Civil society needs to say 'human rights abuse not in our name!'.

Civil society needs to say 'human rights abuse not in our name!'.

I've got an opinion, and this is my piece.

Prisoners are part of civil society. “According to Lord Wilberforce, a prisoner 'retains all civil rights which are not taken away expressly or by implication' (Raymond v Honey (1982)). Shaw LJ, states similarly in St Germain (No.1)(1979); 'Now the rights of the citizen, however circumscribed by a penal sentence or otherwise, must always be the concern of the courts unless their jurisdiction is clearly excluded by some statutory provision'” (PRT, 1988). And in Alexander v Home Office it was held that prisoners are a section of the public. When I referred these cases to a prison Governor in 1990, he replied “What are these rights, and where are they set down?”. A good question. As I was studying law at the time I thought I would look into this.

Strangeways Prison riot erupted and lasted for 23 days. When the prison authorities regained control of the prison, TV News showed the prison Governor raising the Prison Service flag. He said that all of the prisoners had now been returned to legal custody. I shouted at the TV that as none of the rioters had escaped they had not left legal custody in the first place! The Government responded by announcing an inquiry into the events and causes of the disturbances in various prisons. The Woolf Report concluded that there was a lack of justice in prisons. One of the factors being the absence of a grievance procedure.

A solicitor from the Humberside Law Centre gave me a copy of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). When I quoted it to lawyers I got frustrated when they said it was not binding in English law, and the courts only had to take it and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) decisions into account. Then Labour came into power and the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated most of the ECHR into domestic law. Alex Bailin QC, (Matrix Chambers) has said, if Hirst v UK (No2) is the yardstick then the HRA is toothless. The ECtHR has no enforcement powers and simply passes judgments to the Committee of Ministers to supervise execution of the judgments. There are 5 cases against the UK which the UK has not complied with in over 5 years! Today the Independent reports that the UK:

“is being urged to confront Russia over its human rights record today when it chairs a high-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Campaigners want the Government to persuade Europe’s leaders to invoke new “exceptional” measures against Russia for failing to comply with almost 200 critical rulings from the ECtHR”.

It has been claimed that there are 8,000 cases before the Committee of Ministers awaiting to be implemented by Member States of the Council of Europe. And that's the problem, 47 representatives of Member States, many of them are human rights violators, the guilty not wanting to point the finger at others in case it gets pointed back at them. This is a totally unsatisfactory state of affairs. So is the fact that there is no grievance procedure within the Council of Europe for any of the 800,000,000 citizens of Europe to air any grievance. There is a lack of justice in the system. The UK states that the remedy lies in Strasbourg, and the latter states that it is the Member States responsibility to abide by the ECHR and abide by the ECtHR decisions. This is political ping-pong! Human rights are too valuable to be entrusted to those too powerless to act, and those who fail to act such as the Committee of Ministers and failing States like the UK where the responsible Ministers act irresponsibly. The power vacuum should be filled by civil society. They are our human rights and we have a duty to protect them.

The Interlaken process was designed to sanction rogue or pariah States to get them to toe the line. It was adopted by the Council of Europe. The focus has been upon reform of the ECtHR and reforms needed in some Member States. The UK is focusing upon the former and largely ignoring the need to reform a failing State with structural problems and systemic failures. There is a need for reform starting with amendments to the Treaty of London 1949 (Statute of the Council of Europe), within the Council of Europe itself including the Committee of Ministers and Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the ECHR and ECtHR.

The HRA is not ECHR compliant. By not bringing the rights home in Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR, we have the situation whereby Parliament has the discretion to treat some people as subhuman and therefore not entitled to the minimum human rights listed in the ECHR, and they have no remedy before a national authority for their breach. The Act needs to be amended (alternatively a written constitution enacted) to state expressly that human rights are higher law. Obviously this lays to rest the doctrine of the Supremacy of Parliament. When there is a lack of parliamentary will for penal reforms, for example, sovereignty of the people should ensure that they do work for us rather than fill their own pockets and serve self interests. Giving prisoners the vote would provide an effective oversight of MPs and provide a check upon the criminal justice system. A reading of Hirst v UK (No2) shows that not only did Parliament abdicate responsibility but also the judges in the courts on the issue of prisoners votes. What example does this hypocrisy show to prisoners who are expected to take responsibility for their actions? What right does Parliament have to assume that prisoners are less eligible for human rights than other human beings? The ECtHR rejected the UK argument that prisoners had lost the moral authority to vote. Moral authority has never been a criterion for the franchise in this country. Upon what moral authority did MPs and Lords fiddle their expenses? In the Prisoners Votes Case the prisoners have the moral high ground, and the attacks upon the judgment come from the low moral ground. On this issue the prisoners are the law abiding and the public authorities are the law breakers.

Given that the Council of Europe does not have a monopoly upon wisdom, what about the inclusion of those wise men and women in civil society?

Who’s Afraid of Europe’s Human Rights Court?

Who’s Afraid of Europe’s Human Rights Court?

By James A. Goldston and Yonko Grozev

SOFIA – At a time when the ongoing European debt crisis is fracturing public faith in the continent’s political and economic institutions, one would expect Europe’s leaders to strengthen as many unifying symbols as they can. Instead, they have allowed one of the jewels of post-World War II European integration – the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) – to come under threat as well.

Unlike the Brussels-based European Union, long beleaguered by its democratic deficit, the Strasbourg-based ECHR is, if anything, too well loved. In 2011, more than 60,000 people sought its help – far more than can expect a reasoned decision. (By contrast, the United States Supreme Court receives roughly 10,000 petitions a year.)

To save the ECHR from this crushing burden, some member states have proposed changes that could weaken it, even if unintentionally. Those of us who passionately believe in the Court and its achievements must speak out now to persuade the protagonists of misguided reforms to reverse course. Instead, the ECHR’s 47 member states – with 800 million people – need to shoulder more responsibility to make the existing system work.

Launched in the aftermath of the Holocaust, the ECHR has become a potent symbol of Europe’s commitment to government by law, not force, by vindicating the rights to life, humane treatment, free expression, and access to a lawyer. For example, the Court ruled that the infamous “five techniques” – an early form of “enhanced interrogation” employed by the British in Northern Ireland in the 1970’s – constituted inhuman treatment, and condemned racial segregation of Roma children in Czech schools.

Because of their quality, the ECHR’s opinions have a profound impact beyond Europe. When Strasbourg speaks, the world’s judges and lawyers listen. Even the US Supreme Court cited its reasoning when striking down anti-homosexuality laws in Texas in 2003.

Nonetheless, the ECHR’s future is in serious jeopardy. As the only impartial check on abuse of power in some countries, the Court is swamped with complaints – more than 60% come from Russia, Turkey, Italy, Romania, and Ukraine.

Some argue that the answer to the flood of cases is to limit the Court’s powers. But that approach seems unwise.

British Prime Minister David Cameron, for example, has told the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe that national decisions “should be treated with respect” – code for less judicial oversight. Similarly, other senior officials have called for new restrictions on cases that the ECHR may hear, including deferral to those national courts which have supposedly taken full account of European human-rights law.

In the United Kingdom, the Court’s 2005 ruling against a blanket withdrawal of voting rights for prisoners, on the grounds that disenfranchisement can be disproportionate to the offense, provoked official wrath. And, earlier this year, the Cameron government was incensed by a decision that barred the deportation of an Islamic preacher to Jordan on terrorism charges, because his trial there might be tainted by evidence obtained under torture.

Even under new rules, such cases might still come before the Court, because they raise fundamental questions that require interpretation of the European Convention. Indeed, there is no evidence that proposed Convention amendments aimed at limiting the court’s authority would reduce its caseload. But they send a dangerous message that some governments should be exempt from standards that apply to everyone else.

Reducing the flow of complaints depends, above all, on governments doing more to entrench the rule of law at home – even if they must be pushed and shamed into it. Authoritative and binding Court judgments, many of which require governments to compensate victims, are among the most effective tools for constructive pressure – and may well provide better value in promoting the rule of law than the millions of euros invested annually in technical assistance and training in the erring states.

In addition, legislative reforms enacted in 2010 must be given time and resources to work. All agree that the ECHR is making progress in reducing the backlog of pending applications.

More can be done. The Court can increase the number of “pilot judgments” concerning systemic harm, prescribe more specific measures of redress, and stiffen monetary awards where repeated violations reflect persistent failure to heed prior judgments. The Committee of Ministers, which oversees implementation, should issue public sanctions where appropriate. And states must take more seriously their obligations to remedy violations before cases reach Strasbourg.

To be sure, no court gets every decision right, or pleases all parties. But even democratic governments sometimes make big mistakes. Some political leaders seem too preoccupied with their own disagreements with individual decisions to see the larger interest in preserving a European institution that commands widespread admiration.

The next two months will be telling. The UK, which currently holds the rotating Council of Europe Chair, has announced that it will seek adoption by April of a ministerial declaration on Court reform. Though a draft is now circulating in national capitals, the role of civil-society groups remains unclear. It is crucial that those who have the greatest stake in the ECHR – Europe’s people – participate meaningfully in these discussions.

In a time of financial constraint, the Court’s judges issue more than 1,000 rulings annually, many of great importance, for less than the cost of the EU’s publications budget. A half-century after its birth, the ECHR provides an invaluable public good, not just for Europeans, but for all people concerned with human rights anywhere. In the coming weeks, Europe’s governments will be measured by their commitment to the preservation of this vital global resource.

Exchange of views of National Implementation

Exchange of views of National Implementation

Implementation of the Convention at the national level has been a key theme of the reform process, being reflected in the declarations adopted at Interlaken and Izmir. The draft Brighton Declaration also reiterates States Parties’ collective commitment to fully implement the Convention.

As a further demonstration of this commitment, it is proposed to hold an exchange of views during the Brighton Conference on practical measures to promote better implementation of the Convention. This exchange of views is scheduled to take place on the afternoon of Thursday 19 April.

Participants are encouraged to draw upon their national experience to identify measures that have proved useful in promoting better implementation of the Convention; to identify further steps that might usefully be taken in this regard; and to indicate the considerations that they regard as of particular importance in ensuring the fullest possible implementation of the Convention.

In doing so, participants may wish to consider how the Convention can be implemented more effectively by the different aspects of the State, and in particular the executive, legislature and judiciary. Questions that participants may wish to address include:

What practical steps can national executives take to ensure that officials working for the State are aware of, and act upon, the State’s obligations under the Convention; and how can they ensure that policies and administrative practices reflect those obligations fully?

What role do national parliaments have to play in implementing the Convention at a national level; in particular how can they best ensure that the Convention is fully taken into account in the legislative process; and what role should national parliaments have in overseeing implementation of the Convention by the executive?

How should national courts give effect to the Convention when adjudicating cases before them; what procedures are desirable to enable courts to do this?

Britain urged to confront Russia over human rights

Britain urged to confront Russia over human rights

Britain is being urged to confront Russia over its human rights record today when it chairs a high-level conference on the future of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).

Campaigners want the Government to persuade Europe’s leaders to invoke new “exceptional” measures against Russia for failing to comply with almost 200 critical rulings from the ECHR.

However, Britain risks igniting a diplomatic storm if it adopts an aggressive stance while international efforts to garner Moscow’s support for a Syrian peace plan hang in the balance.

David Cameron and other senior Tory ministers have criticised the ECHR for meddling in Britain’s domestic affairs, suggesting that the court should concentrate on serious human rights abuses in countries like Russia.

But the ECHR has found Russian security forces culpable of multiple abuses in at least 180 separate cases arising from unlawful killings, abductions, secret detention, torture, ill-treatment and destruction of property perpetrated in Chechnya and other republics in the North Caucasus region.

A systematic failure by Russian authorities to adequately investigate the crimes has been a feature of almost all the cases ruled on by the ECHR since 2005. The Russian authorities have failed to hold anyone to account for the crimes leading to allegations by the United Nations of “widespread impunity” for perpetrators of human rights violations in the region.

The Committee of Ministers - the 27 EU foreign ministers responsible for monitoring compliance with ECHR judgements – could use new “infringement proceedings” for the first time which has the potential to embarrass the Russians by refocusing international attention on its ‘dirty’ internal conflict.

On Monday Britain has a unique opportunity to push for this as it chairs the conference in Brighton as part of its six month stint as head of the Committee of Foreign Ministers. The ECHR has made it clear that it has done as much as it can and that it is now down to political leaders to confront over its disregard of the court.

Lord Frank Judd, the Labour peer and former rapporteur on Chechnya, last night said Europe's feeble response to Russia's human rights record mounted to “wanton irresponsibility as its actions continued to incite terrorism and extremism in the region”. This comes amid warnings by MI5 that Moscow controlled assassins are operating in the UK.

Professor Philip Leach from the European Human Rights Advocacy Centre at London Metropolitan University said: “The ECHR has played an absolutely vital role in holding Russia to account, which no other international body has been able to do… Taking up infringement proceedings against Russia would signal that governments are serious about tackling grave human rights abuses on the European continent. Not to do so would call into question the effectiveness of the human rights machinery in Europe.”

Human rights experts want the Committee of Ministers to specifically refer the Russian military’s “indiscriminate” aerial and arterial bombardment of the village of Katyr-Yurt in February 2000 back to the ECHR. The bombings that led to dozens of unarmed, civilian men, women and children being killed during the three-day “disproportionate” military attack, have been ruled on twice by the ECHR, yet still the Russian authorities refuse to properly investigate.

In 2005, in the case of Isayeva, the court ruled that the Russian armed forces planned the attack by enticing the rebel fighters from Grozny into Katyr-Yurt, but failed to warn the villagers. The Isayeva family were attacked by aerial bomb while trying to escape through an apparent “humanitarian corridor”. The court found that the death of Isayeva’s son and three nieces as a result of FAB-250 bombs fired by two SU-25 military planes, violated Article 2, the right to life, including the right to a subsequent adequate investigation, and Article 13, the right to effective remedy.

Five years later, in a case brought by 29 of the villagers, including Marusya Abuyeva (pictured), involving 24 deaths during the same attack, the court said that Russia had “manifestly disregarded the specific findings of a binding judgment” in failing to carry out an effective investigation in response to the Isayeva judgment.

In an unprecedented move, the judges ruled that it was now up to the Council of Ministers, rather than Russia, to address what authorities should do in practical terms to comply with the judgment, which must include a “new, independent investigation”.

Tanya Lokshina from Human Rights Watch in Moscow said: “Russia submits regular reports to the Committee of Ministers on the alleged progress with implementation of ECHR judgement, however, this cooperation appears to be largely perfunctory.

“The Committee is possibly reluctant to invoke infringement proceeding because making Russia a test case is quite a challenge. There may fear that the invocation of infringement proceedings may result in Russia becoming even less cooperation on implementation issues.”

An FCO spokeswoman said: “Russia’s continued non-implementation of ECHR judgements relating to violations in the North Caucasus remains of concern. We have called and will continue to call for Russia to fully implement vital judgements, including pressing on individual cases through the Council of Europe’s Committee of Ministers.”

Comment: It would be hypocritical of the UK to confront Russia over non compliance of ECtHR judgments when the UK has failed to comply with 5 ECtHR judgments (including the Prisoners Votes Case) for over 5 years.

The journalist has erred with "The Committee of Ministers - the 27 EU foreign ministers responsible for monitoring compliance with ECHR judgements". Of course it has nothing to do with the EU, the 47 Foreign Ministers being part of the Council of Europe!

Muslim terrorist Lord Ahmed puts £10M bounty on the heads of Presidents Bush and Obama

Muslim terrorist Lord Ahmed puts £10M bounty on the heads of Presidents Bush and Obama

Lord Ahmed has repaid the Establishment for not charging him with causing a death by dangerous driving and giving him a lenient prison sentence (which was cut even further upon appeal), by announcing that he will pay £10M for the heads of ex-President George W Bush and President Obama.

“If the US can announce a reward of $10 million for the captor of Hafiz Saeed, I can announce a bounty of 10 million pounds on President Obama and his predecessor George Bush,” Lord Nazir said.

The Labour party has responded by suspending Lord Ahmed from the Labour party. So far there have been no calls for Lord Ahmed to be extradited to the US to face charges for terrorist related offences.

Prison break Taliban-style: hundreds escape jail in Pakistan

Prison break Taliban-style: hundreds escape jail in Pakistan

Death row prisoners escape after brazen, two-hour raid by heavily-armed militants

Militants in Pakistan carried out a brazen strike against the security forces in the early hours of yesterday morning – launching a two-hour long attack on a jail and releasing almost 400 inmates.

The authorities were last night trying to trace at least 380 prisoners, among them many militants, who fled after dozens of Taliban fighters carried out a sustained attack on the jail in the town on Bannu, close to Pakistan's North Waziristan tribal area.

Despite the duration of the attack, the prison guards apparently received no back-up from the military.

"We have freed hundreds of our comrades in Bannu in this attack. Several of our people have reached their destinations, others are on their way," a Taliban spokesman told Reuters.

Reports said that anywhere up to 100 fighters were involved in the attack that began sometime before dawn, and were equipped with automatic weapons and rocket-propelled grenades.

Having breached the walls of the jail, the militants apparently made their way to the section where prisoners who are on death row were held.

Their priority appears to have been securing the release of Adnan Rashid, who was in jail for his role in a failed assassination against former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf.

For up to two hours the militants fought with the jail's guards before setting part of the jail on fire and releasing the inmates. Officials said 20 of those who escaped were considered particularly dangerous.

The incident will be a painful reminder of the enduring power and threat of the militants after a number of operations against them by the Pakistani military since 2007. The country's authorities have been repeatedly pressured by the US to do more to take on the Taliban and its al-Qa'ida allies, especially those involved in cross-border attacks inside Afghanistan.

The results have been mixed and the Pakistani military has shown little appetite to confront militants who are not a threat to the state.

Imtiaz Gul, an author and head of the Centre for Research and Security Studies, an Islamabad-based think-tank, said the incident was a huge embarrassment that demanded a full investigation. He said it appeared that the militants had received inside information about the location of their jailed colleagues.

"This is unprecedented in the history of Pakistan. It's a huge embarrassment for the entire security apparatus," he said. "Militants always have the element of surprise on their side. But this also shows the lack of communication between the civilian and military bodies. This went on for two hours and the army or paramilitaries should have had time to get there."

Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails to go on hunger strike

Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails to go on hunger strike

Around 1,600 prisoners expected to take part in protest against imprisonment without charge and solitary confinement

Hundreds of Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails are expected to embark on hunger strikes this week to draw attention to imprisonment without charge and solitary confinement. They will build on a protest that has resulted in deals to release two inmates who refused food for prolonged periods.

At least 11 prisoners are already on hunger strike, three of whom have been transferred to hospital. One began refusing fluids last week, increasing concern about the rate of deterioration of his health.

A wave of hunger strikes is planned to begin on or around Prisoners' Day on Tuesday, held under the slogan: "We will live in dignity." About 1,600 prisoners have agreed to take part in the protest, according to Palestinian prisons minister Issa Qaraqi. "The situation inside Israeli prisons has become very dangerous and serious," he was quoted as saying.

There are around 4,600 Palestinians held in Israeli prisons, according to the prisoners' rights group Addameer. More than 300 are held under "administrative detention", meaning they and their lawyers are not informed of accusations or evidence against them, no trial is held, and their term of imprisonment is determined by an Israeli military judge.

Of the 11 prisoners currently on hunger strike, two have refused food for 46 days. Bilal Diab, 27, who has been held under administrative detention since last August, has also refused fluids either orally or intravenously since 8 April, and has lost consciousness a number of times, according to Physicians for Human Rights.

PHR has urged the Israeli authorities to grant Diab's request to be transferred to a civilian hospital and has cited World Medical Association advice that "the body is unable to survive without liquids for more than a few days, and in most cases a hunger striker will die during the first week".

Thae'r Halahi, 34, has been held in administrative detention for 22 months, plus for five separate previous periods of between three months and one year. His condition was described as stable but commensurate with a prolonged period without food.

Khadar Adnan, the first prisoner to begin a hunger strike in the current wave, refused food for 66 days before agreeing to a deal that should see him released this week after four months in administrative detention.

Adnan, 33, was followed by a woman prisoner, Hana Shalabi, who was released and deported to Gaza after 43 days on hunger strike. Her family home is in the village of Burqin, near Jenin, in the north West Bank.

She considered herself "not deported but freed to Gaza", where she had never been before, she told the Guardian. "It's a victory for me." But she acknowledged that she had come under pressure from the Israeli authorities to accept the deal and end her protest, amid fears that her life was in danger.

Hunger strikes were, she said, "a good and effective tool, and the only way prisoners can achieve something". She is still suffering from weakness and swollen legs since ending her protest, and is under medical supervision. "Physically it was hard, but morally I was high," she said.

Shalabi, 30, had previously been held for 25 months under administrative detention, but was freed in October under the prisoner exchange deal struck by Israel to secure the release of the captured soldier Gilad Shalit. She was re-arrested on 16 February.

She denied being an activist with Islamic Jihad. However, the faction had rented an apartment in Gaza City for her, in which a large Islamic Jihad poster was displayed on the wall. Her brother, Samir, who was killed in an exchange of fire with Israeli soldiers in 2005, had been convicted of Islamic Jihad activities.

Under the terms of the deal that ended her hunger strike, she must stay in Gaza for three years, after which she will be allowed to return to the West Bank unless she is found to have been involved with a banned organisation. "The Israelis also threatened me that if I took part in any political or military activity, then I could be targeted [for assassination]," she said.

Addameer described Shalabi's deportation as a "forced displacement". "We consider this a violation of the fourth Geneva convention," said Sahar Francis, director of Addameer. "We're happy she was released but not to be forced to live in Gaza. They have sent her from one prison to another big prison."

Shalabi agreed to the deal when physically and mentally weak and without access to independent lawyers, said both Addameer and Amnesty International. "The deal may amount to a forcible deportation given her medical condition and the denial of access to independent doctors and lawyers," said Ann Harrison of Amnesty.

Israeli government spokesman Ofir Gendelman said Shalabi was deported to Gaza "because she cannot pose from there a clear and present danger to the safety of the Israeli public … If Shalabi was to return to the West Bank, there is no doubt that she would return to her terrorist activities with the Islamic Jihad."

Since being released in October, she had planned attacks against Israeli citizens, he added.

Around one third of the 477 Palestinian prisoners released last October in the first stage of the Gilad Shalit deal were deported to Gaza, 17 for three years and 144 permanently. The Hamas government is now building a new neighbourhood south of Gaza City for them, and is also paying salaries to those not provided for by other factions.

Hamas has said that the only way to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners is by abducting Israeli soldiers to use as bargaining chips. "If the enemy has not learned, we are prepared to give them practical lessons," Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader in exile, told a conference in Qatar this month. "The only way to free prisoners is by exchanging them for [Israeli] prisoners and leaders."

Hamas leaders inside Gaza echoed the call for militants to step up efforts to seize Israeli soldiers.

Death row Scot Kenny Richey admits threatening judge

Death row Scot Kenny Richey admits threatening judge

A Scot who spent two decades on death row could be sent back to jail in America after admitting threatening a judge who prosecuted his original case.

Kenny Richey left a threatening message for the judge on New Year's Eve 2011.

He will be sentenced in Ohio in May and faces up to three years in prison.

Richey spent 21 years on death row after being convicted of starting a fire in which a toddler died. He returned to Scotland after being freed in 2008 but now lives in Mississippi.

The 47-year-old former marine, who was born to a Scottish mother and American father, was released under a plea bargain deal after a US federal court overturned his sentence.

In his latest court appearance, Richey agreed to plead guilty to a retaliation charge in exchange for prosecutors dropping a charge that he broke a protection order when he called the Putnam County courthouse in Ottawa on 31 December 2011.

Investigators said Richey was at his home in Tupelo, Mississippi, when he left the phone message for county judge Randall Basinger, warning that he was coming to get him.

Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Supervision of the execution of judgments and decisions of the European Court of Human Rights

Torture casts a ghastly shadow over our country’s reputation

Torture casts a ghastly shadow over our country’s reputation

Someone is not telling the truth on rendition – is it the secret service or the politicians?

By Peter Oborne, Daily Telegraph

Jack Straw: 'There simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop' Photo: Martin Pope

On December 13, 2005 Jack Straw, then foreign secretary, made an unusually clear and emphatic statement to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee. His words are so strong that it is worth quoting exactly what Mr Straw said at some length.

“Unless we all start to believe in conspiracy theories and that the officials are lying, that I am lying, that behind this there is some kind of secret state which is in league with some dark forces in the United States, and also let me say, we believe that Secretary Rice is lying, there simply is no truth in the claims that the United Kingdom has been involved in rendition full stop.”

After Mr Straw spoke out, further denials followed. Tony Blair insisted that Britain had never engaged in the practice. Mr Straw’s successor, David Miliband, was equally adamant. Sir John Scarlett, until recently head of the Secret Intelligence Service (and the official responsible for the notorious dossier of September 2002 which asserted that Saddam Hussein was capable of deploying weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes) was forthright. “Our officers are as committed to the values and the human rights values of liberal democracy as anybody else,” he said, adding that there was “no complicity in torture”.

These claims, from the most senior members of the British political and secret intelligence directorate, were very powerful. For a time they appeared convincing, if only because it seemed utterly improbable that the British prime minister and foreign secretary would lie about such an important matter.

But over the past few years this common front has collapsed. The evidence has become extremely strong that Britain has indeed been part of a conspiracy to transfer terrorist suspects around the globe to secret locations where we knew they would be tortured.

It is important to stress that British officers – unlike their free-wheeling CIA counterparts – were never directly involved. But they facilitated the journeys (on occasion making available the British territory of Diego Garcia as a stopover), and they seem to have supplied information to the torturers and suggested questions.

One of the best known of these cases concerns the Libyan revolutionary and (now) politician Abdulhakim Belhadj, whom I interviewed in his vast suite of rooms at the top of Tripoli’s Radisson Hotel last week, while making a film for Channel 4’s Unreported World.

Mr Belhadj was reluctant to talk about his experience of torture. It may have been painful for him to do so – the Channel 4 director/cameraman said that he could see clearly the terrible agonies the Libyan had suffered, seemingly courtesy of the British state, etched across his face as he spoke.

Furthermore Mr Belhadj told me that he did not want to look back, he wanted to build a new Libya, and he was grateful for the help David Cameron had offered in getting rid of Gaddafi. Reportedly, M16 is ready to pay a significant sum of hush money to Mr Belhadj, said to be £1 million, in order to prevent him taking them to court.

We only know the details of his case because of papers found after the fall of Gaddafi in the bombed-out offices of Moussa Koussa, Gaddafi’s intelligence chief. They included a letter allegedly from an MI6 officer, Mark (now Sir Mark) Allen congratulating Colonel Gaddafi’s government for the “safe arrival” of the “air cargo”. Sir Mark (who has not challenged the letter’s authenticity) apparently boasted of the British role: “It was the least we could do for you and for Libya.”

Mr Belhadj and his wife Fatima claim to have been abducted in Bangkok, where he was seeking a British visa, and then flown, most likely via Diego Garcia, to Tripoli. There Colonel Gaddafi gave Mr Belhadj, a very brave man who was one of the leading members of the Libyan opposition, the traditional Gaddafi welcome: he was held and tortured in Libya’s notorious Abu Salim prison for six years. Other members of the Libyan opposition – I met two of them during my stay in Tripoli – say they suffered the same fate. It is a story to make any patriotic Briton, conscious of our reputation for standing up for decency and the rule of law, weep with horror and shame.

So I apologised to Mr Belhadj, adding that I was unable to do so on behalf of our wretched government, but I could do so on behalf of the British people. He thanked me, adding that he had no quarrel with the British, only those who had been responsible for his maltreatment.

There is no question that the actions said to have been carried out against Mr Belhadj (and an unknown number of others) were against the law. The Criminal Justice Act 1988 makes it clear that carrying out or abetting torture, whether under British or foreign jurisdiction, is punishable by jail. Indeed, the maximal sentence is life imprisonment – as Jack Straw, who voted for it, ought to be aware.

If the claims concerning the treatment of Mr Belhadj stand up – and the evidence looks extremely strong – it is essential that those responsible should be prosecuted. Otherwise Britain will send the message to the world that we are prepared to sanction torture.

And here matters get complicated. On the one hand the Secret Intelligence Service is privately insisting that at all times it had ministerial authorisation for its actions. This points the finger very directly because the Intelligence Service Act of 1994 makes very clear that the “authorisation of acts outside the British Isles” can only be agreed at Cabinet level.

I guess that in practice that must mean either Jack Straw or Tony Blair himself – who met Gaddafi in his tent on March 24, 2004, just six days after the letter congratulating the Libyans on the “safe arrival” of Belhadj.

But both Mr Straw and Mr Blair have both made it publicly very plain that they have no knowledge of British complicity in torture. Their denials leave only two possibilities, both deeply shocking. The first is that the Secret Intelligence Service has gone rogue and has been operating a private policy of passing on terrorist suspects to be tortured at the hands of a foreign government, without the knowledge or approval of ministers.

The second is that the Blair government was carrying out a secret policy of collaboration with torture, and that Mr Straw was misleading Parliament when he told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee in December 2005 (roughly 18 months after the abduction of Abdulhakim Belhadj) that there was “no truth” in claims of British complicity.

Some people will take the view that none of this matters. I disagree. Britain stands for decency, fairness and the rule of law. Any involvement in torture is not simply wrong. It has handed a propaganda gift to dictators such as Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who use British or American barbarism as a debating tactic to distract attention from their own, far more dreadful violations of human rights.

One former SIS chief, Sir Richard Dearlove, noted in 2006 that the rendition issue had hampered the ability of Western spies to recruit moderate Muslims because they no longer regarded countries such as Britain as being on the right side of the argument. We need to rescue Britain’s reputation. And we can only do that by ending the lies and the cover-ups, by finding out who was responsible, and by making sure they are punished.

Did the ECtHR get it wrong in Abu Hamza judgment?

Did the ECtHR get it wrong in Abu Hamza judgment?

Imagine the wave of indignation that would be swamping the British media if European judges had ruled that Abu Hamza could not be extradited to the US.

A torture abusing country, the UK, intends to extradite innocent until proven guilty suspects to another torture abusing country, the US.

In 1979 the European Commission of Human Rights found the United Kingdom government guilty of using psychological torture on IRA political detainees in Northern Ireland.

Abu Hamza and co are destined for ADX Florence supermax prison: the Alcatraz of the Rockies. A serving prisoner speaks out.

Shain Duka, convicted of a terrorist plot to attack a US army base, recently described his time inside the ADX to the Guardian. "These are places to silence us. To keep you controlled. I consider the supermax as a psychological torture chamber. That's what it is," he said.

Perhaps the lawyers for the men should lodge an appeal to the Grand Chamber and argue that the Chamber did not take into account psychological torture?

Abu Hamza: Europe's judgment call

Abu Hamza: Europe's judgment call

Imagine the wave of indignation that would be swamping the British media if European judges had ruled that Abu Hamza could not be extradited

Editorial
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 10 April 2012 23.13 BST

Imagine the wave of indignation that would be swamping the British media if European judges had ruled that Abu Hamza could not be extradited to the US. In fact, no such imagination is needed, since the Sun jumped the gun anyway. Writing on the confident assumption that the Strasbourg judges would conform to the paper's caricature of them as liberal buffoons, the Sun called on Britain to defy the court and said Tory MPs had "finally lost patience" with it. One MP, Chris Heaton-Harris, told the paper: "We should tell [the court] to stick their judgment where political correctness doesn't shine – and send Hamza to the US to receive justice."

In fact the European court of human rights judgment authorised the UK government to extradite Hamza and up to four others to the US. This ruling matters for two reasons. The first is because it ought to shame the Sun and Mr Heaton-Harris for their populist prejudices – admittedly an unlikely possibility – or at least to cause them to reflect on why they called the case so wrong. The European court is certainly not beyond criticism, but Tuesday's judgment was a powerful practical corrective to the shameless assumption that judges, and the European court judges in particular, do not inhabit the real world. No one reading their judgment in the Hamza case, let alone taking the trouble to read their judgment two years ago at an earlier stage in the same process, has any justification for continuing to promote such a travesty of the truth.

The second reason is because of the substantive importance of what the judges actually said in their rulings. The court had previously had to decide whether Hamza and the others could rely on fair trials and proper treatment on remand in the US; and then – the subject of Tuesday's ruling – whether life sentences or detention in "supermax" high-security prisons there would breach their rights to protection against torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The judges' unanimous ruling was that these rights were not infringed in the American system.

This is not by any means a soft ruling. It is a tough one. American sentencing powers are very severe, American penal regimes even more so. US jurisdiction is contested in some of the cases. So is the ability of some of the accused to handle the regimes. These issues matter. But the US, in the court's words, has "a long history of respect of democracy, human rights and the rule of law". American sentencing and prison regimes, it added, were not out of proportion to the seriousness of the charges. Some were better than those in Europe. The human rights court is used to being accused of taking rights seriously – just as it should. This ruling is a reminder that it treats serious charges seriously too, which it also should.

Why has this policy not been implemented in relation to Hirst v UK (No2)?

Why has this policy not been implemented in relation to Hirst v UK (No2)?

European Court of Human Rights

Ian Paisley Jnr (North Antrim, DUP)

To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what his policy is on implementing decisions of the European Court of Human Rights applicable to the UK.

Jonathan Djanogly (Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (HM Courts Service and Legal Aid), Justice; Huntingdon, Conservative)

The UK is a party to the European Convention on Human Rights and is obliged to comply with judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) as a matter of international law. Article 46(1) of the Convention, states: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to abide by the final judgment of the Court in any case to which they are parties”.

High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights Brighton, United Kingdom, 18-20 April 2012 Programme and other practical information

High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights Brighton, United Kingdom, 18-20 April 2012 Programme and other practical information

High Level Conference on the Future of the European Court of Human Rights Brighton, United Kingdom, 18-20 ...

A ruling that confounds Strasbourg's critics

A ruling that confounds Strasbourg's critics

The decision proves the European Court does not always rule against UK interests

The sighs of relief in Westminster and Washington were almost audible yesterday, after European judges ruled that suspects cannot dodge extradition by claiming that life imprisonment in the US constitutes "inhuman and degrading" treatment. More important, however, is that the judgment gives the lie to claims that the European Court of Human Rights only ever rules against British interests, that it is a parody of justice offering legal escape clauses to criminals at the expense of common sense.

Even taken in isolation, the ECHR decision regarding the radical preacher Abu Hamza and four other alleged terrorists has much to recommend it. The alternative would not only have exposed the court to charges of hypocrisy, given the number of European prisons which compare unfavourably even with Colorado's dreaded ADX Florence. It would also have set a precedent rendering any attempt at extradition involving maximum-security detention almost impossible to expedite.

But the most striking aspect of the judgment on Mr Hamza et al is the comparison with the ruling on Abu Qatada earlier in the year. In January, the ECHR concluded that Mr Qatada could not be deported to Jordan because evidence extracted under torture might compromise his right to a fair trial. Arguably, that decision is also the right one. After all, defendants must surely be protected from allegations based on such unreliable evidence. And it is testament to the integrity of European institutions that the principle is not only enshrined in law, but is upheld even when it does not suit us.

It is also notable that the ECHR left rather more wriggle room in the Qatada case than its detractors acknowledge. Although the Home Secretary's efforts to broker a solution have so far proved fruitless, there is still sufficient room to manoeuvre that Mr Qatada's future residence in Britain is by no means secure.

For all that, the January ruling unleashed a torrent of abuse at the ECHR, with some Eurosceptic backbenchers even proposing that the UK suspend the European Convention on Human Rights altogether. It is to the Home Secretary's credit that she yesterday explicitly rejected suggestions that Britain might simply choose to ignore the rulings of the court. Meanwhile, the undeniable evidence that ECHR decisions are no foregone conclusion in favour of petitioners helps restore confidence in the court's authority.

What yesterday's ruling does not do is resolve the increasingly tangled wider issue of extradition. The disappointed father of Babar Ahmad, one of the suspects, responded with the claim that the Government is allowing British justice to be "subcontracted to the US". But the complex question as to where those accused of international crimes face trial is not a matter to be resolved by the ECHR alone.

It is, however, one that needs to be addressed. Neither are terrorist cases the only ones putting pressure on UK/US extradition rules. An independent, judge-led panel concluded only last October that the current treaty is not biased in favour of the US. But the perception of an imbalance remains, fuelled by campaigners on behalf of Christopher Tappin and Gary McKinnon, to name but two.

More than anything, it is incumbent on the Government to ensure that, in future, the wheels of justice do not grind quite so interminably slowly. Nearly five years have passed since Mr Hamza's first extradition hearing; Mr Ahmad has been held without charge for eight years; the case of another suspect, Adel Abdel Bary, has been running since 1999. ADX Florence may not be inhuman and degrading, but years in prison awaiting a decision on extradition most certainly are. Yesterday's ruling was an important step for the ECHR. But it leaves much for the British Government to do.

CIA wins fight to keep MPs in dark on rendition

CIA wins fight to keep MPs in dark on rendition

Court keeps UK role secret – as No 10 calls for police to question Labour ministers

American intelligence agencies including the CIA and the FBI have won a court ruling allowing them to withhold evidence from British MPs about suspected UK involvement in "extraordinary rendition" – the secret arrests and alleged torture of terror suspects.

A judge in Washington DC granted permission for key US intelligence bodies, including the highly sensitive National Security Agency, to exploit a loophole in US freedom of information legislation which bars the release of documentation to any body representing a foreign government.

Downing Street underlined the gravity of the torture claims yesterday when it urged police to interview former Labour ministers as part of an investigation into the alleged rendition and torture of a Libyan critic of Muammar Gaddafi. Jack Straw, who was Foreign Secretary at the time and is expected to be interviewed by detectives, denies any complicity in rendition – as have his successors at the Foreign Office. Whitehall officials have made clear that the intelligence services believe their operations "were in line with ministerially authorised government policy".

The CIA's court victory over British MPs came after the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Extraordinary Rendition – which comprises about 50 backbench MPs and peers – submitted a slew of information requests to US intelligence agencies as part of its investigations into the extent of British complicity in rendition and torture. The US agencies were trying to avoid official embarrassment on both sides of the Atlantic by using a narrow legal exemption to prevent the disclosure of critical papers, said Tony Lloyd, a Labour MP and the vice-chairman of the group. He called the judgment "disappointing".

The Americans' success in resisting the MPs' inquiries will fuel the controversy over the cover-up of the role said to have been played by British intelligence operatives in spiriting away fugitives and suspects with ministerial approval to secret jails and authoritarian regimes, in particular to Muammar Gaddafi's Libya.

Files discovered by The Independent last summer in the abandoned Tripoli offices of Gaddafi's intelligence chief showed a close working relationship with Britain. Claims also emerged this week that British agents initiated the extraordinary rendition of a Libyan couple, Fatima Bouchar and Abdelhakim Belhaj, to Tripoli, where they were imprisoned and, in the case of Mr Belhaj, allegedly tortured. A letter from Sir Mark Allen, then head of counter-terrorism at MI6, to Moussa Koussa, the head of Libyan intelligence, said: "The intelligence about Abu'Abd Allah [a nom de guerre for Mr Belhaj] was British."

MPs investigating the rendition scandal, led by Tory backbencher Andrew Tyrie, requested information in 2008 from America's spy agencies on 43 separate topics. These "focused on various aspects of the US and the UK's involvement in extraordinary rendition, secret detention, coercive interrogation of suspected terrorists and the sources of information about alleged terrorist plots", according to court documents.

The requests, drafted by Mr Tyrie's office, included details on the "identity, location and treatment" of detainees. Later, MPs also cited a statement from David Miliband when he was Foreign Secretary, in which he admitted that two rendition flights landed in 2002 on the island of Diego Garcia, the British territory in the Indian Ocean leased as an airbase to the Americans.

Initially, the FBI responded by providing some documents but then, along with bodies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Defence, refused any disclosure and cited a get-out clause in the US freedom of information law which exempts intelligence agencies from disclosing documents to any "non-domestic government entity" or its representatives.

More than two years after MPs submitted their case, a US judge sided with the intelligence agencies and said British parliamentarians were indeed representatives of a foreign government – despite the MPs arguing that they were independent legislators and not members of the executive or Government.

Mr Lloyd told The Independent: "It suggests this material is not really something that affects national security or intelligence, but is being withheld to prevent the embarrassment of officials."

Torture politics: No 10 accuses Labour

Downing Street yesterday urged police to interview former Labour ministers in the investigation into the 2004 rendition and torture of a Libyan critic of Muammar Gaddafi.

Abdelhakim Belhaj is suing the UK Government, security forces, and Sir Mark Allen, a former director at MI6. Jack Straw, who was Foreign Secretary, has denied any complicity in rendition – a denial repeated by later Foreign Office ministers, including David Miliband. The Prime Minister's official spokesman said yesterday police should pursue every angle, including what previous ministers knew about the alleged rendition, and when they learned it.

Asked if police should interview former ministers, he replied: "They need to follow the evidence wherever it takes them."

Asked if ministers should consent to be questioned, he said: "The police should follow the evidence wherever it takes them and they should be allowed to do that."

Nigel Morris

Guantánamo judge to rule on allowing al-Qaeda suspect to testify about CIA torture

Guantánamo judge to rule on allowing al-Qaeda suspect to testify about CIA torture

The US war crimes tribunal in Guantánamo Bay is to due to make a landmark ruling later today over whether to allow an alleged al-Qaeda mastermind to testify in public about his torture in secret CIA prisons set up after the September 11 attacks.

Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of orchestrating the bombing of the USS Cole off the coast of Yemen in 2000 that killed 17 US sailors, is hoping to speak publicly about his experiences of maltreatment, including simulated drowning and mock executions.

The tribunal’s decision, which comes during two days of pre-trial hearings in the al-Nashiri case, is being seen as a benchmark test of the transparency of America’s controversial military justice system.

Terror suspects can be extradited to US says European court

Terror suspects can be extradited to US says European court

Five terrorist suspects including radical preacher Abu Hamza can be extradited from the UK to America for trial, human rights judges ruled today.

The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg rejected the men's claims that they could face prison conditions and jail terms which would expose them to "torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment" in breach of the European human rights code.

The five include radical Muslim preacher Abu Hamza, currently serving a seven-year sentence in Britain for soliciting to murder and inciting racial hatred, and Babar Ahmad, a 36-year-old computer expert and alleged terrorism fundraiser who has been held in a UK prison without trial for nearly eight years.

Three others - Seyla Talha Ahsan, Adel Abdul Bary and Khaled Al-Fawwaz - can also be extradited, while the case of a sixth man, Haroon Rashid Aswat, was adjourned today until a further hearing.

Today's verdict declared that “detention conditions and length of sentences of five alleged terrorists would not amount to ill-treatment if they were extradited to the USA”.

The human rights judges emphasised that today's ruling only becomes final after three months, if there has been no further appeal.

Meanwhile, the judges said, “the court decided to continue its indication to the United Kingdom Government that the applicants should not be extradited until this judgment became final or until the case was referred to the Grand Chamber(of the Human Rights court)”.

PA

Jack Straw authorised unlawful rendition of heavily pregnant woman!

Jack Straw authorised unlawful rendition of heavily pregnant woman!

Special report: Rendition ordeal that raises new questions about secret trials

In 2004, Fatima Bouchar and her husband, Abdel Hakim Belhaj, were detained en route to the UK, and rendered to Libya. This is the story of their imprisonment, and the trail of evidence that reveals the involvement of the British government

BBC reports on Abdel Hakim Belhaj's rendition but censors report that his pregnant wife was also subjected to unlawful rendition!

UK government 'approved Abdel Hakim Belhaj's rendition'

Theresa May humiliated by judge over attempted deportation of Palestinian activist

Theresa May humiliated by judge over attempted deportation of Palestinian activist

A judge has strongly criticised Theresa May’s attempt to deport a Palestinian activist over fears that he would stir up race-hate violence, ruling that she was wrong about the danger he posed and that her decision was “entirely unnecessary”.

The Home Secretary was “misled” about a supposedly anti-Semitic poem written by Sheikh Raed Salah, took “irrelevant” matters into consideration and tried to ban him from Britain on the basis of a “few sentences” in an old sermon, it was said.

The judgment is a third humiliation for the Home Secretary in the case of the leader of the Islamic Movement in Israel, who was able to walk into this country despite being banned and who later won damages for being detained without being told why.

It also raises further doubts over the Government’s ability to deport those it considers dangerous extremists, coming just weeks before two notorious terror suspects, Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada, could be set free.

Sarah Colborne, director of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign, said: “By arresting, imprisoning and attempting to deport Sheikh Raed Salah on what the judge has determined as a 'misapprehension of the facts,' the British Government have acted in a shameful way.”

Mr Salah, 53, is an Israeli citizen and a prominent activist for an independent Palestine who has previously been jailed for spitting at a policeman and for funding banned charities. He has been accused in the House of Commons of having a “history of virulent anti-Semitism”.

Last June an exclusion order was made to stop him entering Britain for a series of meetings including one at Parliament, but he was able to walk through immigration at Heathrow Airport unchallenged.

It later emerged that officials had missed six opportunities to stop him, including sending details of his ban to the wrong terminal.

He went on to deliver a speech in Leicester before he was detained three days into his trip, after which the Home Secretary served a deportation notice on him, claiming his presence was “not conducive to the public good”.

But Mr Salah won bail three weeks later and the High Court later ruled that officials had not explained why he was being detained “in a language he could understand”, paving the way for him to win an estimated £5,000 compensation.

He has been on bail in London while challenging the deportation order and lost the first round in October when a First Tier Tribunal concluded that his "words and actions tend to be inflammatory, divisive, insulting and likely to foment tension and radicalism".

But in a judgment made public at the weekend, the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the Upper Immigration Tribunal ruled that his appeal “succeeds on all grounds”. He now intends to return to Israel.

The Vice-President of the chamber, Mark Ockelton, made several pointed comments about the strength of the evidence used by the Home Secretary to justify the ban and the deportation, saying she had “acted under a misapprehension in the facts”.

“Most importantly, she was misled as to the terms of the poem written by the appellant, a matter on which there is now no room for dispute.

“She took irrelevant factors into account in relation to the indictments and the Hamas conviction.”

The judge said the arguments used to constrain Mr Salah’s freedom of speech were “very weak” and were “not a fair portrayal” of his view or words.

The justification for banning him from Britain amounted to “a few sentences” in a sermon in February 2007 which “nobody seems to have regarded as harmful at the time”.

“There is no evidence that the danger perceived by the Secretary of State is perceived by any of the other countries where the appellant has been.”

He went on: “We have no difficulty in concluding that the Secretary of State’s decision has not been shown to be proportionate to the need to preserve community harmony or protect the United Kingdom from the dangers to which the policy refers.

“On the contrary, the position is that it appears to have been entirely unnecessary to achieve that purpose.”

The judge concluded that the deportation order had breached Mr Salah’s human right to freedom of expression (Article 10 of the convention) and, as it was based on the same material, that there was “no lawful basis” for the banning order.

A Home Office spokesman said: “We are very disappointed the Upper Tier Tribunal has reversed the decision of the First Tier and allowed Salah’s appeal.

“We are considering the detailed judgement and, if we can appeal, we will."

Theresa May and the Telegraph act out a farce

Theresa May and the Telegraph act out a farce

The farsical Daily Telegraph carries the following contradiction between the headline and subheading.

Judges ordered to end 'right to family life' farce.

Judges are to be ordered by ministers to end the “abuse” of human rights laws which allows foreign criminals to claim the right to a “family life” to avoid being deported.

I would be alarmed living in a so-called liberal democracy by this headline. Only in a dictatorship would the notion of judicial independence be attacked. However, the headline is belied by the subheading. Our judges have not been ordered to do anything at all. Rather, a Minister is attempting to usurp the jurisdiction of the courts by making rules which it is apparently being claimed can override primary legislation.

As a lawyer I can see that this scenario could be a Brian Rix farce taking part on a political stage and starring Catwoman Theresa May and hack Patrick Hennessy, Political Editor of the Telegraph.

Notice the use of inverted commas with 'right to family life'. Given that under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998, right to family life is a human right which the UK must abide by in international law I am puzzled by the use of the inverted commas. Perhaps the editor of the Telegraph has difficulty with English? More likely the Telegraph is questioning whether right to family life should be a human right at all. There is something hypocritical about the Telegraph's stance particularly when the so-called newspaper is only too happy to rely upon Article 10 of the ECHR which guarantees the human right to freedom of expression.

In relation to “abuse” the inverted commas are correct English because it is only an allegation that human rights laws are being abused as opposed to being used. As it stands any citizen within the UK is entitled to rely upon the human rights Articles in the ECHR. This is use and not abuse.

All members of the Judiciary have to swear an oath "I will do right by all manner of people, after the law and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will."

Foreign criminals come under "all manner of people". Any rules made by the Home Secretary which seek to exclude this category should get short measure by judges if they are part of the so-called independent Judiciary.

Whilst the Home Secretary has the power to make rules, the rules cannot limit either the ECHR or HRA. Any such rule which attempts to do so would be struck down upon judicial review.

It is farsical that the Sunday Telegraph claims such nonsense is a victory for the newspaper. It would be better if the newspaper stuck to reporting news rather than engaging itself in a farsical campaign ironically called “End the Human Rights Farce”.

It maybe recalled that in the Tory party manifesto it stated that if the Tories got a majority they would scrap the HRA. The electorate obviously did not support such a move. Personally, I am surprised that any Minister who is opposed to upholding the law is allowed to hold such an office. The Telegraph reports "Mrs May, who last year declared her personal preference was to scrap the Human Rights Act altogether". You would expect someone in her position to have more respect for the law.

Inside Keppel: finding freedom in a children's prison

Inside Keppel: finding freedom in a children's prison

The Guardian has been given exclusive access to a unit in West Yorkshire trying new ways to reach the most disturbed children

A child at the Keppel unit at Wetherby Young Offenders' Institute, West Yorkshire, with one of the racing pigeons. Photograph: Christopher Thomond for the Guardian

Visiting Keppel high-dependency unit, home to some of the most traumatised and damaged children in the UK, necessitates the navigation of a labyrinth.

After passing through a series of towering gates crested with razor-wire, a security check precedes a winding journey through the intimidating Wetherby Young Offenders Institution (YOI) in West Yorkshire. A former borstal, built in the 1950s, it is now home to almost 400 young men who, on sensing an outsider, crane through their cell windows to whistle and shout.

After such a buildup, arriving at the modern, small and self-contained Keppel unit on the farthest edge of the children's prison is a surprise.

Close enough to Wetherby racecourse to hear the thundering of hooves on race days, the low-rise block sits on rolling lawns where pet rabbits run free and ducks doze by a well-stocked fishing lake. By the pigeon coops on the far side of a football field, a cockerel crows over a brood of free-range chickens. Around the back of the unit, aviaries house 48 birds of prey.

From outside the unit, built on a former naval base and named after the 18th-century seafaring hero Augustus Keppel, could be mistaken for a holiday camp. Behind the facade lies a very different reality. Keppel is home to 48 boys, aged 15-17, who are capable of such extreme violence – against themselves and others – that the only way mainstream children's prisons could keep them safe was to contain them, locking them in cells, segregation units or secure hospitals.

The menagerie, instead of being a picturesque distraction, is a key part of the therapeutic programme that Keppel is developing. "We often introduce things simply because we have a gut instinct it will be a good idea," says Terry Wilson, manager of the unit. "Often it's pure speculation."

"Instinct" is a rare catalyst for change in the child custody system, where insistence on evidence-based approaches often stifles innovation. Giving the boys a chance to care for animals has been a masterstroke. There has not yet been a single instance of violence towards the creatures.

Before Paul, 16, came to Keppel, the only animals he had seen were rats that gnawed the furniture in the semi-derelict flat he called home. His upbringing revolved around abuse, chaos and trauma. Standing with other children by the lake, he explains why the fishing means to much to him. "When I catch a fish, I feel, you know … " he pauses and shuffles his feet in embarrassment. "I feel proud," he eventually mutters.

Sensing trouble, he slides his eyes towards the other boys. There's a moment when it could go either way. Then another boy blurts out: "I like watching the pigeons raising their chicks together. They're dead loving and caring. I'd not seen that before." His voice trails off. Then another child adds: "The eagles aren't pets: they're wild animals. You have to respect them. Caring for them gives me a sense of freedom."

Keppel is the government's first concerted attempt to get under the skin of these, the most disturbed children in England and Wales. The Guardian is the first newspaper to be allowed behind the scenes of their unconventionalattempt to achieve this.

Despite being stigmatised by the children in mainstream custody – Keppel children tell of how inmates of the YOI spit and shout insults if they get too near the fence – the unit is already being hailed as a leading light in youth justice. And not only by those with an investment in its success.

Dave has three months left of a four-year sentence for sex offences committed when he was 14. A lanky, pale young man, who taps and fidgets his way through the conversation, he considers himself "lucky" to have been sent to Keppel.

"What I did was horrible," he says. "Just thinking about the crimes I have committed is hard but it's only now that I am thinking about them. I've never done that before. That's taken me years and a lot of work.

"If I'd been in a normal YOI, I wouldn't have got this far. In those places, if someone looks at you, they want to kill you. If someone looks at you here, it's because they want to be your friend. It's nice, you know? It's decent. It gives me the space to start thinking about what I've done."

In the outside world YOIs – including Keppel – are controversial. "The Youth Justice Board is trying to put lipstick on a pig by introducing so-called enhanced units into prisons," Frances Crook, the chief executive of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said last week when it was announced that the number of beds in secure children's homes and training centres were to be cut to fund more units like Keppel.

Crook argues that child custody is not an effective rehabilitation strategy. YOIs are, she says, the "cheapest and most basic form of child custody". Their reoffending rate is about 75%.

Frances Done, chair of the YJB, rebuts Crook's accusation of cosmetic solutions. Keppel, she says, represents a genuine transformation in efforts to reform dangerous and damaged children: "It's not realistic to say we should keep all these children out of the prison system but the idea that we should not try to do the best we can for them, because the whole system of young people in custody is not entirely satisfactory, is wrong."

Keppel is certainly different to the mainstream children's prisons of which Crook is so critical. They can hold hundreds of children, with staff to child ratios of around one to 10. Keppel, in contrast, houses 48 children and has a staff ratio of one to 4.5.

Every young person has their own individual plan, reviewed at least once every two weeks. These care plans put a unique emphasis on offending behaviour, victim empathy and on intense engagement with specially trained staff and mental health teams.

It is too early to know whether the unit is working: the first evaluation is due in June. But 17-year-old Ben iknows Keppel is his last chance. "I never thought about my victims before but [after almost a year of intense therapy], now I do," he says. "Now I think about what it must have felt like to have someone do what I did to them."

"I feel really lucky to have come here. I've learned a lot. I never thought I had opportunities before, just committing crime and defending myself."

Due to be released in two weeks, Ben proudly says his local authority has sorted out a flat for him and a college place. "I'm going to walk out of Keppel with a smile on my face," he says, grinning from ear to ear. "I'm going to sort myself out."

Hearing this, Wilson shakes her head quietly. She looks deeply, profoundly sad. Later, in a side room, she explains why.

"Ben will be back here in a week," she predicts. "They haven't got him a flat. There's probably a room in a B&B somewhere but a boy that vulnerable can't fend for himself in a place like that. This is the first time he's trusted adults and felt respected. He's going to feel completely betrayed – and his anger against the world might be all the greater because of that."

She shakes her head and bites her lip. "I hate to say it, but I think he hasn't got a cat in hell's chance of not going straight back to the life he came from."

Wilson is devoted to her work at Keppel. It is, she says, the "best job I have ever had". She has been at the unit since its inception and is responsible for its innovative approach to rehabilitation. But she admits: "I get so much heartache knowing that almost all of these lads will be back. We have had a couple of brilliant successes but they are few and far between.

"We can deprogramme these lads, get them reading, writing, and get their health needs seen to. But if the structure is not there when they go back to their communities, they go back to square one.

"I'm not criticising the youth offending teams or probation," she adds quickly. "It's down to resources. Without resources, what chance do these kids have?"

Sara Snell, governor of the unit, agrees. "The paucity of provision out there for our children can mean they are just being set up to fail." Her voice trails away. "We have had one boy who took his own life after leaving our care."

In some ways, she says, Keppel is a victim of its own success. "We simply need more of these units across the country," says Snell. "We can be dealing with as many as 35 local authorities at any one time. It's hard supporting children who are coming from so far away. Just think of the number of voluntary organisations, housing groups, charities we need to liaise with."

The Ministry of Justice and the YJB know there is a paucity of help when children leave. Four resettlement consortiums are being piloted and there is talk of a "halfway house" to help the boys ease back into the community after release. Legislation going through parliament will force local authorties to foot the bill for custody of children for the first time, a tactic that is showing signs of focusing minds – and budgets – on preventing reoffending.

In the meantime, Wilson grabs at straws: "Though these lads come back time and again, what we do here isn't wasted because surely, there must be a benefit to being somewhere safe, if just for a short time, and to learn that not everybody is bad.

"I cling to the hope that something we do here registers the next time they're about to commit a crime. I can't say that I expect it to stop them committing a crime but perhaps," she says with painful honesty, "perhaps that crime won't be as bad as it might have been. Perhaps the violence they use will be less."

EU migrants with criminal convictions get jobs denied to British workers under new criminal records regime

EU migrants with criminal convictions get jobs denied to British workers under new criminal records regime

Migrants with criminal convictions will be able to get jobs denied to British workers under a new EU-wide criminal records regime being adopted this month.

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter

11:45AM BST 06 Apr 2012

British jobseekers with minor criminal convictions are being put at a disadvantage because of a new regime of criminal records checks Photo: PA

In Britain, even the most minor convictions for student pranks or breaches of the peace can come back to haunt jobseekers years later if they apply for positions as teachers, policemen or other “sensitive” roles.

But migrants from EU countries applying for the same jobs will be given a clean bill of health, even if they have similar convictions, because other countries either wipe the slate clean or do not keep records of low-level offences.

The problem also applies to British workers trying to get jobs in other EU countries.

Justice campaigners have described the situation as “scandalous” and have asked MEPs and the Home Office to address the issue as a matter of urgency.

The problem arose after Britain signed up to a trial of the European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS), a new system of sharing criminal records between EU member states which is being permanently adopted this month.

Britain’s rigorous Criminal Records Bureau regime means that even convictions classed as “spent” remain on file for life and can be thrown up during background checks by potential employers anywhere in the EU.

In stark contrast, countries such as Belgium and Germany routinely destroy after just three years records of convictions resulting in prison sentences of less than six months or fines of less than 500 euros.

Other EU countries have laws which prevent employers being told about spent or minor convictions, and in some countries, such as the Netherlands, fines of less than 100 euros for minor crimes are not treated as criminal convictions for the purposes of CRB checks.

As well as the disparity in the way records are kept, EU countries have wildly varying sentences for different offences. In Germany, someone who indecently assaults a child can be given a sentence of as little as six months, whereas in the UK the starting point is two years.

The pilot scheme began under Labour in 2006, when ACPO set up the UK Central Authority for the Exchange of Criminal Records.

Since then, several other EU members have set up similar bodies, and by last month the UK was able to share criminal records with Belgium, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovakia.

The remaining EU member states have to join the ECRIS scheme when it goes EU-wide this month.

A spokesman for the Liberal Democrats’ MEP group said: “We have been alerted to this and we are taking a growing interest in it.

“It’s something we need to look at very carefully because there is a concern that we end up discriminating against our own people.

“We have to find a way of avoiding inadvertently penalising British citizens by putting them at a disadvantage against other EU citizens when they are applying for jobs.”

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, has already promised to scale back access to CRB checks after the number carried out in 2011 came close to three million.

More than 2,000 councils, firms and even landlords’ groups are currently entitled to carry out CRB checks on jobseekers and potential tenants.

Under the ECRIS regime, requests for background checks between one member state and another are sent back with code numbers for different types of offence.

Critics say the system is over-simplified and means that a £10 fine for stealing a traffic cone as a student prank in the UK would come up as a conviction for theft, regardless of the seriousness of the offence.

The same offence in many other EU countries would not appear at all on an ECRIS check.

Nick Pickles, director of the civil liberties group Big Brother Watch, said: "The amount of information retained by the British police is hugely disproportionate compared to other European countries and this system will mean the serious flaws of the CRB system are exported to haunt British citizens wherever they may be in Europe.

"The huge amount of data held, often without any criminal conviction, has been a civil liberties concern for many years and yet the Home Office continue to fight to retain details of every minor misdemeanor indefinitely.

"Now British citizens are suffering for the hysteria of policies that have done little to protect the public while other Europeans are able to get on with their lives."

Human rights: ECtHR's integrity questioned and Draft Brighton Declaration amended

Human rights: ECtHR's integrity questioned and Draft Brighton Declaration amended

An appeasement approach in the European Court of Human Rights? By Helen Fenwick at the UK Constitutional Law Group blog questions the integrity of the ECtHR following the UK's corrupting influence.

Unfortunately is on Easter holiday until May therefore there is no way of knowing whether this latest development changes Helen Fenwick's conclusion.

Comment: I am still waiting for an explanation why the UK published its Draft Brighton Declaration to the other 46 Member States of the Council of Europe, and we in the UK had to rely upon a leaked report via a French newspaper?

Similarly, why do I have to rely upon a blog in the Netherlands to discover that there is a new version of the Draft Declaration? Unfortunately, Antoine Buyse fails to state where it was “discussed yesterday in Strasbourg” and to provide a link. http://echrblog.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/brighton-update-new-version-of-draft.html

The CoE UK Chairmanship website http://www.coe.int/web/coe-portal/event-files/chairmanship-committee-of-ministers/uk-november-2011-may-2012 constantly promises updates for information but then fails to deliver the goods “Preparations are underway and more information will be published here shortly”. http://www.coe.int/t/dgi/brighton-conference/default_en.asp

There is something absurd about a human rights violating nation holding the High-Level Conference, and seeking to restrict individual applications to the ECtHR and decide itself whether it has abused human rights. Member States are required to abide by ECtHR decisions which go against the Member State. For example. Hirst v UK (No2). As it stands at present, Member States are not bound by decisions against other Member States. For example, Scoppola v Italy. Why is the UK awaiting a decision against Italy to comply with a decision against the UK? It does not make sense. Therefore, why do we tolerate it?

Broadmoor: 'Fantastic' views but would people pay to visit?

Broadmoor: 'Fantastic' views but would people pay to visit?

In Oxford you can spend the night in a hotel that was a former prison, featuring high barred windows, converted cell rooms and prison walkways.

In Karosta Prison Hotel in Latvia, the former KGB jail advertises itself as "unfriendly, unheated, uncomfortable and open all year round".

Now, West London Mental Health NHS Trust hopes to interest a developer in taking on its old Victorian buildings at Broadmoor high-security psychiatric hospital, to create a hotel and housing.

The buildings at Crowthorne in Berkshire were declared "unfit for purpose" by the Commission For Healthcare Improvement in 2003.

The trust hopes the development of the buildings will fund a £250m redevelopment of the remaining facilities at the hospital.

The homes and hotel rooms would be just a few hundred metres away from the new psychiatric unit, but will be screened by trees and outside the high security perimeter.

Fresh air

The trust said it was "confident" a buyer could be found.

The Victorian Society, which originally had qualms about the plans, now supports the trust's decision after visiting the site in January.

Ian Dungavell, director of the society, said he was keen to protect the hospital's Grade II Victorian buildings, designed by prison architect Joshua Jebb.

"Over the years, the government has sold off a lot of old army bases and hospitals which just fell to pieces," he said.

"We don't want that to happen to Broadmoor. It has a lot of potential to be used for a hotel and housing".

One reason Broadmoor Hospital may be more suited to be converted to a hotel lies in the attitudes to mental illness when it was built.

When it opened in 1863 there were none of the drug treatments we are familiar with today.

Victorian patients enjoyed a regime of rest and occupational therapy, and were expected to benefit from fresh air, sunshine and spending time outdoors.

In the early years of Broadmoor, inmates formed a self-sufficient community with a farm, kitchen garden and sports fields.

"The views from Broadmoor are fantastic, across very nice landscape," said Dr Dungavell.

'Good location'

"The windows in the former Oxford prison are quite small, but those at Broadmoor seem to be bigger.

"It could be converted relatively easily.

"It's a good solid building, which has been well-maintained and is well-lit and well-ventilated."

Dr Dungavell said large buildings such as prisons and hospitals naturally lent themselves to use as hotels with some modifications.

Each hotel room in the A-wing of the Malmaison Hotel in Oxford has been converted from three adjoining prison cells, and features original iron cell doors and barred windows.

"Broadmoor has got a good location, not far from Heathrow, near to a golf course," added Dr Dungavell.

"Looking around I thought Broadmoor was much less noisy than your standard prison, so even though the hotel would be near the hospital, people wouldn't be affected by noise."

However, some may associate the name Broadmoor with some of the hospital's more infamous patients, including the "Yorkshire Ripper" Peter Sutcliffe.

Dr Dungavell admitted this aspect might make some hotel guests nervous.

"It has more potential for a hotel than we thought, but if you were strolling in the grounds on a light summer evening and you heard some sort of noise in the grounds, you might be scared," he said.

Catwoman Theresa May does she have 9 lies?

Catwoman Theresa May does she have 9 lies?

“Data like this has already helped lock away murderer Ian Huntley".

Anyone remember this whopper? Theresa May under fire over deportation cat claim.

Ian Huntley was not caught as a result of monitoring his web traffic, emails and phonecalls!

The UK and Reform of the European Court of Human Rights

The UK and Reform of the European Court of Human Rights

The UK and Reform of the European Court of Human Rights

Rats in a sack fighting as the ship sinks

Rats in a sack fighting as the ship sinks

Tory MPs round on Cameron and Osborne

Conservative MPs warn the Prime Minister he must make major changes in the way he runs his Government and his party to reconnect with voters and retain public confidence.

Source

The 1922 Committee has not come to terms with the fact that the Tory party did not win a majority at the last general election. Members resent the fact that some jobs for the boys have gone to the LibDems. When I hear the constant whine from the 1922 Committee members I am reminded of Yosser Hughes saying "gizza job I can do that".



Whilst David Cameron is talking about everything will be alright if the Tories win a majority at the next general election, meanwhile Ed Miliband is talking about this being a one term Parliament for the Tories...

Humber Bridge tolls reduced from today

Humber Bridge tolls reduced from today