Jailhouselawyer's Blog

More determination is needed to make human rights real

2012-02-01T16:23:00.000Z

More determination is needed to make human rights real

Strasbourg, 26/1/2012 – “Europe must move with more determination from rhetoric to enforcement of human rights standards” stated the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights, Thomas Hammarberg, when presenting today the last annual report of his mandate.

The report identifies fields in which stronger political action is required. One concern is the justice system which is dysfunctional in several member states. “Corruption, political interference and lack of resources erode the independence and credibility of the judiciary. Strengthening the rule of law is essential to rebuild public confidence in the justice system.”

The Commissioner also regrets the increased pressure on the media, which hamper their independence and pluralism. “In a number of European states media freedom is undermined through criminalisation of defamation; law-induced censorship; intimidation, harassment and even murder of journalists. These factors have a detrimental effect on our democracies.”

Persons with disabilities remain largely excluded from key sectors of life, including access to adequate and humane health care, decent work and housing, public places, transportation, quality education and sometimes even civil rights, such as the right to vote. “The needs of persons with disabilities are still given low priority in state and municipality budgets. More recognition, protection and social inclusion should be ensured for them.”

Roma people still live in abject misery and suffer alienation in many European countries. “Urgent measures must be taken to ensure more humane housing conditions for Roma families, access to quality education and foster social inclusion. It is crucial to guarantee that all Roma, in particular children, have personal identity documents and are no longer treated as stateless. It is imperative to put an end to the wide-spread anti-Gypsyism, to which some politicians have also contributed.”

Marginalisation and stigmatisation deeply impinge on the everyday life of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) persons in some countries. “It is particularly important that opinion makers address these prejudices and take the lead in fighting discrimination against LGBT persons.”

The Commissioner observes that attitudes towards asylum-seekers and migrants have gradually become more negative. “Political leaders have all too often preferred to follow – rather than lead – public opinions, thus feeding xenophobic movements. Europe should adopt a more humane migration policy and asylum procedures based on human rights principles.”

Despite some progress in awareness and legal protection, discrimination against women persists in employment, education and political participation. Violence against women and children remains a scourge in Europe. “Taboos, ignorance and machismo still surround the issue of domestic violence, contributing to its persistence.”

Finally, the Commissioner stresses that the living conditions of older persons are a major concern. “The elderly have suffered, more than others, by the recent economic crisis and austerity budgets. I have seen signs of deep old-age poverty in several countries. A deeper discussion on the rights of older people is needed.”

Commissioner Hammarberg’s six-year mandate comes to an end next March 31. The newly elected Commissioner, Nils Muižnieks, will take up his functions on April 1.

I went, I saw and I was conquered

2012-02-01T10:33:00.000Z

I went, I saw and I was conquered

Bratza bemused by UK's disdain for Strasbourg

2012-01-31T21:17:00.001Z

Bratza bemused by UK's disdain for Strasbourg

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Surely the judges would continue to do so?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But Bratza clearly didn't understand the British media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dead Man Walking?

2012-01-31T20:15:00.000Z

Dead Man Walking?

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

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

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

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

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

Shrugs

2012-01-31T19:53:00.002Z

Shrugs

Hello,

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

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

Thank you for your understanding.

Regards,
The Blogger Team

Scottish prison service tried to gag me, says Tommy Sheridan

2012-01-31T12:48:00.000Z

Scottish prison service tried to gag me, says Tommy Sheridan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

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

2012-01-31T11:27:00.001Z

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

Lord Ashdown of Belize

Lord Ashdown originally made his £1.1bn fortune

"Sir,

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

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

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

Paddy

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

2012-01-31T10:20:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Coment:

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

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

Rate of deaths in custody is higher than officials admit

2012-01-31T09:56:00.000Z

Rate of deaths in custody is higher than officials admit

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

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

Comment:

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

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

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

Twitter to support dictatorship!

2012-01-30T20:46:00.002Z

Twitter to support dictatorship!

Evidence.

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

2012-01-30T20:00:00.001Z

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

Guest post by Alex Hilton

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

@alexhilton

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

2012-01-30T16:08:00.000Z

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

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

Source.

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

2012-01-30T14:01:00.000Z

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

Helen Wilson, Huffington Post, 30/1/2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-29T13:52:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Baby sleeping on dog

2012-01-29T10:55:00.001Z

Baby sleeping on dog

Hat-Tip to Prisoners Families Voices

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

2012-01-28T10:17:00.001Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pigasus

2012-01-28T10:07:00.000Z

Pigasus

The prison population is neither justifiable nor sustainable

2012-01-28T10:03:00.000Z

The prison population is neither justifiable nor sustainable

Juliet Lyon

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

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

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

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

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

Juliet Lyon is Director of the Prison Reform Trust

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

2012-01-28T10:00:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Timeline: A bad week for the prison service

Monday

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

Tuesday

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

Wednesday

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

Thursday

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

Friday

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

One last fling

2012-01-27T13:39:00.002Z

One last fling

Dear Caroline Lucas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you please help me achieve this?

Yours sincerely

John Hirst

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

2012-01-27T10:54:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

'Disturbing perception'

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cameron loses on prisoners votes

2012-01-27T10:41:00.000Z

Cameron loses on prisoners votes

Should the ECtHR listen to Cameron?

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

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

David Cameron Council of Europe

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

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

Autism can be detected in babies, say scientists

2012-01-27T10:37:00.000Z

Autism can be detected in babies, say scientists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2012-01-26T17:37:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

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

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

2012-01-26T14:34:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Podcast.

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

2012-01-26T13:08:00.001Z

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

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

EUROPE MUST STOP BULLYING BRITAIN ON HUMAN RIGHTS, SAYS CAMERON

By Macer Hall, Political Editor, Daily Express

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comment:

To follow...

The Sun writing lies again!

2012-01-26T12:39:00.000Z

The Sun writing lies again!

Court of Human frights

David Cameron's blast at Europe's daft judges

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barmy ECHR rulings

John Hirst

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

Abdi Sufi

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

Akindoyin Akinshipe

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

Sean Taylor Sabori

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

He moaned about "interference with private life".

Abu Qatada

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

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

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

Churchill's bid to beat fascism

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

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

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

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

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

The Big C?

2012-01-26T10:48:00.002Z

The Big C?

Yesterday afternoon I went for a chest X-Ray.

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

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

It could be lung cancer.

UPDATE:

I have to see a consultant next week.

My new blog The Condemned Cell.

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

2012-01-26T10:30:00.000Z

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ex Cleveland PC Sultan Alam awarded £400,000 damages

2012-01-26T10:15:00.000Z

Ex Cleveland PC Sultan Alam awarded £400,000 damages

A former Cleveland Police officer who was wrongfully sent to prison has been awarded almost £400,000 after an 18-year legal fight.

Former traffic officer Sultan Alam, 48, was jailed for 18 months in 1996 for conspiracy to steal car parts, but was cleared by the Court of Appeal in 2007.

Cleveland Police had admitted the malicious prosecution of Mr Alam, at Leeds County Court.

Judge Andrew Keyser QC said the force had tried to "destroy" his reputation.

Cleveland Police said it was "pleased" with the outcome.

As well as damages, Mr Alam will also receive compensation for loss of earnings which have yet to be calculated.

After being wrongfully jailed, Mr Alam was reinstated to Cleveland Police, but retired in 2009 on health grounds.

'Deliberate target'

The court heard how the officer, who served half of his prison sentence, was "stitchedup" by fellow officers as a result of industrial tribunal proceedings he launched in 1993, complaining of racial discrimination.

In 2003, four fellow officers involved in Mr Alam's original prosecution were charged with conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and other offences, but were acquitted.

In his judgement published on Wednesday, Judge Keyser said: "The claimant knew that he was not the unfortunate victim of an accidental miscarriage of justice but that he was the deliberate target of a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, the aim of which was to destroy his reputation and his career.

"That is not an incidental feature of this case but is at the heart of the harm suffered by the claimant.

"The award of aggravated damages reflects the fact that that downfall was deliberately brought about by the concerted action of police officers."

A Cleveland Police spokesperson said: "The events under investigation occurred many years ago and their impropriety was recognised by current senior management by the early admission of liability made on behalf of the present chief constable at the outset of this case.

"The award of compensation to Mr Alam now draws a line under this unfortunate matter. We wish Mr Alam well for the future."

Earlier this month after hearing he would receive damages, Mr Alam said: "I'm relieved it's over."

Comment: The Birmingham 6 were awarded £800,000 in compensation for 18 years, this man £4000,000 for 18 months...

Strasbourg is for all, Cameron warned

2012-01-26T10:02:00.000Z

Strasbourg is for all, Cameron warned

Senior Council of Europe official tells Guardian that UK's proposals for court reform could weaken ECtHR

David Cameron was questioned about his proposals for reforming the human rights court at a meeting immediately after his speech in Strasbourg with the senior official of the body that runs the court.

Thorbjørn Jagland, secretary general of the Council of Europe, told the Guardian that he had discussed the principle of subsidiarity with the prime minister.

Referring to this principle, Cameron had told the council's parliamentary assembly that the human rights court should not substitute its own judgment for that of "reasonable national processes".

The prime minister added that when an issue such as whether prisoners should be allowed to vote had been "subjected to proper, reasoned debate and has also met with detailed scrutiny by national courts in line with the [human rights] convention, the decision made at a national level should be treated with respect".

Jagland told the Guardian that it was very important to decide how subsidiarity should be defined.

"If you say that, in those countries that have applied the convention fully, the court should keep its hands off, this can be misused," he said. "It is very important to say that this court is for all."

In apparent disagreement with the UK's position, Jagland said it was for the court, not member states, to decide which countries had complied with the convention. Under the UK's proposals for limiting the number of cases brought before the court, an application would be declared inadmissible if it was "substantially the same" as a matter that had already been examined by a domestic court applying the human rights convention.

An exception would be made where the national court had "manifestly erred in its interpretation or application of the convention rights".

And there would be a further exception if the application raised a "serious question affecting interpretation or application of the convention".

Despite these exceptions, this change would lead to fewer adverse rulings for the UK. It appears that the secretary general is worried that it would also lead to fewer adverse rulings in cases brought against countries with more questionable records than the UK on human rights.

Under another UK proposal, there could be a "sunset clause" under which cases would be thrown out if they could not be decided within a time limit of one or two years.

But Jagland insisted that the right of individuals to take their case to the court should be safeguarded.

"Nothing should be done to undermine the right of individual petition," he said. Without that, the court would lose its power over member states.

Human rights: Cameron's message to Europe

2012-01-25T21:22:00.000Z

Human rights: Cameron's message to Europe

The European court of human rights is not all David Cameron has his sights on

Tory backbenchers hoping for sabre-rattling by David Cameron at Strasbourg on Wednesday, when he delivered his speech on reform of the European court of human rights, will have been disappointed. He was lavish in his praise for the successes of the 60-year-old European convention on human rights (ECHR) and gentle in his admonishments. The "physically ill" feeling that apparently afflicted him when contemplating the court's ruling against the UK's blanket ban on prisoners' voting seemed to have abated.

Who can disagree with the prime minister's view that the 50,000-plus backlog of pending cases is unsustainable? Certainly not the European court itself. A new regime was introduced only in June 2010 and there are signs that it is bearing fruit. The cause of the backlog was the enlargement of the council to 47 states following the collapse of the Berlin Wall. Six countries, including Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine, account for two-thirds of all applications, and about 60% are "repetitive cases" where past violations have not been rectified.

But oiling the wheels of the court so that it can more swiftly hear the cases of UK applicants is hardly what has been exercising Eurosceptic politicians calling for the UK to withdraw from the ECHR every day for the last 18 months. The "lively debate" about human rights in the UK that Cameron euphemistically referred to in his speech is in reality a toxic screaming match about the legitimacy of foreign judges – and often any judges – holding elected MPs and the government to account.

Cameron's offer to the court's critics is that "the national decision should hold" where an issue "has been subjected to proper, reasoned democratic debate", and scrutinised by national courts. What? Isn't that diplomatic language for keep your tanks off our lawn? Does that not nullify Winston Churchill's basic vision for the court, to hold states to account by a higher judicial authority upholding a European-wide set of values, inspired by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Cameron's reply is that countries that commit "the most serious violations of human rights" should still be dealt with by the Strasbourg court. But "in Britain we have gone through all reasonable national processes". Belief in human rights has "animated the British people for centuries". Do not these foreign judges realise that the European convention was for them, not us, he seemed to be straining to say.

So which of these UK cases validates the prime minister's claim that Strasbourg has been acting like a "small claims court"? When journalists were forced to reveal sources; when police could stop and search any of us without suspicion in a designated area; when innocent people's DNA was retained indefinitely; when a 15-year-old boy was flogged by police as corporal punishment; when social services failed to act on complaints of child abuse; when foreign terror suspects were detained indefinitely without charge or trial?

Cameron rightly emphasises that human rights begins at home. This principle is written into the very first article of the ECHR, which requires each state to secure the rights in the convention to "everyone in their jurisdiction". This is what the 1998 Human Rights Act was designed to do, bringing the UK in line with every other state in the Council of Europe. But Cameron claims in his speech that he is "investigating the case for a UK bill of rights", which would overturn the Human Rights Act, to "get better at implementing the convention at national level". Yet the reason he gave when announcing this policy last year was that decisions should be "made in this parliament rather than in the courts". It is not just the Strasbourg court that he has in his sights.

David Cameron's human rights court criticism premature, say campaigners

2012-01-25T20:40:00.000Z

David Cameron's human rights court criticism premature, say campaigners

Civil liberties groups say a better filtering system has already been introduced and is reducing the backlog

"It is worrying when states such as the UK try to narrow their accountability in relation to human rights protection. Not only does it reduce the protection of human rights in Europe, but it leads to a reduction in human rights protection across the world as other countries use that undermining of human rights protection as an excuse to do the same."

Cameron in Strasbourg

2012-01-25T15:25:00.000Z

Cameron in Strasbourg

The Strasbourg Court is still a cranks’ paradise

2012-01-25T09:01:00.000Z

The Strasbourg Court is still a cranks’ paradise

The European Court of Human Rights' corrosive effect on British justice was foreseen years ago – now we must fix it.

By Dominic Raab, 8:39PM GMT 24 Jan 2012

Today, David Cameron will make a speech in Strasbourg calling for “much-needed reform” of the European Court of Human Rights. Yesterday, Sir Nicolas Bratza, the president of the Court, got in first, dismissing criticisms of the institution as displaying the kind of ignorance “more frequently heard in the popular press”. Sir Nicolas effectively denied that there is any proper debate to be had at all. Such blind defence corrodes the currency of human rights.

Few question the list of fundamental freedoms in the European Convention. The problem lies with Strasbourg’s role. This was predicted by the Attlee government in 1950. The Foreign Office feared the court would become a “small paradise” for claims from “communists, crooks and cranks of every type”. The Lord Chancellor, Lord Jowitt, warned: “The real vice of the document… consists in its lack of precision. It completely passes the wit of man to guess what results would be arrived at by a tribunal composed of elected persons who need not even be lawyers.” As a consequence, Attlee signed up to the Convention, but not the Court. It was not until 1966 that Harold Wilson submitted Britain to Strasbourg’s jurisdiction.

The fears were borne out. Far from applying European Convention standards, the Court’s judges labelled the Convention a “living instrument”, and assumed the power to extend human rights into uncharted areas. Courts should interpret the law, but leave elected lawmakers to create it.

The Abu Qatada ruling marked the latest shifting of the goalposts. Although the terrorist suspect had failed three times to have his deportation blocked in British courts, Strasbourg decided that he might not receive a fair trial in Jordan. Putting aside the moral acrobatics of making Britain responsible for other countries’ justice systems, Strasbourg had never before upheld the “unfair trial” defence in regard to deportation. Not only does this undermine British security, it subverts our democracy that the Court is raising human rights standards, rather than simply applying them.

Sir Nicolas also complained that Britain has not complied with a 2005 ruling on prisoner voting. Yet there is no “right to vote” in the European Convention. The negotiating record from the time of its creation shows that UK officials deliberately excluded such a right, because they did not want to enfranchise “peers, felons and lunatics”.

So Strasbourg had invented a novel right. It has since gone further – the Court’s most recent rulings stipulate that the sanction of forfeiting the vote must have some link with a prisoner’s crime. That would result in 99 per cent of prisoners getting the vote. Far from a dispassionate application of the law, this is a naked political agenda to enfranchise all prisoners.

The Prime Minister’s leadership on Strasbourg reform is welcome. First, we need to strengthen quality control over the selection of judges – more than half had no prior judicial experience. Next, Strasbourg should focus on the most serious human rights abuses.

A filtering mechanism would prevent it from attacking the democratic will of Parliament or second-guessing cases that have gone through multiple domestic appeals. After all, what is the point of Britain having a Supreme Court if it doesn’t have the last word on the law of the land? The International Criminal Court offers an alternative model to Strasbourg. The ICC is a court of last resort, which only intervenes if a country’s justice system is unwilling or incapable of properly reviewing a claim.

These reforms will require patient diplomacy and take several years. In the meantime, rulings such as that on Abu Qatada, which create new law, should be subject to free votes in Parliament.

But we can’t blame everything on Europe. We have exacerbated the situation through British law, including the Human Rights Act (HRA). For example, the UK courts led the way in preventing deportation of foreign national criminals when it disrupts their family ties, under Article 8 of the Convention. No other country ties its hands in deporting foreign criminals as Britain does. Convicted drug dealers, robbers, rapists and killers have successfully frustrated deportation orders. In one case, a man who viciously raped his partner claimed the “right to family life” to trump his deportation order.

Not only does this undermine public protection, it also ends up eroding what Dinah Rose, QC, calls “roast beef” rights, steeped in Britain’s tradition of liberty. It was partly because of creeping restrictions on deportation that Labour introduced control orders and proposed ID cards and 90-day pre-charge detention. Seventy per cent of successful appeals by criminals against deportation are now on human rights grounds, with 61 per cent claiming under Article 8. Far from this being tabloid scaremongering, even the president of the Supreme Court admits British courts have gone too far. So what can be done?

The two parties in the Coalition have very different views on human rights, and so there is unlikely to be a consensus on a UK Bill of Rights to replace the HRA. But even within the parameters of the HRA, the Government could still amend the UK Borders Act 2007 to reverse the flow of spurious Article 8 challenges. To be effective, that would require an Act of Parliament, not just a change in regulations or guidance.

The Prime Minister is right to take up the mantle of human rights reform, both at home and abroad. And it means taking on the powerful vested interests in the human rights industry, right up to the president of the Strasbourg Court.

Dominic Raab is the MP for Esher and Walton, and a former international lawyer at the Foreign Office

Comment:

In February 2010 the Interlaken Conference took place and all 47 Member States of the Council of Europe reaffirmed their commitments to abide by the Convention and abide by the Court's judgments. On the agenda was the need to reform the Court, but also on the agenda was the requirement for reforms within some Member States which failed to abide by the Convention and Court decisions. It was agreed that sanctions should be applied to these rogue or pariah Member States to get them to toe the line. The Council of Europe cranked up the pressure upon the UK to deal with a failing State.

For years we were told that British justice is the best in the world. Then along came cases like the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Maguire 7 and Stephen Kisko, for example, and it turned out that British injustice was the best in the world! Luckily for victims like me suffering State abuse of our human rights we were and still are able to challenge the State in Strasbourg. The corrosive effect of British justice cannot be allowed to contaminate the higher standard of justice demanded in Europe. Even now the UK is tunneled visioned in relation to reform of the Court, whilst ignoring the reforms much needed in the UK. It means that certain elements in the UK are blind to the fact that their attitudes mean we are at least 60 years behind the rest of Europe in protecting human rights.

The UK signed up to the Convention but appeared to want to cherry pick when it came down to honouring its obligations under international law. As society moves forward so too does the Court and its interpretation of the Convention to meet modern standrds. But, it would appear that the UK is intent on living in the past and keep its memories of British Empire alive. The reality is the UK signed up to the idea of a United States of Europe and became 1/47th of that organisation. This entailed sacrificing to a degree sovereignty. The UK is part of a team and not a lone player. It also requires the UK to play by the rules or get red carded.

It is untrue of Dominic Raab to state that there is no right to vote in the European Convention. Clearly Article 3 of the First Protocol provides for this human right. This is what Hirst v UK (No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, established. The case showed that section 3 of the Representation of the Peoples Act 1983, which barred convicted prisoners from voting, was incompatible with the Convention. Why Dominic Raab persists with this untruth of his is a mystery given that he worked at the Foreign Office when the UK lost the Prisoners Votes Case and then lost its appeal to the Grand Chamber. The decision is final and the UK must amend domestic law to fully comply with Hirst No2. It is nonsense to claim that we did not sign up to free elections, although initially the UK had reservations about those Commonwealth countries where the British Empire still kept subdued. As time passed these countries threw off the yoke and gained independence from colonial Britain.

The Hirst case is clear, as Frodl v Austria illustrates, the Hirst test means that all convicted prisoners have the human right to vote, but this human right is not absolute and the Court stated that it may be restricted in cases of electoral fraud or where somebody has abused public office, for example, expenses fiddling MPs, because there is a direct link between crime and sanction. The Court has not moved the goalposts, rather because the UK has misinterpreted Hirst to suit its own political ends the Court reaffirmed the Hirst test in subsequent cases. As the UK decided to remain a failing State the Court laid down in Greens and MT v UK that the UK must comply and must do so within 6 months.

Strasbourg will resist the UK's attempts to pack the Court with judges who favour the UK's human rights abusing conduct. It will also resist changes to its higher standards to sink to the lower UK level. The UK must raise its standards or be forced to leave Europe altogether. It is no good William Hague claiming that the FCO has put human rights at the forefront of foreign policy, because Europe is pointing the finger and showing that the UK is failing to protect human rights at home. Instead of David Cameron laying down the law in Strasbourg and banging his drum about Sovereignty of Parliament, he will be informed that Sovereignty of Parliament is not recognised under European law because instead the Sovereignty of the People is. Even prisoners are human beings and Cameron has no right to govern as though prisoners are subhuman. All Europe demands from the UK is that human rights, democracy and rule of law prevails. Cameron will get a wake up call that sliding into a dictatorship is not acceptable in a modern Europe.

Prisoner John Massey denied a licence to say goodbye

2012-01-24T18:46:00.001Z

Prisoner John Massey denied a licence to say goodbye

Should penal system show some compassion for people such as lifer John Massey who breached his parole to care for dying relatives?

Eric Allison
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 January 2012 16.00 GMT

Imagine yourself in this scenario: you have been released on parole after serving 31 years for murder. You are sent to live in a bail hostel and ordered to comply with a strict 11pm curfew. Though technically free, you are aware that you could be recalled to prison at any moment, for a single minor breach of the terms of your licence.

Each day you travel to a hospital to visit your terminally ill father. One day, a doctor tells you your dad has only a short time to live. You want to remain by his side but your curfew is fast approaching. You call the hostel to plead for an extension but are told categorically this is out of the question.

What would your next move be? For one man this awful dilemma became a reality on 7 November 2007.

In 1976, John Massey, now 63, was sentenced to life for murdering a club bouncer after a drunken row. He was released in June 2007.

Before he was freed, Massey had been preparing for release for 18 months in an open prison in Derbyshire. Granted home leave, he was let out for five days every month to be at home with his family in London and visit his father in hospital. "I got myself a terrific job – shop fitting," he recalls. "For the first time in my life I was fully legal and it felt wonderful. All that changed when I got parole."

His sister had offered a home with her in north London, but the probation service insisted he live in a bail hostel in Streatham, south London, some distance from his family in Camden. He describes the hostel as dirty and with more rules than the open prison he had just left.

Massey complied with all the rules for several months until his father's imminent death forced him to choose between his family and his liberty. Although two doctors were prepared to verify that his father's death was near, his pleas for an extension of his curfew were rejected. He stayed with his dad, Jack, who died four days later. Without waiting for the funeral, Massey turned himself in to the police and was immediately recalled to prison.

Two and a half years after that breach, Massey thought he was on the verge of freedom again. He had been decategorised and sent to another open jail, Ford, in West Sussex, seen as a stepping stone back to society. Then in May 2010, his awful history almost repeated itself. He received news that his sister, Carol, was gravely ill. Massey asked if he could be granted release on temporary licence but was told he could not be trusted. He then pleaded for an escorted visit to the hospital but was again rebuffed.

"We haven't got the staff," he recalls being told. "In desperation, I walked out and went straight to the hospital – ironically, the same one where my dad had died." Massey did not leave Carol's bedside until she died two weeks later.

This time he didn't return to jail. He went to live with his 85-year-old mother in Camden and waited for the inevitable. Ten months later, it came: "I just waited for the knock on the door. When it came I was out back building a summer house extension. I wanted to do as much as possible for my mother before the police came."

From Pentonville prison, north London, Massey speaks candidly about the impact of his father's and sister's deaths, and his anger at an unfeeling system that has kept him locked up for fulfilling what he sees as his familial duties. He struggles to comprehend why he should remain behind bars for the crime of being a loving son and brother. "How are the public in danger of me?" he asks. "I did not commit any crime in the time I was free and my mother's neighbours know and respect me and say I was an asset to the community."

Massey admits that, since Carol's death, life in prison has been hard, yet he shudders at the thought of being absent at her deathbed: "The pain [of being inside] is excruciating at times but it is nothing compared to the agony I'd be feeling if I hadn't answered her call. I know I have done right, it feels right."

He concedes that this sort of honesty will do little to sell him as trustworthy to the parole board, within whose hands his future lies. He has had a meeting with his local board, but is not optimistic. "They wanted me to say sorry and promise not to breach my licence again. But how can I apologise for doing what seemed to be right?" He has yet to be told the date of the parole hearing that will decide his future.

The former chief inspector of prisons, Lord Ramsbotham, describes this as a very sad story, where common sense should have prevailed. "Of course, technically, Massey is in the wrong. But that's no excuse for clogging up an expensive system with people from whom the public do not seem to need to be protected," he says.

A spokesman for the Ministry of Justice says it cannot comment on individual prisoners. In March, there were 5,625 prisoners who had been recalled to jail for breaching the terms of their parole licence.

At 35 years and counting, Massey is one of Britain's longest-serving prisoners. Still a category B inmate, he nurtures hopes of freedom and using his joinery skills, but feels the system has forgotten him. "I was 26 when I first came to prison," he says, "I'm now 63 and fast running out of time to be any use to anyone."

• Additional research by Mischa Wilmers.

Comment: I know Johnny Massey and we spent some time together down the blocks, smoking ganga and listening to my radio blare out. A diamond geezer. He deserves a break.

John Massey (centre, with his parents) was refused permission to extend his parole curfew when his father was dying.

JHL human rights defender, Nick Clegg human rights abuser

2012-01-24T18:30:00.000Z

JHL human rights defender, Nick Clegg human rights abuser

Nick Clegg backs PM's drive to reform European court of human rights

Deputy PM tells cabinet the coalition is united behind campaign, ahead of David Cameron's speech to Council of Europe

By Nicholas Watt, chief political correspondent
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 24 January 2012 14.31 GMT

Nick Clegg told the cabinet defenders of human rights wanted to see the court working properly. Photograph: Peter Muhly/AFP/Getty Images

Nick Clegg has told the cabinet he wholeheartedly supports David Cameron's campaign to reform the European court of human rights, as the government dismissed criticism of the prime minister's plans.

In a 15-minute discussion at cabinet on the eve of a speech by Cameron to the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, Clegg said defenders of human rights should support the government as it seeks to tackle a backlog of 160,000 cases at the court.

The prime minister's spokesman said: "It [reform of the court] is very, very clearly the agenda of the coalition government. The deputy prime minister, when he spoke, was keen to make the point that the coalition is united behind this agenda. As he put it, if you are a defender of human rights then you want to see this court working properly."

Clegg was joined in the cabinet discussion by the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke; the foreign secretary, William Hague; the home secretary, Theresa May; and the attorney general, Dominic Grieve.

The discussion took place after Sir Nicolas Bratza, the British president of the court, criticised "senior British politicians" for pandering to tabloid newspapers over the court.

Cameron, who was angered last week by the court's decision to block the deportation of Abu Qatada to Jordan, is expected to use his speech in Strasbourg on Wednesday to call for a "filtering" system to prevent cases that are dealt with in a proper manner from being referred to the court. British ministers believe that the court should focus its work on member states of the Council of Europe such as Russia and Ukraine with less impressive track records on upholding human rights, rather than the likes of Britain, Germany and France.

In an article in the Independent, Bratza wrote: "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."

Downing Street dismissed Bratza's criticisms and said Cameron remained committed to reforming the court. Cameron will outline his plans in a speech to the winter session of the parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe. Britain currently holds the presidency of the council, the 47-member human rights watchdog set up after the second world war which oversees the court. Britain was a founding member.

The prime minister's spokesman said: "We clearly think there is a case for reforming the court. We have explained in the past where we think those reforms should come. If you have a court with a backlog of cases, which is running to 160,000, that in itself suggests there may be some need for reform and some greater prioritisation of cases.

"Clearly there are 47 countries involved here and in order to push through those reforms – we think they are sensible measures – we will have to get those countries to agree to that. That is what we are using our presidency to try and push."

The intervention by Clegg shows that Cameron has been careful to calibrate his reforms. The Liberal Democrats agreed in the coalition agreement to establish a commission to "investigate the creation of a British bill of rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European convention on human rights". The commission has been carefully balanced to include critics and defenders of the court that enforces the convention.

Comment:

The Prime Minister, David Cameron, is not interested in reform of the ECtHR, rather he seeks to curb its jurisdiction. Therefore for Nick Clegg to support this means he is as guilty as Cameron in relation to being a human rights abuser. Yes, that's right, the leader of the LibDems is a human rights abuser! This was not the case with Paddy Ashdown when he was leader, he was a human rights defender.

I am a Human Rights Defender, whereas Nick Clegg is a human rights abuser. If the government really sought to tackle the backlog of cases at the ECtHR, why has it ignored fully complying with Hirst v UK (No2) thereby sending 3,500 more prisoners cases to the ECtHR?

For the Court to work properly, me as a Human Rights Defender points out to the human rights abusing UK that not complying with the Court's judgments means it cannot work properly. Therefore, the UK needs to pull its weight and stop shirking its obligations under international law.

Sounds like a gathering of the clan or a war cabinet: "Clegg was joined in the cabinet discussion by the justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke; the foreign secretary, William Hague; the home secretary, Theresa May; and the attorney general, Dominic Grieve". All human rights abusers in one room! Damage limitation will not work so why are they wasting their time and taxpayers money trying?

If the UK had dealt with Hirst No2 in a proper manner instead of abdicating responsibility in the first place, my case need not have gone to Strasbourg. Since the UK has a less than impressive track record on human rights protection, the ECtHR is right to rule against the UK.

I want to hear Cameron and Clegg talking about the much needed reforms within the UK. In other words, tidy up your own backyard first!

Nicholas Twat needs to research his subject before putting pen to paper!

Teenage prisoner found hanging in cell

2012-01-24T16:41:00.000Z

Teenage prisoner found hanging in cell

Jake Hardy, 17, dies in hospital after he is found hanging during six-month sentence for affray and common assault

Jake Hardy was thought to be the subject of open suicide and self-harm document at Hindley young offenders' institution. Photograph: Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images

A 17-year-old prisoner has died after being found hanging in his cell, the Prison Service says.

Jake Hardy, who was serving six months' detention for affray and common assault, was found at Hindley young offenders' institution in Wigan on Friday and taken to hospital, where he died on Tuesday morning.

It is understood he was the subject of an open suicide and self-harm document.

A prison service spokeswoman said: "HMYOI Hindley prisoner Jake Hardy was found hanging in his cell at approximately 11.45pm on Friday 20 January.

"Staff attempted resuscitation, paramedics attended and he was taken to outside hospital but was pronounced dead at 8.05am on Tuesday 24 January.

"As with all deaths in custody, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) will conduct an investigation."

A PPO spokesman said: "The investigation will identify lessons to be learned to prevent similar deaths of young people.

"If failings are found, recommendations for improvements are made.

"The investigation will also assist HM coroner leading up to the inquest."

He went on: "The PPO will involve Jake Hardy's family in the investigation if they wish to be involved.

"The investigation will try to provide answers to family and friends about what happened."

Comment:

Why was such a vulnerable person in prison? Tragedy!

Europe's human rights judges have given Cameron the two-fingered salute

2012-01-24T15:18:00.000Z

Europe's human rights judges have given Cameron the two-fingered salute

By Jack Doyle, mailonline 24/1/2012

David Cameron travels to Strasbourg tomorrow to make a major speech on the future of the European Court of Human Rights.

It is a body which could end up having as much influence over the future of Mr Cameron’s premiership as the European Union - against which there are there are at least some signs of a bit of Downing Street resistance.

The speech will be a chance for the PM to make clear how he intends to reform the court and reel in the relentlessly interfering and meddling instincts of its judges.

Early indications are good: at the weekend we were told the changes he will propose will include radically slimming down the number of cases put before the court.

Currently the ECHR is overwhelmed with its caseload as thousands of applications sit on a shelf somewhere for years before they are even heard.

Reformers say it should consider fewer cases and focus its attentions on serious human rights abuses of the kind the post- WW2 framers of the European Convention on Human Rights would have understood.

Where judges are expanding the meaning of the convention with endless judicial legislation they should be reined in sharply.

MPs also say the court should have greater regard for what is known among lawyers as the ‘margin of appreciation’ – the acceptable differences between countries in their interpretation of human rights.

Other member states appear to have some sympathy with Britain’s reforming zeal, but it would appear the court’s judges are less sympathetic.

Writing in the Independent today, Britain’s own judge on the court, Nicholas Bratza - a man who has never held senior judicial office in this country - gave Mr Cameron the two fingered salute.

He flatly denied the charge of interference, and accused reformers of a ‘misunderstanding’ of the court’s history and of the law. In effect he’s denying the possibility that opponents of the court have legitimate concerns and views – no, they’re just stupid.

He attacks Britain for not giving prisoners the right to vote, saying that judgment has been used as a ‘springboard’ for sustained attacks on the courts.

He’s wrong, of course. What the Hirst judgment has done in fact is to galvanise opposition to the court around a ruling to which the British public are overwhelmingly opposed.

And the history of prisoner voting is clear – it was explicitly not written into the convention post-war to ensure inmates could not demand voting rights.

In fact, critics of the court are not short of ammunition, barely a month goes by without some further outrage. Last week the court decided Britain could not deport one of the world’s most dangerous terrorists Abu Qatada, back to Jordan.

Next week Qatada will go before a judge to demand bail. If, as seems likely, he is freed to return to his life on benefits, it will further harden public opinion against the court.

Another ruling on prisoner votes is also due in coming months, as are judgments on the extradition of Abu Hamza.

If they go against the government, the roar for reform, or even withdrawal from the court, will become deafening.

And there is little a bit of speechifying in Strasbourg can do to change that.

Comment:

Sir Nicholas Bratza is right to stick two fingers up to Cameron, The Sun, Daily Express, Daily Mail and Daily Telegraph.

Cameron's speech can hardly be called major. Cameron and the Tory party had a blackhole on policy in Europe before the last general election. Europe did not suffer from the same gap in knowledge. The ignoramus is to make a speech calling for a British led reform of the ECtHR. The Council of Europe has been reforming the Court for the past 10 years. It needs no lessons from a human rights abusing dictator. What Cameron is ignoring is that the Council of Europe is demanding reforms within the UK, so that the UK abides by the Convention and abides by the Court's decisions.

It has been obvious to me from the start that Cameron's premiership depends upon him forming a good relationship with the Council of Europe. Cameron made the mistake of trying to score political points off vulnerable prisoners who have no voice in Parliament by being denied the vote. Now its backfired on him. Cameron underestimated that the prisoners, victims under the HRA, have the support of the EU and UN, in addition to the support of the Council of Europe. Cameron failed to appreciate the power of the Interlaken process. The triangle of power seeks to tackle human rights abuse throughout Europe. Therefore, it does not appreciate that the UK is failing to protect human rights satisfactorily. As far as the EU, UN, and Council of Europe are concerned David Cameron is a human rights abusing dictator.

David Cameron does not have the power to reform the Court or curb the jurisdiction of the Court. Therefore, his speech is empty words. The UK is but 1/47th of the Council of Europe. It is very doubtful the UK will get any support for the proposals being advanced by David Cameron. For example, if Cameron was really interested in "slimming down the number of cases put before the court", he would have fully complied with Hirst v UK (No2), because there are now 3,500 more cases by prisoners before the Court!

Jack Doyle is lying when he states "What the Hirst judgment has done in fact is to galvanise opposition to the court around a ruling to which the British public are overwhelmingly opposed". The opposition has come from the gutter press, and those extreme right wing Tory backbenchers. As Labour's consultation proved 47% of the public were in favour of the full franchise for convicted prisoners, whereas as only 4 (not 4%) were in favour of Labours limited franchise based on 4 years or 12 months or under getting the vote.

This is Cameron's Waterloo, and he is sunk!

Mr Cameron must act the statesman in Strasbourg

2012-01-24T11:14:00.000Z

Mr Cameron must act the statesman in Strasbourg

Leading article, The Independent, 24/1/2012

It is not difficult to see why David Cameron might feel insecure about his party's right wing. The suspicions of hardliners about his brand of soft Conservatism have only grown since the general election, their disquiet fuelled by everything from immigration to gay marriage. That was before the Prime Minister used Britain's veto in Brussels, of course – a decision which undermined Britain's influence with our EU partners, but sent his stock soaring within the party. Now Mr Cameron is threatening another Europhobic move of equally staggering short-sightedness.

While arguably unnecessary, there is no reason the Prime Minister should not use his speech to the 47 nation Council of Europe in Strasbourg tomorrow to set out proposals for reform of the European Court of Human Rights, which the Council oversees. But the leaked suggestion that he may withdraw Britain from the ECHR altogether if his demands are not met is alarming. Threats are a wholly unconstructive approach to policy-making and, if carried out, would only add to Britain's growing isolation.

The trouble is that, much like using a veto in the EU, flaying the –unrelated– Strasbourg court offers the PM an opportunity to curry favour with his party and distract from trickier domestic issues. Never mind that no less a Conservative than Winston Churchill played a central role in creating the European Convention on Human Rights which the Strasbourg court enforces. Never mind the long list of civilising judgments on issues as diverse as hearsay evidence or the corporal punishment of minors. Never mind that the ECHR was crucial in establishing the rule of law in former Communist states. Such considerations do not count for much against Tory critics' claims that the court "meddles" in member countries' legal autonomy and is unduly tilted in favour of the rights of criminals and illegal immigrants. With Britain currently in the chair of the Council of Europe, Mr Cameron can present himself as a man of action making the most of a once-in-25 years opportunity.

There is, undeniably, scope for reform in the court. A backlog of more than 150,000 cases for example now exists. But reforms are already under way, and they are surely better developed with due consideration than forced through with menaces. It is also worth noting – as Sir Nicolas Bratza, the ECHR president, points out in this newspaper today – that Britain has lost only eight out of 955 applications to the court in the past 12 months, a proportion that hardly constitutes egregious meddling. To the avowedly anti, however, such details matter little. Last week's decision that the radical cleric Abu Qatada cannot be deported to Jordan is a case in point. The ruling was held up by many Tories as incontrovertible proof that the court goes against common sense. But the reality is more complex, as the parallel complaints of human rights groups that the decision was "one step forward, two steps back" suggest.

Once again, instead of acting the statesman, the Prime Minister is playing to the narrowest of galleries, putting internal party concerns ahead of the national interest. The value of the ECHR cannot be overstated. It sets the standard of legal protection, not just in Europe but across the world. Indeed, it is the upholder of precisely those democratic freedoms which Mr Cameron was willing to support at the point of a sword in Libya. That "human rights" is increasingly used as a derogatory term among traditionalist Tories is offensive. Rather than pandering to it, the Prime Minister should lead from the front.

Sir Nicolas rightly laments the spectacle of senior UK politicians "lending their voices to criticisms more frequently heard in the popular press". We would go even further. Mr Cameron should be ashamed of himself.