that there are 47 Member States in the Council of Europe, why leave out 3 Member States, Andorra, Liechtenstein and Norway from the equation? What is the position of prisoner votes in those countries?
Excluding the 3 countries excluded above, it appears as though the 19 Member States which do not restrict prisoner voting, and the 16 which have restrictions based on length of sentence and/or seriousness of crime are pretty evenly split. Therefore, it would appear at first sight that the UK might get away with some limitations following Scoppola v Italy. However, this approach appears to me to deviate from Hirst v UK (No2).
"IV. COMPARATIVE LAW
A. The legislative framework in the Contracting States
45. Nineteen of the forty-three Contracting States examined in a comparative law study place no restrictions on the right of convicted prisoners to vote: Albania, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Montenegro, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, “the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” and Ukraine.
46. Seven Contracting States (Armenia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Russia and the United Kingdom) automatically deprive all convicted prisoners serving prison sentences of the right to vote.
47. The remaining sixteen member States (Austria, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, San Marino, Slovakia and Turkey) have adopted an intermediate approach: disenfranchisement of prisoners depends on the type of offence and/or the length of the custodial sentence. Italy’s legislation on the subject resembles that of this group of countries.
48. In some of the States in this category the decision to deprive convicted prisoners of the right to vote is left to the discretion of the criminal court (Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania and San Marino). In Greece and Luxembourg, in the event of particularly serious offences disenfranchisement is applied independently of any court decision".
Given that there are 47 Member States in the Council of Europe, why leave out 3 Member States, Andorra, Liechtenstein and Norway from the equation? What is the position of prisoner votes in those countries?
Excluding the 3 countries excluded above, it appears as though the 19 Member States which do not restrict prisoner voting, and the 16 which have restrictions based on length of sentence and/or seriousness of crime are pretty evenly split. Therefore, it would appear at first sight that the UK might get away with some limitations following Scoppola v Italy. However, this approach appears to me to deviate from Hirst v UK (No2).
Case of Scoppola v. Italy (No. 3)
Case of Scoppola v. Italy (No. 3)
Case of Scoppola v. Italy (No. 3)
ECHR judges rule on thorny issue of criminal voting rights
ECHR judges rule on thorny issue of criminal voting rights
European judges who gave voting rights to British criminals will rule on the flashpoint issue dividing Strasbourg judges and the UK politicians who have refused to follow their orders for seven years.
The European Court of Human Rights ruling was greeted with champagne and scorn in 2005 when the judgement was handed down - scorn from MPs and a toast from convicted killer John Hirst, who posted a YouTube video of himself singing "I shot the sheriff" and popping a champagne cork.
Britain's mounting fury over controlling its sovereignty reached new heights in February when ECHR judges decided UK terrorist suspect Abu Qatada should be released on bail and held under house arrest - at a cost of millions to UK taxpayers - rather than deported to Jordan because his human rights might be breached. (The extremist cleric's second bail application will be heard 28 May.)
The focus on Tuesday will be back on the Strasbourg judges and Franco Scoppola, an Italian who murdered his wife then sued Italy for breaching his human rights by preventing him from voting. Britain's Attorney General Dominic Grieve flew to Strasbourg personally to submit arguments supporting Italy, extending until November the deadline for the UK to enact a law granting prisoner voting rights.
"Many members of the public as well as MPs are opposed both to prisoners being allowed to vote and to 'interference' by the Strasbourg's court in domestic matters," said Susan Easton, a barrister and senior tutor at Brunel University Law School.
"However, defenders of prisoners' voting rights would argue that there are no security risks involved," Ms Easton said. "Voting rights are fundamental rights rather than privileges to be earned, and treating prisoners as citizens may be an important element in their rehabilitation."
Cameron 'ill' at the thought
Prime Minister David Cameron has already made his position clear, telling MPs: "It makes me physically ill to even contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison." Sentenced prisoners have not been allowed to vote in the Uk since 1870.
The UK's blanket ban on voting by convicted prisoners was supported in a free vote in the House of Commons by 234 votes to 22 and, in his ECHR submission, Mr Grieve called on judges to return powers to politicians over "the culture of their own particular state".
The Scoppola decision is expected to clarify the European court's somewhat murky position on whether all or only some of the UK's prisoners should be participate in elections. In the case of Hirst v UK, Strasbourg judges criticised the UK's ban but seemed to allow some freedom to states in deciding how to deal with voting. But in a later case, Frodl v Austria, judges suggested limits on voting should be applied rarely and in limited circumstances, and that there should be a link between the penalty and the offence committed.
Prisoner law 'hanging by a thread'
If the ECHR clarifies or eases its stance on Tuesday, it may placate Conservative critics who want radical reform of the Human Rights Act to maintain British sovereignty.
"The government's proposals to introduce voting rights for people in prison on short sentences are hanging by a thread. If, in the ECHR, the Italian claimant is successful and the judge rules the automatic and indiscriminate measure depriving Mr Scoppola of the right to vote is unlawful, the British government will have to go back to the drawing board," said Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform.
Mr Neilson said he believes in giving more responsibility to prisoners, not less.
Right to vote
"One of the hallmarks of citizenship is the right to vote. If we want prisoners to return safely to the community, feeling they have a stake in society, then the right to vote is a good means of engaging individuals," he said.
The judgement is also hotly anticipated as the UK's obligation to comply with demands to change domestic law to offer prisoners the right to vote runs from six months from the date of Tuesday's judgement.
"It will make it very difficult for the UK to further prolong or avoid changing the law," Ms Easton said.
European judges who gave voting rights to British criminals will rule on the flashpoint issue dividing Strasbourg judges and the UK politicians who have refused to follow their orders for seven years.
The European Court of Human Rights ruling was greeted with champagne and scorn in 2005 when the judgement was handed down - scorn from MPs and a toast from convicted killer John Hirst, who posted a YouTube video of himself singing "I shot the sheriff" and popping a champagne cork.
Britain's mounting fury over controlling its sovereignty reached new heights in February when ECHR judges decided UK terrorist suspect Abu Qatada should be released on bail and held under house arrest - at a cost of millions to UK taxpayers - rather than deported to Jordan because his human rights might be breached. (The extremist cleric's second bail application will be heard 28 May.)
The focus on Tuesday will be back on the Strasbourg judges and Franco Scoppola, an Italian who murdered his wife then sued Italy for breaching his human rights by preventing him from voting. Britain's Attorney General Dominic Grieve flew to Strasbourg personally to submit arguments supporting Italy, extending until November the deadline for the UK to enact a law granting prisoner voting rights.
"Many members of the public as well as MPs are opposed both to prisoners being allowed to vote and to 'interference' by the Strasbourg's court in domestic matters," said Susan Easton, a barrister and senior tutor at Brunel University Law School.
"However, defenders of prisoners' voting rights would argue that there are no security risks involved," Ms Easton said. "Voting rights are fundamental rights rather than privileges to be earned, and treating prisoners as citizens may be an important element in their rehabilitation."
Cameron 'ill' at the thought
Prime Minister David Cameron has already made his position clear, telling MPs: "It makes me physically ill to even contemplate having to give the vote to anyone who is in prison." Sentenced prisoners have not been allowed to vote in the Uk since 1870.
The UK's blanket ban on voting by convicted prisoners was supported in a free vote in the House of Commons by 234 votes to 22 and, in his ECHR submission, Mr Grieve called on judges to return powers to politicians over "the culture of their own particular state".
The Scoppola decision is expected to clarify the European court's somewhat murky position on whether all or only some of the UK's prisoners should be participate in elections. In the case of Hirst v UK, Strasbourg judges criticised the UK's ban but seemed to allow some freedom to states in deciding how to deal with voting. But in a later case, Frodl v Austria, judges suggested limits on voting should be applied rarely and in limited circumstances, and that there should be a link between the penalty and the offence committed.
Prisoner law 'hanging by a thread'
If the ECHR clarifies or eases its stance on Tuesday, it may placate Conservative critics who want radical reform of the Human Rights Act to maintain British sovereignty.
"The government's proposals to introduce voting rights for people in prison on short sentences are hanging by a thread. If, in the ECHR, the Italian claimant is successful and the judge rules the automatic and indiscriminate measure depriving Mr Scoppola of the right to vote is unlawful, the British government will have to go back to the drawing board," said Andrew Neilson, director of campaigns at the Howard League for Penal Reform.
Mr Neilson said he believes in giving more responsibility to prisoners, not less.
Right to vote
"One of the hallmarks of citizenship is the right to vote. If we want prisoners to return safely to the community, feeling they have a stake in society, then the right to vote is a good means of engaging individuals," he said.
The judgement is also hotly anticipated as the UK's obligation to comply with demands to change domestic law to offer prisoners the right to vote runs from six months from the date of Tuesday's judgement.
"It will make it very difficult for the UK to further prolong or avoid changing the law," Ms Easton said.
Monday, May 21, 2012
Now that's what I call music, and a bargain at the price!
Now that's what I call music, and a bargain at the price!
As I had to go into the city centre I tried HMV to get some Donna Summer CDs but they were out of stock and said they had ordered some for next week.
I thought I would try Tesco but no luck there either. But I did find The Very Best of Bread at £4.97 and 75 Original American Rock 'n' Roll Anthems (3CD set) for £3.00!
As I had to go into the city centre I tried HMV to get some Donna Summer CDs but they were out of stock and said they had ordered some for next week.
I thought I would try Tesco but no luck there either. But I did find The Very Best of Bread at £4.97 and 75 Original American Rock 'n' Roll Anthems (3CD set) for £3.00!
Will the human rights court throw Britain a lifeline on prisoner votes?
Will the human rights court throw Britain a lifeline on prisoner votes?
If Strasbourg upholds its previous judgments, Cameron shouldn't expect the bill of rights commission to come to his rescue
"Will the European court of human rights throw Britain a lifeline tomorrow? The court's grand chamber will decide whether laws that prevent a murderer from voting amount to a breach of his human rights. The killer in question is not John Hirst, whose victory on this point in 2005 provoked a continuing standoff between the British government and the committee of ministers responsible for enforcing the court's judgments".
The UK is not in any danger of dying if it gives all convicted prisoners the vote, therefore I am puzzled by the author's headline suggesting that the UK is in grave danger and in need of being rescued.
"Britain, which has an obvious interest in overturning Hirst, was given permission to submit arguments in support of Italy". The UK's one and only chance to overturn Hirst v UK (No2) was when it sought to appeal against the Chamber judgment to the Grand Chamber. According to the ECHR:
"Article 44 – Final judgments
1. The judgment of the Grand Chamber shall be final".
The UK is already dead in the water, and has been since 6 October 2005. Latvia joined Hirst No2 as an interested party and has since granted all prisoners the vote. Throwing a life line in such circumstances is as pointless as Dominic Grieve tilting at windmills by joining Scoppola v Italy (No3) in Strasbourg. There is no provision under the Convention system for overturning a Grand Chamber judgment via another Grand Chamber judgment. Any legal commentator worth his salt should be aware of this fact. If the Grand Chamber decided to set a new precedent, I predict it would be the end of the Council of Europe, Convention, Court and Committee of Ministers. It would mean that the defender of human rights sacrificed human rights to appease a human rights violating nation.
My understanding is that, oddly, the UK secured a delay in the execution of Greens and MT v UK until 6 months after the final decision in Scoppola. There is no provision under the ECHR for anyone to allow the UK to delay implementation of Hirst No2. If I am wrong, perhaps our esteemed legal commentator will take the time to correct me? In my view, the Registrar of the Court erred in law by granting the UK 6 months extra after the judgment in Greens had become final. In Frodl v Austria and Greens the Grand Chamber had refused permission to appeal. Austria amended its electoral law following the judgment. Oddly, the Grand Chamber decided to hear the appeal in Scoppola even though the Chamber had followed the Hirst test. In my view, when Dominic Grieve started trying to appeal against Hirst in Scoppola the President of the Court should have stopped him in his tracks and announced that it was an abuse of process. All of a sudden the ECtHR has suffered a lack of legitimacy, when it all started out it was the UK which lacked the legitimacy.
If Strasbourg upholds its previous judgments, Cameron shouldn't expect the bill of rights commission to come to his rescue
"Will the European court of human rights throw Britain a lifeline tomorrow? The court's grand chamber will decide whether laws that prevent a murderer from voting amount to a breach of his human rights. The killer in question is not John Hirst, whose victory on this point in 2005 provoked a continuing standoff between the British government and the committee of ministers responsible for enforcing the court's judgments".
The UK is not in any danger of dying if it gives all convicted prisoners the vote, therefore I am puzzled by the author's headline suggesting that the UK is in grave danger and in need of being rescued.
"Britain, which has an obvious interest in overturning Hirst, was given permission to submit arguments in support of Italy". The UK's one and only chance to overturn Hirst v UK (No2) was when it sought to appeal against the Chamber judgment to the Grand Chamber. According to the ECHR:
"Article 44 – Final judgments
1. The judgment of the Grand Chamber shall be final".
The UK is already dead in the water, and has been since 6 October 2005. Latvia joined Hirst No2 as an interested party and has since granted all prisoners the vote. Throwing a life line in such circumstances is as pointless as Dominic Grieve tilting at windmills by joining Scoppola v Italy (No3) in Strasbourg. There is no provision under the Convention system for overturning a Grand Chamber judgment via another Grand Chamber judgment. Any legal commentator worth his salt should be aware of this fact. If the Grand Chamber decided to set a new precedent, I predict it would be the end of the Council of Europe, Convention, Court and Committee of Ministers. It would mean that the defender of human rights sacrificed human rights to appease a human rights violating nation.
My understanding is that, oddly, the UK secured a delay in the execution of Greens and MT v UK until 6 months after the final decision in Scoppola. There is no provision under the ECHR for anyone to allow the UK to delay implementation of Hirst No2. If I am wrong, perhaps our esteemed legal commentator will take the time to correct me? In my view, the Registrar of the Court erred in law by granting the UK 6 months extra after the judgment in Greens had become final. In Frodl v Austria and Greens the Grand Chamber had refused permission to appeal. Austria amended its electoral law following the judgment. Oddly, the Grand Chamber decided to hear the appeal in Scoppola even though the Chamber had followed the Hirst test. In my view, when Dominic Grieve started trying to appeal against Hirst in Scoppola the President of the Court should have stopped him in his tracks and announced that it was an abuse of process. All of a sudden the ECtHR has suffered a lack of legitimacy, when it all started out it was the UK which lacked the legitimacy.
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi dies in Tripoli
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing above Scotland which killed 270 people, has died at his home in the Libyan capital Tripoli.
Megrahi, 60, was convicted by a special court in the Netherlands in 2001.
He was released from prison in Scotland in 2009 on compassionate grounds, suffering from cancer.
Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the only person convicted over the 1988 Lockerbie bombing above Scotland which killed 270 people, has died at his home in the Libyan capital Tripoli.
Megrahi, 60, was convicted by a special court in the Netherlands in 2001.
He was released from prison in Scotland in 2009 on compassionate grounds, suffering from cancer.
A couple of photos for Cherrypie
A couple of photos for Cherrypie
A tawny owl flies over a sea of bluebells at the British Wildlife Centre in Lingfield, SurreyPicture: Matt Binstead/National News
This kingfisher amused wildlife photographer Tony Flashman by reversing roles. Mr Flashman was setting up staged perches for birds to land on near a stream in Deal, Kent when he looked around and saw the colourful bird sat on his camera. I had to do a double take when I saw the kingfisher sat on my camera, she was meant to be in front of it, he said.Picture: Tony Flashman / Rex Features
Another one for luck...
Barn owl chicks sit in a box in Israel's Beit Shean Valley, near the border with Jordan. The chicks are the product of a joint Israeli-Jordanian project launched in 2002, to use barn owls as biological pesticides.Picture: REUTERS/Baz Ratner
Animal pictures of the week: 18 May 2012
Another one for luck...
Animal pictures of the week: 18 May 2012
Saturday, May 19, 2012
Inside Halden, the most humane prison in the world
Inside Halden, the most humane prison in the world
Amelia Gentleman visits Halden, the high-security jail in Norway where every cell has a flatscreen TV, an en-suite shower and fluffy, white towels
Halden prison smells of freshly brewed coffee. It hits you in the workshop areas, lingers in the games rooms and in the communal apartment-style areas where prisoners live together in groups of eight. This much coffee makes you hungry, so a couple of hours after lunch the guards on Unit A (a quiet, separated wing where sex offenders are held for their own protection) bring inmates a tall stack of steaming, heart-shaped waffles and pots of jam, which they set down on a checked tablecloth and eat together, whiling away the afternoon.
Amelia Gentleman visits Halden, the high-security jail in Norway where every cell has a flatscreen TV, an en-suite shower and fluffy, white towels
Halden prison smells of freshly brewed coffee. It hits you in the workshop areas, lingers in the games rooms and in the communal apartment-style areas where prisoners live together in groups of eight. This much coffee makes you hungry, so a couple of hours after lunch the guards on Unit A (a quiet, separated wing where sex offenders are held for their own protection) bring inmates a tall stack of steaming, heart-shaped waffles and pots of jam, which they set down on a checked tablecloth and eat together, whiling away the afternoon.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Abu Qatada applies to be freed on bail
Abu Qatada applies to be freed on bail
Islamist cleric could be released on stringent conditions while courts take months to settle issue of deportation
The radical Islamist cleric, Abu Qatada, who faces deportation to Jordan as a national security threat, is to apply to be freed on bail at the end of the month.
The Judicial Communications Office said that the date for Qatada's bail hearing had been set for 28 May at the special immigration appeals commission in London.
Qatada, whom a Spanish judge once described as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, was briefly freed in February on the most draconian bail conditions ever imposed, including a 22-hour curfew.
But he was re-arrested and returned to a maximum security prison in April when the home secretary, Theresa May, ordered a new attempt to send him back to Jordan.
The attempt was made hours before Qatada's lawyers lodged an appeal to the Strasbourg human rights court, which then blocked his removal.
The pre-emptive move by the home secretary prompted a Westminster row with claims that she had got the date wrong over when the deadline for appeals against his removal had expired.
However the European court of human rights rejected that appeal last week clearing the way for a renewed attempt to send him back to Jordan.
The home secretary, who has secured assurances from Jordan that he will not face a trial based on evidence obtained by torture, has acknowledged that it will now be up to the British courts to settle matter – a process likely to take months rather than weeks.
There is a possibility that Qatada, who has already spent more than six years in detention in Britain as an international terror suspect, could be freed once again on draconian bail conditions if there is no immediate prospect of his removal.
Islamist cleric could be released on stringent conditions while courts take months to settle issue of deportation
The radical Islamist cleric, Abu Qatada, who faces deportation to Jordan as a national security threat, is to apply to be freed on bail at the end of the month.
The Judicial Communications Office said that the date for Qatada's bail hearing had been set for 28 May at the special immigration appeals commission in London.
Qatada, whom a Spanish judge once described as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man in Europe, was briefly freed in February on the most draconian bail conditions ever imposed, including a 22-hour curfew.
But he was re-arrested and returned to a maximum security prison in April when the home secretary, Theresa May, ordered a new attempt to send him back to Jordan.
The attempt was made hours before Qatada's lawyers lodged an appeal to the Strasbourg human rights court, which then blocked his removal.
The pre-emptive move by the home secretary prompted a Westminster row with claims that she had got the date wrong over when the deadline for appeals against his removal had expired.
However the European court of human rights rejected that appeal last week clearing the way for a renewed attempt to send him back to Jordan.
The home secretary, who has secured assurances from Jordan that he will not face a trial based on evidence obtained by torture, has acknowledged that it will now be up to the British courts to settle matter – a process likely to take months rather than weeks.
There is a possibility that Qatada, who has already spent more than six years in detention in Britain as an international terror suspect, could be freed once again on draconian bail conditions if there is no immediate prospect of his removal.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Why James Eadie QC is a qualified cunt!
Why James Eadie QC is a qualified cunt!
Prisoners voting – he represented the Government in the domestic courts (Chester v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439); before the ECtHR in Greens & MT v the UK; and in the recent hearing in Scoppola v Italy before the Grand Chamber.
What has this twat got against human rights?
Prisoners voting – he represented the Government in the domestic courts (Chester v Secretary of State for Justice [2010] EWCA Civ 1439); before the ECtHR in Greens & MT v the UK; and in the recent hearing in Scoppola v Italy before the Grand Chamber.
What has this twat got against human rights?
Sam Hallam released after seven years in prison
Sam Hallam released after seven years in prison
Decision to release 24-year-old after appeal over 2004 murder conviction follows long legal battle by family
Sam Hallam became one of the youngest victims of a miscarriage of justice on Wednesday when the court of appeal released him after he served seven years for murder.
Hallam, 24, emerged with his mother on to the steps of the high court, where, in front of a crowd of photographers, he was sprayed with champagne by the friends and supporters who have long campaigned for his release.
Hallam, of Hoxton, north London, was just 18 when he was jailed for life for the murder of Essayas Kassahun in a gang attack in October 2004.
The court of appeal is expected to quash his murder conviction on Thursday after the crown dramatically withdrew all opposition to his appeal.
Decision to release 24-year-old after appeal over 2004 murder conviction follows long legal battle by family
Sam Hallam became one of the youngest victims of a miscarriage of justice on Wednesday when the court of appeal released him after he served seven years for murder.
Hallam, 24, emerged with his mother on to the steps of the high court, where, in front of a crowd of photographers, he was sprayed with champagne by the friends and supporters who have long campaigned for his release.
Hallam, of Hoxton, north London, was just 18 when he was jailed for life for the murder of Essayas Kassahun in a gang attack in October 2004.
The court of appeal is expected to quash his murder conviction on Thursday after the crown dramatically withdrew all opposition to his appeal.
Mentally ill inmates sue to get out of solitary
Mentally ill inmates sue to get out of solitary
AP foreign, Thursday May 17 2012
REMA RAHMAN
Associated Press= DENVER (AP) — Troy Anderson is a mentally ill inmate in isolation at the Colorado State Penitentiary, deemed for more than a decade too dangerous to be among other offenders.
His lawyers argue, however, that prolonged solitary confinement is contributing to a vicious cycle, making his psychiatric conditions worse and resulting in misbehavior that warrants further punishment.
Prison officials defend the practice, saying administrative segregation, which can include up to 23 hours a day alone in a concrete cell, is a fundamental part of security.
But prisoners' rights advocates around the nation say putting mentally ill inmates in long-term solitary confinement amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, and activists are pushing court challenges to get convicts such as Anderson out of isolation.
AP foreign, Thursday May 17 2012
REMA RAHMAN
Associated Press= DENVER (AP) — Troy Anderson is a mentally ill inmate in isolation at the Colorado State Penitentiary, deemed for more than a decade too dangerous to be among other offenders.
His lawyers argue, however, that prolonged solitary confinement is contributing to a vicious cycle, making his psychiatric conditions worse and resulting in misbehavior that warrants further punishment.
Prison officials defend the practice, saying administrative segregation, which can include up to 23 hours a day alone in a concrete cell, is a fundamental part of security.
But prisoners' rights advocates around the nation say putting mentally ill inmates in long-term solitary confinement amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, and activists are pushing court challenges to get convicts such as Anderson out of isolation.
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Spectacular displays of the northern lights or aurora borealis in northern Norway
Spectacular displays of the northern lights or aurora borealis in northern Norway
We have published many northern lights galleries over the past couple of years, but these are perhaps the most spectacular aurora borealis photos we've ever seen. Photographer Tommy Eliassen chases auroras around northern Norway, to capture them in all their glory.
The northern lights turn the sky green at Hamary in Nordland, Norway
Picture: Tommy Eliassen / Barcroft Media
Source
Source
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Response to Adam Wagner
Response to Adam Wagner
Once more into the
breach (of human rights). Let's face it, it's hardly news the Grand
Chamber of the ECtHR to rule on prisoners votes. It was news 6.5
years ago in the case of Hirst v UK (No2). Given that the GC has
already decided the issue, why did the ECtHR decide to hear it again
in Scoppola v Italy (No3)? Given that the UK lost its appeal in
Hirst, why did the ECtHR exercise its discretion in favour of
allowing the UK to join Scoppola as an interested party? Surely it
constitutes an abuse of process if the UK's tactic was simply to buy
more time?
In my view, Adam Wagner
has erred when he claims that the UK was granted more time to comply
with Hirst. The UK was granted more time to comply with Greens and MT
v UK, although I have been unable to discover the lawful authority
for this, until 6 months after Scoppola is decided.
In my view, Adam Wagner
has erred again when he claims that the ECtHR has delivered a number
of conflicting judgments on the issue of prisoners votes. Recently
Ch4 criticised so-called expert witnesses in child care cases. There
is no evidence to support the UK's claims that the ECtHR has moved
the goalposts. Frodl, Greens and Scoppola all followed the Hirst
test. It never ceases to amaze me the amount of people who have
failed to understand the Hirst judgment. Having said that I am not
surprised when it comes to government lawyers or even ex-government
lawyers. Like the Prison Service they tend to be too inward looking.
I will eat Adam
Wagner's wig if the ECtHR changes the final decision in Frodl by way
of Scoppola. Bear in mind that the Grand Chamber has already refused
an appeal in Frodl, and the Court simply followed the lead set in
Hirst. Apparently, Adam Wagner's reasoning follows that of the UK's,
that is, that Member States be allowed a wide margin of appreciation.
However, he misses the point that Member States are granted a wide
margin of appreciation but not so wide as to abuse human rights by
not being Convention compliant.
The UK lost Hirst No2,
and there is no legal way under European or international law for
this victory to be taken away from me. No amount of spin will turn it
into a government victory. The only losers will be the Council of
Europe, Committee of Ministers and ECtHR if the Court bends over
backwards in Scoppola to appease the human rights abusing UK. It will
set a precedent for other human rights abusing Member States to
follow. I have yet been unable to discover any GC judgment overturned
by the GC. I doubt that the ECtHR will risk bringing down the House
of Cards.
I am less impressed
than Adam Wagner appears to be at the drum being beat by the UK. I am
more inclined to lead than to follow. I dismiss rhetoric for what it
is. It was a non starter when the UK sought to curb the jurisdiction
of the ECtHR. I recall reading English law in theory and learned by
experience that it may be different in practice. A so-called theory
based upon only some human beings being entitled to human rights
under the Convention is not a theory at all. It doesn't stand up to
critical scrutiny.
What this whole case
exposes is the need for reform of the Council of Europe. I suspect that the future will see the European Union and Court of Justice of the European Union taking an interest in human rights. If I am right
then enforcement steps up a few gears and sanctions police decisions.
It used to be the case that the Home Office was trusted to care for
prisoners, however, case law showed that the Home Office could not be
trusted in this respect. Therefore, the courts stepped in. If the
Council of Europe shows that it is not effective in protecting human
rights then it provides a vacuum which the EU will fill. In a
nutshell, either the UK fully complies with Hirst No2 or leaves the
Council of Europe and EU.
Forthcoming Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Scoppola v. Italy (n° 3)
Forthcoming Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Scoppola v. Italy (n° 3)
Forthcoming Grand Chamber judgment in the case of Scoppola v. Italy (n° 3)
Unidentified Flying Object spotted over Iceland
Unidentified Flying Object spotted over Iceland
Iceland from the air: aerial pictures of the country's dramatic volcanic landscapes
A hot spring in Hveravellir, Iceland is captured by husband and wife duo Erlend and Orsolya Haarberg. They took to the skies in a light aircraft to snap some of the world's most spectacular scenery.
Picture: Haarberg Photography / Barcroft Media
Iceland from the air: aerial pictures of the country's dramatic volcanic landscapes
Saturday, May 12, 2012
Top QC says human rights laws need "serious change"
Top QC says human rights laws need "serious change"
Next month Ben Emmerson QC, who is short-listed as a candidate to represent the UK at the ECHR, will address the UN to argue that more attention should be paid to the human rights of victims of terrorism. Peter Stanford meets him.
Human rights’ laws – and the European Court in Strasbourg that upholds them – don’t always to go down very well with the British public, especially when they give prisoners the vote, or delay the deportation of radical cleric Abu Qatada to face terrorism charges.
Next month Ben Emmerson QC, who is short-listed as a candidate to represent the UK at the ECHR, will address the UN to argue that more attention should be paid to the human rights of victims of terrorism. Peter Stanford meets him.
Human rights’ laws – and the European Court in Strasbourg that upholds them – don’t always to go down very well with the British public, especially when they give prisoners the vote, or delay the deportation of radical cleric Abu Qatada to face terrorism charges.
Friday, May 11, 2012
Has the ECtHR violated Abu Qatada's human rights by not abiding by the ECHR?
Has the ECtHR violated Abu Qatada's human rights by not abiding by the ECHR?
If the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) does not abide by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) itself, why should Member States of the Council of Europe abide by it? I am referring to the application by Abu Qatada seeking to appeal to the Grand Chamber. There are two issues; did he lodge the application in time?; and did he have an arguable case for appeal? The ECtHR answered the former in the affirmative, causing the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to be embarrassed politically because she had stated publicly that he was out of time. However, we are none the wiser as to the latter, more important, point simply because the ECtHR decided he did not but provided no reasons for the decision. The ECHR states:
"Article 45 – Reasons for judgments and decisions
Reasons shall be given for judgments as well as for decisions declaring applications admissible or inadmissible".
So, why didn't the ECtHR give Abu Qatada reasons for dismissing his application? It maybe just that the ECtHR simply applied Rule 73(2) of the Court's rules:
“Reasons need not be given for a refusal of the request”.
This appears to be contrary to the ECHR. Moreover, the language of the ECHR suggests that it is mandatory to give reasons, whereas the ECtHR rule appears to allow for discretion whether to give reasons.
For once I agree with what Dominic Raab MP has to say:
“Yesterday’s hearing was held in secrecy. The verdict was not written down. Nor did they give reasons. It was just announced by a court lackey. Imagine the uproar if a British court behaved in such an arrogant way” (Daily Express).
The first law text book I read, quite sometime before I read the ECHR, is Foulkes' Administrative Law. Chapter 9 is headed The duty to give reasons and the first section is headed by the question Should reasons be given?
“It is, in general, desirable that reasons should be given for decisions. 'The giving of reasons is one of fundamentals of good administration' (per Lord Denning in Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971])”.
In the 1932 Report of the Committee on Ministers Powers, relating to decisions by Ministers and tribunals, under the heading of 'natural justice' it states:
“Any party affected by a decision should be informed of the reasons on which the decision is based...Such a decision should be in the form of a reasoned document available to the parties affected”.
In the Franks Report of 1957 it states:
“It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the parties concerned in one of these procedures should know at the end of the day why the particular decision has been taken. Where no reasons are given the individual may be forgiven for concluding that he has been the victim of arbitrary decision. The giving of full reasons is also important to enable those concerned to satisfy themselves that the prescribed procedure has been followed and to decide whether they wish to challenge the Minister's decision in the courts or elsewhere. Moreover as we have already said in relation to tribunal decisions a decision is apt to be better if the reasons for it have to be set out in writing because the reasons are then more likely to have been properly thought out”.
There may be a more sinister motive for the ECtHR not giving reasons, that is, it cannot justify them. For example, the ECtHR may well have succumbed to the corrupting influence of the human rights violating UK and rather than risk another confrontation it has meekly decided to appease the UK. The ECtHR already knows that in Jordan torture is widespread. The UK has also been complicit in torture or at least turned a blind eye to its use during the flights of 'extra-ordinary rendition'. Therefore any assurances by Jordan need to be treated with the greatest suspicion. Given that the UK is seeking to abolish the Human Rights Act, and hold secret trials so the activities by MI5 and MI6 in relation to torture do not become public, means that any assurances given by the UK should also come under very close scrutiny. For example, the assurances given by the UK in the Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Declarations are not worth the paper they are written on. Notice the quick speed by which the UK is seeking to deport Abu Qatada, and the slow speed the UK is taking to fully comply with the Prisoners Votes Case, Hirst v UK (No2)? If the ECtHR won't help the vulnerable in the UK then the European Dream has turned into a nightmare.
If the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) does not abide by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) itself, why should Member States of the Council of Europe abide by it? I am referring to the application by Abu Qatada seeking to appeal to the Grand Chamber. There are two issues; did he lodge the application in time?; and did he have an arguable case for appeal? The ECtHR answered the former in the affirmative, causing the Home Secretary, Theresa May, to be embarrassed politically because she had stated publicly that he was out of time. However, we are none the wiser as to the latter, more important, point simply because the ECtHR decided he did not but provided no reasons for the decision. The ECHR states:
"Article 45 – Reasons for judgments and decisions
Reasons shall be given for judgments as well as for decisions declaring applications admissible or inadmissible".
So, why didn't the ECtHR give Abu Qatada reasons for dismissing his application? It maybe just that the ECtHR simply applied Rule 73(2) of the Court's rules:
“Reasons need not be given for a refusal of the request”.
This appears to be contrary to the ECHR. Moreover, the language of the ECHR suggests that it is mandatory to give reasons, whereas the ECtHR rule appears to allow for discretion whether to give reasons.
For once I agree with what Dominic Raab MP has to say:
“Yesterday’s hearing was held in secrecy. The verdict was not written down. Nor did they give reasons. It was just announced by a court lackey. Imagine the uproar if a British court behaved in such an arrogant way” (Daily Express).
The first law text book I read, quite sometime before I read the ECHR, is Foulkes' Administrative Law. Chapter 9 is headed The duty to give reasons and the first section is headed by the question Should reasons be given?
“It is, in general, desirable that reasons should be given for decisions. 'The giving of reasons is one of fundamentals of good administration' (per Lord Denning in Breen v Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971])”.
In the 1932 Report of the Committee on Ministers Powers, relating to decisions by Ministers and tribunals, under the heading of 'natural justice' it states:
“Any party affected by a decision should be informed of the reasons on which the decision is based...Such a decision should be in the form of a reasoned document available to the parties affected”.
In the Franks Report of 1957 it states:
“It is a fundamental requirement of fair play that the parties concerned in one of these procedures should know at the end of the day why the particular decision has been taken. Where no reasons are given the individual may be forgiven for concluding that he has been the victim of arbitrary decision. The giving of full reasons is also important to enable those concerned to satisfy themselves that the prescribed procedure has been followed and to decide whether they wish to challenge the Minister's decision in the courts or elsewhere. Moreover as we have already said in relation to tribunal decisions a decision is apt to be better if the reasons for it have to be set out in writing because the reasons are then more likely to have been properly thought out”.
There may be a more sinister motive for the ECtHR not giving reasons, that is, it cannot justify them. For example, the ECtHR may well have succumbed to the corrupting influence of the human rights violating UK and rather than risk another confrontation it has meekly decided to appease the UK. The ECtHR already knows that in Jordan torture is widespread. The UK has also been complicit in torture or at least turned a blind eye to its use during the flights of 'extra-ordinary rendition'. Therefore any assurances by Jordan need to be treated with the greatest suspicion. Given that the UK is seeking to abolish the Human Rights Act, and hold secret trials so the activities by MI5 and MI6 in relation to torture do not become public, means that any assurances given by the UK should also come under very close scrutiny. For example, the assurances given by the UK in the Interlaken, Izmir and Brighton Declarations are not worth the paper they are written on. Notice the quick speed by which the UK is seeking to deport Abu Qatada, and the slow speed the UK is taking to fully comply with the Prisoners Votes Case, Hirst v UK (No2)? If the ECtHR won't help the vulnerable in the UK then the European Dream has turned into a nightmare.
Thursday, May 10, 2012
Great minds think alike...
Great minds think alike...
Source
On 8 May I Tweeted "Would Parliament behead the Queen if tomorrow she said "I can't read out this load of crap" and got up and walked out on the Queen's Speech?".
Source
On 8 May I Tweeted "Would Parliament behead the Queen if tomorrow she said "I can't read out this load of crap" and got up and walked out on the Queen's Speech?".
Wednesday, May 09, 2012
Federal inmate's sizable West Virginia presidential vote tally
Federal inmate's sizable West Virginia presidential vote tally
(CNN) – An incarcerated 53-year-old man is beating President Barack Obama in eight West Virginia counties following the state's Democratic Presidential Primary Tuesday, according to the latest figures from the West Virginia secretary of state.
The Daily Mail's take...
How unpopular can Obama get? Texas INMATE gets 40 per cent of votes against President in West Virginia primary
(CNN) – An incarcerated 53-year-old man is beating President Barack Obama in eight West Virginia counties following the state's Democratic Presidential Primary Tuesday, according to the latest figures from the West Virginia secretary of state.
The Daily Mail's take...
How unpopular can Obama get? Texas INMATE gets 40 per cent of votes against President in West Virginia primary
Golden Dawn fascists are not just Greece's problem
Golden Dawn fascists are not just Greece's problem
Europe will turn to angry nationalisms unless an alternative to austerity is found.
It was an unwelcome echo of Europe’s past: as black-clad henchmen barked instructions at journalists, ejecting those who refused to show “respect” by standing up, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, the greying leader of Greece’s neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, hailed his party’s unprecedented entry into parliament. Waving his fists like a practiced demagogue, he threatened retribution “for those who betray this homeland”. Then came a promise: “The Europe of the nations returns. Greece is only the beginning.”
Europe will turn to angry nationalisms unless an alternative to austerity is found.
It was an unwelcome echo of Europe’s past: as black-clad henchmen barked instructions at journalists, ejecting those who refused to show “respect” by standing up, Nikolaos Michaloliakos, the greying leader of Greece’s neo-Nazi Golden Dawn, hailed his party’s unprecedented entry into parliament. Waving his fists like a practiced demagogue, he threatened retribution “for those who betray this homeland”. Then came a promise: “The Europe of the nations returns. Greece is only the beginning.”
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
The global fight to end capital punishment
The global fight to end capital punishment
The death penalty is a shameful legacy of colonialism – now British lawyers are fighting to abolish it around the world by representing condemned prisoners in court
"If we needed to hang someone tomorrow," Martin Martinez, Trinidad and Tobago's commissioner of prisons, says, grinning wolfishly, "we would grease up the gallows and buy some new rope." Death by hanging is the penalty for anyone convicted of murder in Trinidad and Tobago, although no one has been executed here since 1999.
The death penalty is a shameful legacy of colonialism – now British lawyers are fighting to abolish it around the world by representing condemned prisoners in court
"If we needed to hang someone tomorrow," Martin Martinez, Trinidad and Tobago's commissioner of prisons, says, grinning wolfishly, "we would grease up the gallows and buy some new rope." Death by hanging is the penalty for anyone convicted of murder in Trinidad and Tobago, although no one has been executed here since 1999.
Former death row Briton given new jail sentence
Former death row Briton given new jail sentence
Ken Richey given three-year term for threatening judge who prosecuted in original trial that led to 21 years in Ohio prison
Ken Richey, who was on death row in Ohio for 21 years before release in 2008 under a plea deal, has been given another three-year term for threatening the original judge. Photograph: JD Pooley/AP
A Scottish man released from prison after spending two decades on Ohio's death row is heading back to prison.
Ken Richey was sentenced on Monday to three years for threatening a judge who prosecuted his original case.
Richey pleaded guilty to a felony retaliation charge last month. He admitted he had been drinking heavily before he left a threatening phone message from his Mississippi home last New Year's Eve.
Richey was on death row for 21 years after being convicted of starting a fire that killed a two-year-old girl in 1986.
A US court determined his lawyers mishandled the case, and he was set free in 2008 under a plea deal.
Ken Richey given three-year term for threatening judge who prosecuted in original trial that led to 21 years in Ohio prison
A Scottish man released from prison after spending two decades on Ohio's death row is heading back to prison.
Ken Richey was sentenced on Monday to three years for threatening a judge who prosecuted his original case.
Richey pleaded guilty to a felony retaliation charge last month. He admitted he had been drinking heavily before he left a threatening phone message from his Mississippi home last New Year's Eve.
Richey was on death row for 21 years after being convicted of starting a fire that killed a two-year-old girl in 1986.
A US court determined his lawyers mishandled the case, and he was set free in 2008 under a plea deal.
Sunday, May 06, 2012
It makes you proud to be British...I don't think!
It makes you proud to be British...I don't think!
Revealed: how Britain tried to legitimise Batang Kali massacre
Diplomats introduced 'licence to kill' law over killing of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaysia, according to secret documents
In Cold Blood- the truth of Batang Kali massacre
Summary of the documentary "In Cold Blood" by BBC.
Revealed: how Britain tried to legitimise Batang Kali massacre
Diplomats introduced 'licence to kill' law over killing of 24 unarmed villagers in Malaysia, according to secret documents
In Cold Blood- the truth of Batang Kali massacre
Summary of the documentary "In Cold Blood" by BBC.
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Theresa May takes a leaf out of Abu Qatada's book!
Theresa May takes a leaf out of Abu Qatada's book!
Remember all the big fuss Theresa May made when she decided not to appeal to the Grand Chamber in the Abu Qatada case? Perhaps, she thought it would be easier to deport him without going down this avenue. In any event, Abu Qatada's lawyer's decided that they would launch an appeal to the Grand Chamber. This move upset Theresa May who had thought she had secured a victory and she screamed "foul!". She ranted and raved claiming that Abu Qatada launched his appeal out of time. His lawyers, supported by the Court, state that the appeal was launched within the time limit.
Following the revelations at the Leveson Inquiry which led to calls for Jeremy Hunt to resign, David Cameron, the Prime Minister; George Osborne, the Chancellor; Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister; Vince Cable, the Business Secretary; Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary; Michael Gove, the Education Secretary; Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary and Theresa May, the Home Secretary all decided that they wanted to see other witnesses written statements beforehand. As core participants they are entitled to this privilege. However,"a deadline for witnesses to apply for core participant status for the next part of the inquiry expired more than a month ago"!
Incredibly, the judge allowed this way out of time appeal. There is a stink of hypocrisy coming from Theresa May who was alleging that Abu Qatada was a day late with his appeal application, but she is happy for herself to launch a month late appeal!
Remember all the big fuss Theresa May made when she decided not to appeal to the Grand Chamber in the Abu Qatada case? Perhaps, she thought it would be easier to deport him without going down this avenue. In any event, Abu Qatada's lawyer's decided that they would launch an appeal to the Grand Chamber. This move upset Theresa May who had thought she had secured a victory and she screamed "foul!". She ranted and raved claiming that Abu Qatada launched his appeal out of time. His lawyers, supported by the Court, state that the appeal was launched within the time limit.
Following the revelations at the Leveson Inquiry which led to calls for Jeremy Hunt to resign, David Cameron, the Prime Minister; George Osborne, the Chancellor; Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister; Vince Cable, the Business Secretary; Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary; Michael Gove, the Education Secretary; Kenneth Clarke, the Justice Secretary and Theresa May, the Home Secretary all decided that they wanted to see other witnesses written statements beforehand. As core participants they are entitled to this privilege. However,"a deadline for witnesses to apply for core participant status for the next part of the inquiry expired more than a month ago"!
Incredibly, the judge allowed this way out of time appeal. There is a stink of hypocrisy coming from Theresa May who was alleging that Abu Qatada was a day late with his appeal application, but she is happy for herself to launch a month late appeal!
Friday, May 04, 2012
Ed Miliband and David Cameron respond to local election results
Ed Miliband and David Cameron respond to local election results
Liverpool jail operated 'unofficial punishment wing', inspection reveals
Liverpool jail operated 'unofficial punishment wing', inspection reveals
Report found that some of those in the unit were vulnerable inmates at risk of suicide
An "unofficial" punishment wing that fails to meet minimum prison service standards has been operating at Liverpool jail, the chief inspector of prisons has disclosed in a report on Friday.
Report found that some of those in the unit were vulnerable inmates at risk of suicide
An "unofficial" punishment wing that fails to meet minimum prison service standards has been operating at Liverpool jail, the chief inspector of prisons has disclosed in a report on Friday.
Ken Clarke tells high street firms to train and employ prisoners
Ken Clarke tells high street firms to train and employ prisoners
Former prisoners can make honest and highly motivated employees, Ken Clarke has said as he encouraged high street firms to take on ex-offenders.
The Justice Secretary also claimed that businesses can benefit from giving training and work to convicts, while also helping to pay for the running costs of their jails.
Former prisoners can make honest and highly motivated employees, Ken Clarke has said as he encouraged high street firms to take on ex-offenders.
The Justice Secretary also claimed that businesses can benefit from giving training and work to convicts, while also helping to pay for the running costs of their jails.
2020VISION: Britain's most ambitious nature photography project - week 6
2020VISION: Britain's most ambitious nature photography project - week 6
2O2OVISION is the most ambitious nature photography initiative ever staged in Britain. It aims to establish in the public mind the crucial link between people's wellbeing and a wilder UK - to show that healthy ecosystems are not optional, but are something fundamental to us all. As such 20 of Britain's top nature and wildlife photographers have come together to document some of our country's ecosystems.
Close-up of a grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) holding a nut in Regent's Park, London. Did you know? Grey squirrels are in danger of being overrun by black squirrels, just like they did to the native red squirrel population.
Picture: Bertie Gregory/2020VISION / Rex Features
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Childkiller McCanns celebrate 5 years evading Justice for Madeleine!
Childkiller McCanns celebrate 5 years evading Justice for Madeleine!
There is no cause for celebration that 5 years ago today Madeleine McCann disappeared. Kate and Gerry McCann are celebrating the fact that they have thus far escaped justice. In all probability Kate killed Madeleine and Gerry disposed of her body. Then the pair left the twins out of sight, sound and mind whilst they hatched up the abduction theory with their drinking buddies in the tapas bar.
There is no cause for celebration that 5 years ago today Madeleine McCann disappeared. Kate and Gerry McCann are celebrating the fact that they have thus far escaped justice. In all probability Kate killed Madeleine and Gerry disposed of her body. Then the pair left the twins out of sight, sound and mind whilst they hatched up the abduction theory with their drinking buddies in the tapas bar.
Abu Qatada appeal hearing due next Wednesday
Abu Qatada appeal hearing due next Wednesday
Panel of five human rights judges will meet in Strasbourg to rule on whether radical cleric's 11th-hour appeal was lodged in time
European human rights judges will decide next Wednesday whether Abu Qatada's appeal against his deportation from Britain should be allowed to go ahead.
A panel of five judges will meet in Strasbourg on 9 May to decide whether the al-Qaida linked cleric's 11th-hour appeal was lodged in time and should be heard by the European court of human rights grand chamber.
A Council of Europe spokesman said, however, that while they are to consider the issue of whether the appeal application was out of time, it would not necessarily mean that a final decision would be announced next week.
Panel of five human rights judges will meet in Strasbourg to rule on whether radical cleric's 11th-hour appeal was lodged in time
A panel of five judges will meet in Strasbourg on 9 May to decide whether the al-Qaida linked cleric's 11th-hour appeal was lodged in time and should be heard by the European court of human rights grand chamber.
A Council of Europe spokesman said, however, that while they are to consider the issue of whether the appeal application was out of time, it would not necessarily mean that a final decision would be announced next week.
Wednesday, May 02, 2012
Tuesday, May 01, 2012
Claims of torture in Jordan throw May’s Qatada strategy into doubt
Claims of torture in Jordan throw May’s Qatada strategy into doubt
Critics dispute credibility of regime’s assurances after allegations of sexual humiliation
Critics dispute credibility of regime’s assurances after allegations of sexual humiliation
Failed attempts to deport Qatada have cost nearly £1million
Failed attempts to deport Qatada have cost nearly £1million
Repeated failed attempts to deport radical cleric Abu Qatada have cost nearly £1million in legal fees, the Government confirmed.
Immigration Minister Damian Green admitted the bill since 2002 has reached £825,000 and is set to continue to grow.
Home Secretary Theresa May has come in for intense criticism over her handling of the case after confusion over an appeal deadline means Qatada could be released on bail within weeks.
Mr Green said the tally related to legal fees incurred by the Government in trying to return the cleric to Jordan.
No figures were given for how much Qatada, described by a judge as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, has received in legal aid over that period.
The Legal Services Commission (LSC), which runs the legal aid scheme in England and Wales, confirmed last week the 51-year-old has been receiving public money to fund his appeals.
Qatada was arrested by officers from the UK Border Agency (UKBA) on the morning of Tuesday April 17, just hours after the Home Office said the time for any appeal was up.
But Qatada's lawyers claim their appeal to the Strasbourg-based court, made at 11pm local time (10pm BST) on April 17, was just before the midnight deadline.
A panel of judges at the human rights court will now decide whether the appeal was in time or not. If the deadline had expired, the judges have no discretion to allow the appeal to be considered by the court's Grand Chamber.
Mr Green said: “Since 2002 the legal fees incurred by the Government to deport Abu Qatada are around £825,000. The case is ongoing and so further costs are likely to be incurred.”
PA
Repeated failed attempts to deport radical cleric Abu Qatada have cost nearly £1million in legal fees, the Government confirmed.
Immigration Minister Damian Green admitted the bill since 2002 has reached £825,000 and is set to continue to grow.
Home Secretary Theresa May has come in for intense criticism over her handling of the case after confusion over an appeal deadline means Qatada could be released on bail within weeks.
Mr Green said the tally related to legal fees incurred by the Government in trying to return the cleric to Jordan.
No figures were given for how much Qatada, described by a judge as Osama bin Laden's right-hand man, has received in legal aid over that period.
The Legal Services Commission (LSC), which runs the legal aid scheme in England and Wales, confirmed last week the 51-year-old has been receiving public money to fund his appeals.
Qatada was arrested by officers from the UK Border Agency (UKBA) on the morning of Tuesday April 17, just hours after the Home Office said the time for any appeal was up.
But Qatada's lawyers claim their appeal to the Strasbourg-based court, made at 11pm local time (10pm BST) on April 17, was just before the midnight deadline.
A panel of judges at the human rights court will now decide whether the appeal was in time or not. If the deadline had expired, the judges have no discretion to allow the appeal to be considered by the court's Grand Chamber.
Mr Green said: “Since 2002 the legal fees incurred by the Government to deport Abu Qatada are around £825,000. The case is ongoing and so further costs are likely to be incurred.”
PA