David Cameron: Prisoners votes to blow up in his face?
According to the late Lord Bingham: "the law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights".
We have the Human Rights Act 1998. This requires the Executive, Parliament and Judiciary to abide by the statute.
David Cameron said: "It has to go. Abolish the Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights, which sets out rights and responsibilities".
Joshua Rozenberg writes: "In what may be seen as an attack from the grave on critics of the European convention within the current government, he [Bingham] demands to know which of the convention rights they would discard. "Would you rather live in a country in which these rights were not protected by law?" he asks sharply".
According to Lord Bingham: "the rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law".
Martin Kettle writes that Bingham recognised that whilst The Constitutional Reform Act refers to the rule of law it does not define what it means. Therefore the Judiciary must give it an interpretation. And when this happens, adds Kettle, "The constitutional and political potential of that moment is, to put it mildly, absolutely explosive".
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
Monday, September 12, 2011
Sunday, September 11, 2011
9/11 This day in history 10 years ago
9/11 This day in history 10 years ago
Where were you when 9/11 happened? I was busy saying my goodbyes at Rye Hill Prison, a closed Category B prison, and going through Reception for transfer to open prison for the first time. I arrived at Sudbury open prison and once through Reception went to my two man room and switched on the TV whilst I unpacked my property...
Where were you when 9/11 happened? I was busy saying my goodbyes at Rye Hill Prison, a closed Category B prison, and going through Reception for transfer to open prison for the first time. I arrived at Sudbury open prison and once through Reception went to my two man room and switched on the TV whilst I unpacked my property...
Saturday, September 10, 2011
No rights without Ministers acting responsibily
No rights without Ministers acting responsibily
The Commission on a Bill of Rights has provided an interim advice to the government:
"It is essential to ensure that the Member States and their national institutions – legislative, executive and judicial – assume their primary responsibility for securing the Convention rights and providing effective remedies for violations. Failure to put in place the necessary machinery for compliance should itself constitute a violation of the Convention".
Clearly when David Cameron stated that it makes him physically ill at the thought of prisoners getting the vote he was abdicating rather than assuming responsibility.
Under Labour the responsibility first rested with Charles Falconer and then Jack Straw, neither Minister assumed responsibility rather they abdicated responsibility.
Under the Coalition agreement responsibility which would have rested with Kenneth Clarke appears to have been transferred to the Cabinet Office and rests with Lord McNally.
The Tories have made a right song and dance about advocating no rights without responsibilities. That is,we the people should not have basic human rights unless we act in a manner which the Tories deem to be responsible. This concept is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is hypocritical of David Cameron to talk about people being responsible when I have exposed government Ministers acting without responsibility. As a consequence, we the people have no rights without Ministers acting responsibly.
Isn't it about time that Ministers started acting responsibly?
The Commission on a Bill of Rights has provided an interim advice to the government:
"It is essential to ensure that the Member States and their national institutions – legislative, executive and judicial – assume their primary responsibility for securing the Convention rights and providing effective remedies for violations. Failure to put in place the necessary machinery for compliance should itself constitute a violation of the Convention".
Clearly when David Cameron stated that it makes him physically ill at the thought of prisoners getting the vote he was abdicating rather than assuming responsibility.
Under Labour the responsibility first rested with Charles Falconer and then Jack Straw, neither Minister assumed responsibility rather they abdicated responsibility.
Under the Coalition agreement responsibility which would have rested with Kenneth Clarke appears to have been transferred to the Cabinet Office and rests with Lord McNally.
The Tories have made a right song and dance about advocating no rights without responsibilities. That is,we the people should not have basic human rights unless we act in a manner which the Tories deem to be responsible. This concept is contrary to the European Convention on Human Rights. It is hypocritical of David Cameron to talk about people being responsible when I have exposed government Ministers acting without responsibility. As a consequence, we the people have no rights without Ministers acting responsibly.
Isn't it about time that Ministers started acting responsibly?
Friday, September 09, 2011
David Cameron: You cannot be serious!
David Cameron: You cannot be serious!
The ball is out of your court in relation to Hirst v UK (No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, all that is required is for the UK to fully comply with the judgment.
It would be absurd if the rules allowed John McEnroe to overrule the umpire if he lost a game...
Reform of the European Court of Human Rights
8 September 2011
"Considering some form of ‘democratic override’ or dialogue; in order to recognise the legitimate role of Parliaments and the democratic process in all of the Member States. In states where there is a supreme court with powers to strike down legislation there is always some mechanism, usually requiring an enhanced majority or approval in more than one forum, whereby the democratic will can ultimately prevail over court decisions. Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one such power. Some believe that something equivalent should be considered within the Council of Europe and that fundamental reforms of the Strasbourg Court need to balance greater focus and efficiency on the one hand with greater democratic accountability on the other. The Interlaken Declaration called for a simpler procedure to amend Convention provisions of an organisational nature; an extension of that approach could be to empower other institutions of the Council of Europe to add qualifications to Convention rights. This could allow the effect of a Court decision to be overridden if such was the will of the Parliamentary Assembly or Committee of Ministers, or perhaps of both acting collectively. A variant of this approach might be a power in the Committee of Ministers to determine that a Court judgment should not be enforced if it considered that that course of action was desirable and justifiable in the light of a clear expression of opinion by the relevant Member State’s most senior democratic institution. Another variant could be a requirement in respect of proposed ground-breaking findings of violations for the Court first to consult the other Council of Europe institutions and for the Court to take a collective expression of opinion into account.
Those opposed to this concept argue that any possibility of override is fundamentally inconsistent with the Rule of Law inherent in the Convention system and with the concept of the Convention as a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. They ask how, if a right or freedom is fundamental, it can be right to allow any legislature, however democratic, to override it. They point, for example, to the fact that there are examples in history of discriminatory laws being passed by democratically elected assemblies. They note that the ECHR as a judicial body is an essential protection against majorities voting to discriminate against minorities.
For some members of the Commission, this area is a key issue and of sufficient importance that, in the view of one member at least, they would have wished to have added an additional principle to those mentioned as guiding the interim advice: namely that the democratic legitimacy of the Strasbourg Court should be better assured while at the same time ensuring its judicial independence. This is, however, a matter which the Commission has yet to discuss and address.
Others argue not that there should be a mechanism of democratic override but that the absence of any such override should act as a check on “activism” on the part of the Court. The jurisdiction of the Court should be defined in such a way as to require it to respect the proper role of democratic institutions in determining social and economic priorities, particularly those that involve allocation of financial and other resources. However, those who question the charge of judicial activism argue that there is no evidence that the Court can fairly be criticised for over-reach and that the Court in fact allows the State authorities a wide margin of appreciation or area of discretionary judgment based on the principle of subsidiarity. They point to the fact that UK courts are criticised in the same way when they interpret and apply the law in ways that create controversy, but that a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, which updates the law, is well established in the common law".
The ball is out of your court in relation to Hirst v UK (No2), the Prisoners Votes Case, all that is required is for the UK to fully comply with the judgment.
It would be absurd if the rules allowed John McEnroe to overrule the umpire if he lost a game...
Reform of the European Court of Human Rights
8 September 2011
"Considering some form of ‘democratic override’ or dialogue; in order to recognise the legitimate role of Parliaments and the democratic process in all of the Member States. In states where there is a supreme court with powers to strike down legislation there is always some mechanism, usually requiring an enhanced majority or approval in more than one forum, whereby the democratic will can ultimately prevail over court decisions. Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one such power. Some believe that something equivalent should be considered within the Council of Europe and that fundamental reforms of the Strasbourg Court need to balance greater focus and efficiency on the one hand with greater democratic accountability on the other. The Interlaken Declaration called for a simpler procedure to amend Convention provisions of an organisational nature; an extension of that approach could be to empower other institutions of the Council of Europe to add qualifications to Convention rights. This could allow the effect of a Court decision to be overridden if such was the will of the Parliamentary Assembly or Committee of Ministers, or perhaps of both acting collectively. A variant of this approach might be a power in the Committee of Ministers to determine that a Court judgment should not be enforced if it considered that that course of action was desirable and justifiable in the light of a clear expression of opinion by the relevant Member State’s most senior democratic institution. Another variant could be a requirement in respect of proposed ground-breaking findings of violations for the Court first to consult the other Council of Europe institutions and for the Court to take a collective expression of opinion into account.
Those opposed to this concept argue that any possibility of override is fundamentally inconsistent with the Rule of Law inherent in the Convention system and with the concept of the Convention as a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. They ask how, if a right or freedom is fundamental, it can be right to allow any legislature, however democratic, to override it. They point, for example, to the fact that there are examples in history of discriminatory laws being passed by democratically elected assemblies. They note that the ECHR as a judicial body is an essential protection against majorities voting to discriminate against minorities.
For some members of the Commission, this area is a key issue and of sufficient importance that, in the view of one member at least, they would have wished to have added an additional principle to those mentioned as guiding the interim advice: namely that the democratic legitimacy of the Strasbourg Court should be better assured while at the same time ensuring its judicial independence. This is, however, a matter which the Commission has yet to discuss and address.
Others argue not that there should be a mechanism of democratic override but that the absence of any such override should act as a check on “activism” on the part of the Court. The jurisdiction of the Court should be defined in such a way as to require it to respect the proper role of democratic institutions in determining social and economic priorities, particularly those that involve allocation of financial and other resources. However, those who question the charge of judicial activism argue that there is no evidence that the Court can fairly be criticised for over-reach and that the Court in fact allows the State authorities a wide margin of appreciation or area of discretionary judgment based on the principle of subsidiarity. They point to the fact that UK courts are criticised in the same way when they interpret and apply the law in ways that create controversy, but that a purposive approach to statutory interpretation, which updates the law, is well established in the common law".
Silly season at the Guardian?
Silly season at the Guardian?
Ministers 'could get powers to overrule European court of human rights'
A commission set up by the government to examine ECHR reforms has floated the idea of allowing ministers to strike out court rulings
The European court of human rights' could have its powers downgraded by handing ministers across the continent the right to strike down rulings under plans being examined by the British government.
A commission set up by the government to examine reforms to the Strasbourg-based ECHR has floated the idea of handing ministers and parliamentarians on the Council of Europe the right to override rulings of the court.
The suggestion by the commission on a Bill of Rights, in a letter to Nick Clegg and Kenneth Clarke, was published as ministers made clear that the court needed to undergo wide-ranging reforms. Clarke, who is the most pro-European Tory member of the cabinet, told MPs on Wednesday there were "important decisions" to be made about the workings of the court.
Sir Leigh Lewis, the chair of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, showed the depth of thinking about the future of the court when he said that the 2010 Interlaken Declaration on the future of the ECHR raised the possibility that other institutions of the Council of Europe could qualify the European Convention on Human Rights. The 47-strong Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU, is the continent's human rights watchdog. Its European court of human rights' enforces the European Convention on Human Rights.
In his letter, Lewis wrote of the proposed change: "This could allow the effect of a court decision to be overridden if such was the will of the parliamentary assembly or committee of ministers, or perhaps of both acting collectively. A variant of this approach might be a power in the committee of ministers to determine that a court judgment should not be enforced if it considered that that course of action was desirable and justifiable in the light of a clear expression of opinion by the relevant member state's most senior democratic institution. Another variant could be a requirement in respect of proposed ground-breaking findings of violations for the court first to consult the other Council of Europe institutions and for the court to take a collective expression of opinion into account."
But Lewis, who said that one member of his commission had insisted that a proposal on guaranteeing the democratic legitimacy of the court must be included in the interim advice to ministers, warned that his proposal had not been yet fully considered. He also said there were critics.
"Those opposed to this concept argue that any possibility of override is fundamentally inconsistent with the rule of law inherent in the convention system and with the concept of the convention as a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. They ask how, if a right or freedom is fundamental, it can be right to allow any legislature, however democratic, to override it.
"They point, for example, to the fact that there are examples in history of discriminatory laws being passed by democratically elected assemblies. They note that the ECHR as a judicial body is an essential protection against majorities voting to discriminate against minorities."
Comment: I am disgusted that The so-called Guardian is printing such rubbish.
Ministers 'could get powers to overrule European court of human rights'
A commission set up by the government to examine ECHR reforms has floated the idea of allowing ministers to strike out court rulings
The European court of human rights' could have its powers downgraded by handing ministers across the continent the right to strike down rulings under plans being examined by the British government.
A commission set up by the government to examine reforms to the Strasbourg-based ECHR has floated the idea of handing ministers and parliamentarians on the Council of Europe the right to override rulings of the court.
The suggestion by the commission on a Bill of Rights, in a letter to Nick Clegg and Kenneth Clarke, was published as ministers made clear that the court needed to undergo wide-ranging reforms. Clarke, who is the most pro-European Tory member of the cabinet, told MPs on Wednesday there were "important decisions" to be made about the workings of the court.
Sir Leigh Lewis, the chair of the Commission on a Bill of Rights, showed the depth of thinking about the future of the court when he said that the 2010 Interlaken Declaration on the future of the ECHR raised the possibility that other institutions of the Council of Europe could qualify the European Convention on Human Rights. The 47-strong Council of Europe, which is separate from the EU, is the continent's human rights watchdog. Its European court of human rights' enforces the European Convention on Human Rights.
In his letter, Lewis wrote of the proposed change: "This could allow the effect of a court decision to be overridden if such was the will of the parliamentary assembly or committee of ministers, or perhaps of both acting collectively. A variant of this approach might be a power in the committee of ministers to determine that a court judgment should not be enforced if it considered that that course of action was desirable and justifiable in the light of a clear expression of opinion by the relevant member state's most senior democratic institution. Another variant could be a requirement in respect of proposed ground-breaking findings of violations for the court first to consult the other Council of Europe institutions and for the court to take a collective expression of opinion into account."
But Lewis, who said that one member of his commission had insisted that a proposal on guaranteeing the democratic legitimacy of the court must be included in the interim advice to ministers, warned that his proposal had not been yet fully considered. He also said there were critics.
"Those opposed to this concept argue that any possibility of override is fundamentally inconsistent with the rule of law inherent in the convention system and with the concept of the convention as a charter of fundamental rights and freedoms. They ask how, if a right or freedom is fundamental, it can be right to allow any legislature, however democratic, to override it.
"They point, for example, to the fact that there are examples in history of discriminatory laws being passed by democratically elected assemblies. They note that the ECHR as a judicial body is an essential protection against majorities voting to discriminate against minorities."
Comment: I am disgusted that The so-called Guardian is printing such rubbish.
Prisoner voting rights
Prisoner voting rights
Greens v UK & M.T. v UK:28
Court: ECtHR (Chamber)
Case summary: This pilot case concerned the blanket ban on voting imposed automatically on the applicant due to the applicants’ status as a convicted offender detained in prison. The applicants, both prisoners in Scotland, were refused the right to enrol on the electoral register for domestic elections and elections to the European Parliament.
The ECtHR found the blanket ban under sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act in violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 (the right to free and fair elections) and, pursuant to the judgment in Hirst No. 2 v UK, set a deadline of six months from 11 April 2011 for the UK to bring forward legislative proposals to end the current blanket ban on prisoner voting. The Court declined to award compensation to the applicants and stayed all clone cases.
The Court noted that a wide range of policy alternatives were available to the Government and emphasised the broad margin of appreciation that applies in this area. It was for the Government to decide in the first instance how to achieve compliance with Article 3 of Protocol 1 when introducing legislative proposals (§114 of the judgment).
The Government response: The Government has actively been considering the appropriate course of action in order to respond to the judgment in Greens and MT.
In July, the Grand Chamber accepted a referral in the case of Scoppola v Italy (no. 126/05, judgment of the Second Section of 18 January 2011). A hearing before the Grand Chamber has been scheduled for 2 November 2011. The legal issues which arise in Scoppola under Article 3 of Protocol 1 are analogous to those which arose in Hirst and in Greens and MT, and the Second Section referred in its judgment to Hirst, as did the Italian Government in its referral request.
For these reasons the Government has sought leave to intervene in the Scoppola hearing and to defer the time limit specified in Greens and MT, which is due to expire on 11 October 2011. The Government was notified on 31 August that the Court has granted an extension of six months from the date of the Scoppola judgment. The Government welcomes the decision of the Court and believes it is right to consider Scoppola and the wider legal context before setting out next steps on prisoner voting. The Government awaits the Court’s decision in relation to the intervention request.
Comment: Given that the UK accepts that "The United Kingdom is obliged to implement judgments of the ECtHR under Article 46 of the ECHR", why has the UK so far failed to honour its obligation in relation to Hirst v UK(No2)?
UK prisoners are now being failed by the government, Court and Committee of Ministers. As a result the Convention and HRA 1998 are documents with empty words. Europe should hang its head in shame that it has allowed the UK to contaminate and corrupt the meaning of human rights, democracy and rule of law.
Greens v UK & M.T. v UK:28
Court: ECtHR (Chamber)
Case summary: This pilot case concerned the blanket ban on voting imposed automatically on the applicant due to the applicants’ status as a convicted offender detained in prison. The applicants, both prisoners in Scotland, were refused the right to enrol on the electoral register for domestic elections and elections to the European Parliament.
The ECtHR found the blanket ban under sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act in violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 (the right to free and fair elections) and, pursuant to the judgment in Hirst No. 2 v UK, set a deadline of six months from 11 April 2011 for the UK to bring forward legislative proposals to end the current blanket ban on prisoner voting. The Court declined to award compensation to the applicants and stayed all clone cases.
The Court noted that a wide range of policy alternatives were available to the Government and emphasised the broad margin of appreciation that applies in this area. It was for the Government to decide in the first instance how to achieve compliance with Article 3 of Protocol 1 when introducing legislative proposals (§114 of the judgment).
The Government response: The Government has actively been considering the appropriate course of action in order to respond to the judgment in Greens and MT.
In July, the Grand Chamber accepted a referral in the case of Scoppola v Italy (no. 126/05, judgment of the Second Section of 18 January 2011). A hearing before the Grand Chamber has been scheduled for 2 November 2011. The legal issues which arise in Scoppola under Article 3 of Protocol 1 are analogous to those which arose in Hirst and in Greens and MT, and the Second Section referred in its judgment to Hirst, as did the Italian Government in its referral request.
For these reasons the Government has sought leave to intervene in the Scoppola hearing and to defer the time limit specified in Greens and MT, which is due to expire on 11 October 2011. The Government was notified on 31 August that the Court has granted an extension of six months from the date of the Scoppola judgment. The Government welcomes the decision of the Court and believes it is right to consider Scoppola and the wider legal context before setting out next steps on prisoner voting. The Government awaits the Court’s decision in relation to the intervention request.
Comment: Given that the UK accepts that "The United Kingdom is obliged to implement judgments of the ECtHR under Article 46 of the ECHR", why has the UK so far failed to honour its obligation in relation to Hirst v UK(No2)?
UK prisoners are now being failed by the government, Court and Committee of Ministers. As a result the Convention and HRA 1998 are documents with empty words. Europe should hang its head in shame that it has allowed the UK to contaminate and corrupt the meaning of human rights, democracy and rule of law.
Responding to human rights judgments
Responding to human rights judgments
The MoJ title gives the impression that the government is actually doing something when Hirst v UK (No2) is evidence that the government has not responded to the judgment since 2005.
The government recognises whether its a ECtHR judgment or declaration of incompatibility that “A common feature of these judgments is that their implementation usually requires changes to legislation, policy or practice, or a combination thereof”.
The government recognises that “The United Kingdom is obliged to implement judgments of the ECtHR under Article 46 of the ECHR”.
However in relation to Hirst No2 the government has failed to fulfill its obligation.
“Prisoner voting rights
Greens v UK & M.T. v UK:28
Court: ECtHR (Chamber)
Case summary: This pilot case concerned the blanket ban on voting imposed automatically on the applicant due to the applicants’ status as a convicted offender detained in prison. The applicants, both prisoners in Scotland, were refused the right to enrol on the electoral register for domestic elections and elections to the European Parliament.
The ECtHR found the blanket ban under sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act in violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 (the right to free and fair elections) and, pursuant to the judgment in Hirst No. 2 v UK, set a deadline of six months from 11 April 2011 for the UK to bring forward legislative proposals to end the current blanket ban on prisoner voting. The Court declined to award compensation to the applicants and stayed all clone cases.
The Court noted that a wide range of policy alternatives were available to the Government and emphasised the broad margin of appreciation that applies in this area. It was for the Government to decide in the first instance how to achieve compliance with Article 3 of Protocol 1 when introducing legislative proposals (§114 of the judgment).
The Government response: The Government has actively been considering the appropriate course of action in order to respond to the judgment in Greens and MT.
In July, the Grand Chamber accepted a referral in the case of Scoppola v Italy (no. 126/05, judgment of the Second Section of 18 January 2011). A hearing before the Grand Chamber has been scheduled for 2 November 2011. The legal issues which arise in Scoppola under Article 3 of Protocol 1 are analogous to those which arose in Hirst and in Greens and MT, and the Second Section referred in its judgment to Hirst, as did the Italian Government in its referral request.
For these reasons the Government has sought leave to intervene in the Scoppola hearing and to defer the time limit specified in Greens and MT, which is due to expire on 11 October 2011. The Government was notified on 31 August that the Court has granted an extension of six months from the date of the Scoppola judgment. The Government welcomes the decision of the Court and believes it is right to consider Scoppola and the wider legal context before setting out next steps on prisoner voting. The Government awaits the Court’s decision in relation to the intervention request”.
The UK appealed against Hirst No2 and lost the appeal. All that remained was for the UK to fully comply with the judgment. In my view, it was an abuse of process for the UK to seek to further appeal against Hirst No2 via Greens and MT v UK. In my view, it is a further abuse of process to seek to do the same via Scoppola. Given the Court’s deadline in Greens, it beggars belief that the Court has overruled itself to be so accomodating to the UK, in effect allowing human rights abuse to continue, by allowing the UK another 6 months grace. The Court needs reminding that justice delayed is justice denied. In my view, the UK is showing nothing but contempt for the Court until such time as the Court reaches a decision which favours the UK. Then of course the UK will fully comply. It is pointless having a Court which fails to protect human rights. It is pointless individuals applying to the Court and winning a human right just for the losing Member State to refuse to amend domestic law thereby denying an effective remedy. Not only is the Court meaningless but also the Convention is meaningless. And the Committee of Ministers in relation to supervision of execution of the Court’s judgments is meaningless. The whole thing is exposed as a sham.
The MoJ title gives the impression that the government is actually doing something when Hirst v UK (No2) is evidence that the government has not responded to the judgment since 2005.
The government recognises whether its a ECtHR judgment or declaration of incompatibility that “A common feature of these judgments is that their implementation usually requires changes to legislation, policy or practice, or a combination thereof”.
The government recognises that “The United Kingdom is obliged to implement judgments of the ECtHR under Article 46 of the ECHR”.
However in relation to Hirst No2 the government has failed to fulfill its obligation.
“Prisoner voting rights
Greens v UK & M.T. v UK:28
Court: ECtHR (Chamber)
Case summary: This pilot case concerned the blanket ban on voting imposed automatically on the applicant due to the applicants’ status as a convicted offender detained in prison. The applicants, both prisoners in Scotland, were refused the right to enrol on the electoral register for domestic elections and elections to the European Parliament.
The ECtHR found the blanket ban under sections 3 and 4 of the Representation of the People Act in violation of Article 3 of Protocol 1 (the right to free and fair elections) and, pursuant to the judgment in Hirst No. 2 v UK, set a deadline of six months from 11 April 2011 for the UK to bring forward legislative proposals to end the current blanket ban on prisoner voting. The Court declined to award compensation to the applicants and stayed all clone cases.
The Court noted that a wide range of policy alternatives were available to the Government and emphasised the broad margin of appreciation that applies in this area. It was for the Government to decide in the first instance how to achieve compliance with Article 3 of Protocol 1 when introducing legislative proposals (§114 of the judgment).
The Government response: The Government has actively been considering the appropriate course of action in order to respond to the judgment in Greens and MT.
In July, the Grand Chamber accepted a referral in the case of Scoppola v Italy (no. 126/05, judgment of the Second Section of 18 January 2011). A hearing before the Grand Chamber has been scheduled for 2 November 2011. The legal issues which arise in Scoppola under Article 3 of Protocol 1 are analogous to those which arose in Hirst and in Greens and MT, and the Second Section referred in its judgment to Hirst, as did the Italian Government in its referral request.
For these reasons the Government has sought leave to intervene in the Scoppola hearing and to defer the time limit specified in Greens and MT, which is due to expire on 11 October 2011. The Government was notified on 31 August that the Court has granted an extension of six months from the date of the Scoppola judgment. The Government welcomes the decision of the Court and believes it is right to consider Scoppola and the wider legal context before setting out next steps on prisoner voting. The Government awaits the Court’s decision in relation to the intervention request”.
The UK appealed against Hirst No2 and lost the appeal. All that remained was for the UK to fully comply with the judgment. In my view, it was an abuse of process for the UK to seek to further appeal against Hirst No2 via Greens and MT v UK. In my view, it is a further abuse of process to seek to do the same via Scoppola. Given the Court’s deadline in Greens, it beggars belief that the Court has overruled itself to be so accomodating to the UK, in effect allowing human rights abuse to continue, by allowing the UK another 6 months grace. The Court needs reminding that justice delayed is justice denied. In my view, the UK is showing nothing but contempt for the Court until such time as the Court reaches a decision which favours the UK. Then of course the UK will fully comply. It is pointless having a Court which fails to protect human rights. It is pointless individuals applying to the Court and winning a human right just for the losing Member State to refuse to amend domestic law thereby denying an effective remedy. Not only is the Court meaningless but also the Convention is meaningless. And the Committee of Ministers in relation to supervision of execution of the Court’s judgments is meaningless. The whole thing is exposed as a sham.
Thursday, September 08, 2011
Good will hunting
Good will hunting
Last week a friend kindly suggested I was like Victor Meldrew in One foot in the grave.
Today I received an unsolicited phone call from a local solicitor asking if I was interested in receiving a write your will pack in the post!
Rumours of my impending death are without foundation.
Last week a friend kindly suggested I was like Victor Meldrew in One foot in the grave.
Today I received an unsolicited phone call from a local solicitor asking if I was interested in receiving a write your will pack in the post!
Rumours of my impending death are without foundation.
Riots sentencing: judges are guided by principles, not moral panic
Riots sentencing: judges are guided by principles, not moral panic
The judiciary is not overreacting to unprecedented events – it is working on the basis of decades-old guidance
David Thomas, Guardian, Thursday 8 September 2011 08.00 BST
People protest at Brixton prison against the 'excessive' sentencing and criminalising of minor offenders following recent riots. Photograph: Behzad/Demotix/Corbis
The judicial sentencing of offenders who took part in the August riots has produced the predictable crop of ill-informed and extreme criticism in the media. Sentencers have been accused of indulging in a "feeding frenzy", of passing disproportionate sentences of unprecedented severity, inspired by the outrage of politicians and spurred on by the media. The reality is rather different.
The August riots were by no means the first major public disorders to happen in this country. There is plenty of judicial precedent establishing guidelines and principles for dealing with offenders who take part in them. The three key principles were stated over 40 years ago in the case which followed the Garden House Hotel incident in Cambridge, when Cambridge undergraduates attacked a hotel hosting a Greek tourist board event in protest at the Greek colonels' regime.
Upholding custodial sentences on most of those who took part, the court of appeal stated three principles which have been repeated and applied in the intervening years. The first principle is that a defendant who is one of a minority of participants to be arrested and prosecuted cannot complain that he is one of the unlucky ones and that others who were equally to blame and who had got away with it will not be punished. The second principle, perhaps the most important, is that anyone who takes part in a major public disorder cannot expect his actions to be considered in isolation from the actions of those around him. The fact that the particular defendant only threw one brick is not critical; his offence was participation in a much larger disorder in which the police where overwhelmed by strength of numbers. The third principle is that in the case of large scale public disorder, the offender's previous good character will have less than its usual effect in mitigation.
These principles were repeated and endorsed by the late Lord Lane, chief justice in the case which followed the Broadwater Farm riot of the early 1980s, and the Bradford riots of 2002 led to an important judgment of the court of appeal dealing with the sentencing of offenders convicted of rioting under the new statutory offences created by the Public Order Act 1986. The guidance given by the court of appeal in that case is that for offenders convicted of a leading role in organising or instigating a riot (as opposed to a violent disorder) the starting point for consideration of the sentence should be close to the maximum sentence of 10 years. Active and persistent participants who threw or used potentially lethal weapons such as petrol bombs might have expected sentences between eight and nine years. Those who were present for a significant period and repeatedly threw missiles such as bricks or stones would have expected sentences of five years. All these sentences would be discounted if the defendant pleaded guilty.
Relatively few of the defendants charged with offences arising out of last month's riots have so far been sentenced; the majority have been committed to the crown court for trial or sentence and their cases will be dealt with in the next few months. For many, the sentence will depend on how the Crown Prosecution Service chooses to charge them – will they be charged with riot (maximum sentence 10 years) or violent disorder (maximum sentence of five years)? Although the differences in the evidence necessary to establish the two offences are insignificant in the context of large scale disorders, the choice of one charge rather than another will have a substantial effect on the final sentence.
Many of the defendants who have so far been sentenced have admitted burglary in the form of looting. An important and interesting initiative has been taken by the recorder of Manchester, Judge Gilbart. Faced with the prospect of large numbers of offenders appearing before the crown courts in Manchester, Gilbart gave a judgment setting out of the principles he and the other Manchester judges would follow in dealing with such offenders. Gilbart's judgment cannot properly be described as a guideline, because it does not bind any other judge sitting elsewhere, but judges in other crown court centres have indicated that they will follow the same approach. Gilbart's judgment should be read by anyone who wishes to understand why the judges are passing the sentences they are passing. The judgment, which has been virtually ignored by the media, begins by setting out details of the scale of the disturbances in Manchester and the extent of the damage done. The judgment discusses the Sentencing Guidelines Council's guidelines for burglary and theft but points out that the council was not considering looting by mobs when the guideline was formulated.
It remains to be seen whether Gilbart's sentencing scheme will be approved by the court of appeal if and when appeals against sentences passed reach it. It seems probable that the court of appeal will approve the scheme at least in principle, if for no other reason than that it is based in part on earlier decisions of the court of appeal in the context of other major disorders. It seems highly unlikely that large numbers of defendants sentenced for participating in looting to terms of between 16 months and two years' imprisonment will find their sentences reduced or set aside on appeal, if only because many of them will have served their sentences and been released on home detention curfew before their appeals can be heard. What Gilbart's scheme and the actions of other judges demonstrate is that the judiciary is proceeding in a systematic way, on the basis of principles and guidance which has been on the public record for decades, and not overreacting in a moral panic to unprecedented events.
The judiciary is not overreacting to unprecedented events – it is working on the basis of decades-old guidance
David Thomas, Guardian, Thursday 8 September 2011 08.00 BST
People protest at Brixton prison against the 'excessive' sentencing and criminalising of minor offenders following recent riots. Photograph: Behzad/Demotix/CorbisThe judicial sentencing of offenders who took part in the August riots has produced the predictable crop of ill-informed and extreme criticism in the media. Sentencers have been accused of indulging in a "feeding frenzy", of passing disproportionate sentences of unprecedented severity, inspired by the outrage of politicians and spurred on by the media. The reality is rather different.
The August riots were by no means the first major public disorders to happen in this country. There is plenty of judicial precedent establishing guidelines and principles for dealing with offenders who take part in them. The three key principles were stated over 40 years ago in the case which followed the Garden House Hotel incident in Cambridge, when Cambridge undergraduates attacked a hotel hosting a Greek tourist board event in protest at the Greek colonels' regime.
Upholding custodial sentences on most of those who took part, the court of appeal stated three principles which have been repeated and applied in the intervening years. The first principle is that a defendant who is one of a minority of participants to be arrested and prosecuted cannot complain that he is one of the unlucky ones and that others who were equally to blame and who had got away with it will not be punished. The second principle, perhaps the most important, is that anyone who takes part in a major public disorder cannot expect his actions to be considered in isolation from the actions of those around him. The fact that the particular defendant only threw one brick is not critical; his offence was participation in a much larger disorder in which the police where overwhelmed by strength of numbers. The third principle is that in the case of large scale public disorder, the offender's previous good character will have less than its usual effect in mitigation.
These principles were repeated and endorsed by the late Lord Lane, chief justice in the case which followed the Broadwater Farm riot of the early 1980s, and the Bradford riots of 2002 led to an important judgment of the court of appeal dealing with the sentencing of offenders convicted of rioting under the new statutory offences created by the Public Order Act 1986. The guidance given by the court of appeal in that case is that for offenders convicted of a leading role in organising or instigating a riot (as opposed to a violent disorder) the starting point for consideration of the sentence should be close to the maximum sentence of 10 years. Active and persistent participants who threw or used potentially lethal weapons such as petrol bombs might have expected sentences between eight and nine years. Those who were present for a significant period and repeatedly threw missiles such as bricks or stones would have expected sentences of five years. All these sentences would be discounted if the defendant pleaded guilty.
Relatively few of the defendants charged with offences arising out of last month's riots have so far been sentenced; the majority have been committed to the crown court for trial or sentence and their cases will be dealt with in the next few months. For many, the sentence will depend on how the Crown Prosecution Service chooses to charge them – will they be charged with riot (maximum sentence 10 years) or violent disorder (maximum sentence of five years)? Although the differences in the evidence necessary to establish the two offences are insignificant in the context of large scale disorders, the choice of one charge rather than another will have a substantial effect on the final sentence.
Many of the defendants who have so far been sentenced have admitted burglary in the form of looting. An important and interesting initiative has been taken by the recorder of Manchester, Judge Gilbart. Faced with the prospect of large numbers of offenders appearing before the crown courts in Manchester, Gilbart gave a judgment setting out of the principles he and the other Manchester judges would follow in dealing with such offenders. Gilbart's judgment cannot properly be described as a guideline, because it does not bind any other judge sitting elsewhere, but judges in other crown court centres have indicated that they will follow the same approach. Gilbart's judgment should be read by anyone who wishes to understand why the judges are passing the sentences they are passing. The judgment, which has been virtually ignored by the media, begins by setting out details of the scale of the disturbances in Manchester and the extent of the damage done. The judgment discusses the Sentencing Guidelines Council's guidelines for burglary and theft but points out that the council was not considering looting by mobs when the guideline was formulated.
It remains to be seen whether Gilbart's sentencing scheme will be approved by the court of appeal if and when appeals against sentences passed reach it. It seems probable that the court of appeal will approve the scheme at least in principle, if for no other reason than that it is based in part on earlier decisions of the court of appeal in the context of other major disorders. It seems highly unlikely that large numbers of defendants sentenced for participating in looting to terms of between 16 months and two years' imprisonment will find their sentences reduced or set aside on appeal, if only because many of them will have served their sentences and been released on home detention curfew before their appeals can be heard. What Gilbart's scheme and the actions of other judges demonstrate is that the judiciary is proceeding in a systematic way, on the basis of principles and guidance which has been on the public record for decades, and not overreacting in a moral panic to unprecedented events.
Our penal system is far from broken
Our penal system is far from broken
Letters, Guardian
It's tempting for politicians to ignore uncomfortable realities when dealing with such serious disasters as the recent riots, but I cannot let Kenneth Clarke's explanation that these events are a direct result of "a broken penal system ... whose record of preventing reoffending has been straightforwardly dreadful" go unchallenged (Punish the feral rioters, but address our social deficit too, 6 September). The government's own published national statistics show, between 2000 and 2009, an overall 10.7% improvement in adult reoffending by ex-prisoners, with improvements of 25.6% in reoffending outcomes for those serving four years and over, 23% for those serving between two and under four years, and 12.4% for those serving between 12 months and under two years. Even the very short-term prisoners serving under 12 months, the majority of whom actually served less than 12 weeks in prison, showed a 6.5% improvement.
These results were gained through the dedicated and skilled work of prison staff of all grades from public and private sectors, supported by specialist health, education, probation and drug treatment staff. Over the same period, spending in real terms per prisoner stayed broadly steady and, though the prison population grew rapidly, the self-inflicted death rate, rate of escape, incidence of drug use and number of incidents of serious disorder were all reduced. So the improved reoffending results came with all-round improvements in effectiveness and efficiency. Not many public services can so clearly show real improvements on this scale. One might have hoped Ken Clarke would want to build on what has been achieved, not least because more is undoubtedly possible. But turning prisons and their staff into scapegoats to blame for more fundamental failings in our society and in broader social policy will only damage the morale of all who work in the system and convince them of the self-serving cynicism of politicians.
Phil Wheatley
Former director general of the Prison Service and the National Offender Management Service
Letters, Guardian
It's tempting for politicians to ignore uncomfortable realities when dealing with such serious disasters as the recent riots, but I cannot let Kenneth Clarke's explanation that these events are a direct result of "a broken penal system ... whose record of preventing reoffending has been straightforwardly dreadful" go unchallenged (Punish the feral rioters, but address our social deficit too, 6 September). The government's own published national statistics show, between 2000 and 2009, an overall 10.7% improvement in adult reoffending by ex-prisoners, with improvements of 25.6% in reoffending outcomes for those serving four years and over, 23% for those serving between two and under four years, and 12.4% for those serving between 12 months and under two years. Even the very short-term prisoners serving under 12 months, the majority of whom actually served less than 12 weeks in prison, showed a 6.5% improvement.
These results were gained through the dedicated and skilled work of prison staff of all grades from public and private sectors, supported by specialist health, education, probation and drug treatment staff. Over the same period, spending in real terms per prisoner stayed broadly steady and, though the prison population grew rapidly, the self-inflicted death rate, rate of escape, incidence of drug use and number of incidents of serious disorder were all reduced. So the improved reoffending results came with all-round improvements in effectiveness and efficiency. Not many public services can so clearly show real improvements on this scale. One might have hoped Ken Clarke would want to build on what has been achieved, not least because more is undoubtedly possible. But turning prisons and their staff into scapegoats to blame for more fundamental failings in our society and in broader social policy will only damage the morale of all who work in the system and convince them of the self-serving cynicism of politicians.
Phil Wheatley
Former director general of the Prison Service and the National Offender Management Service
Wednesday, September 07, 2011
New computer
New computer
Today I bought a new computer. It's an acer ASPIRE Z Series. It looks the part. 23 inch screen. Freeview. Touch screen. Unfortunately, it came with Windows 7. Therefore, I cannot find Outlook Express and my emails. Windows 7 has made Outlook Express obsolete. It has been replaced with Windows Live Mail.
I am experiencing a few technology problems.
I fail to see the point of having a 23 inch screen and Blogger only measuring about 6 inches wide in the middle. There must be a way of making my blog fill the screen.
I must be mad. It cost £649.99!
Today I bought a new computer. It's an acer ASPIRE Z Series. It looks the part. 23 inch screen. Freeview. Touch screen. Unfortunately, it came with Windows 7. Therefore, I cannot find Outlook Express and my emails. Windows 7 has made Outlook Express obsolete. It has been replaced with Windows Live Mail.
I am experiencing a few technology problems.
I fail to see the point of having a 23 inch screen and Blogger only measuring about 6 inches wide in the middle. There must be a way of making my blog fill the screen.
I must be mad. It cost £649.99!
Prison governor suspended over inmate assault allegations
Prison governor suspended over inmate assault allegations
Mark Allen, deputy governor of HMP Brixton, accused of assault, excessive restraint and attempting to influence witnesses
A prison governor has been suspended over allegations he assaulted an inmate and tried to persuade staff to lie about the incident.
Mark Allen, deputy governor of Brixton prison in south London, has been removed from his post following an incident in which a prisoner is understood to have been injured while being restrained.
The Guardian has learned that the allegations against Allen include assault, excessive use of restraint and trying to influence witnesses.
The Ministry of Justice has appointed Carol Draper, former governor of Parkhurst prison, to carry out an investigation into the incident, which is believed to have taken place last week.
Comment:
Why is it that when anybody else is the alleged victim of assault the police conduct an investigation, but when it involves a prisoner a prison governor investigates?
Mark Allen, deputy governor of HMP Brixton, accused of assault, excessive restraint and attempting to influence witnesses
A prison governor has been suspended over allegations he assaulted an inmate and tried to persuade staff to lie about the incident.
Mark Allen, deputy governor of Brixton prison in south London, has been removed from his post following an incident in which a prisoner is understood to have been injured while being restrained.
The Guardian has learned that the allegations against Allen include assault, excessive use of restraint and trying to influence witnesses.
The Ministry of Justice has appointed Carol Draper, former governor of Parkhurst prison, to carry out an investigation into the incident, which is believed to have taken place last week.
Comment:
Why is it that when anybody else is the alleged victim of assault the police conduct an investigation, but when it involves a prisoner a prison governor investigates?
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
UK CANNOT KEEP ITS BAN ON PRISONERS VOTES
UK CANNOT KEEP ITS BAN ON PRISONERS VOTES
UK ‘COULD KEEP BAN ON VOTES FOR PRISON INMATES’ By Daily Express reporter
BRITAIN could be spared from being forced by European human rights judges to give prisoners the right to vote, it emerged last night.
Ministers have been granted a delay in scrapping the blanket ban on inmates voting in Westminster and European Parliament elections pending a test case in Italy. Whitehall sources said the case could even lead to the law change being dumped.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “This is good news. We are waiting to see what happens.”
MPs campaigning against the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights last night demanded a full statement by the Government.
Tory MP Priti Patel plans to raise the issue of the delay in the Commons this week. She said: “MPs have taken the view that we should say no to Europe and that is what the Government should do.”
Ministers have been told they do not have to come up with proposals until six months after the conclusion of the case, due to start in November.
But Whitehall insiders believe the case could undermine the human rights court’s ruling that Britain’s ban infringed prisoners’ human rights and spare David Cameron from having to scrap it.
Comment:
As the case which challenged the ban is the leading case of Hirst v UK (No2), the UK has got no option but to fully comply with the judgment.The UK already sought to delay the issue with Greens and MT v UK but the ECtHR ruled that the UK has until 11 October 2011 to bring forward proposals to amend the law.This article is a pathetic attempt to ignore human rights, democracy and rule of law.I won't let the UK get away with its obligations and responsibilities. And that includes you David Cameron. You have been warned!
Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Respect of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, in particular, of the European Court of Human Rights's judgments, is a crucial element of the Council of Europe's system for the protection of human rights, rule of law and democracy and, hence, for democratic stability and European unification.
1120th Committee of Ministers Human Rights meeting
The Committee of Ministers will hold its 1120th Human Rights meeting on 13 and on 14 September 2011.
Given that the CoM supervises execution of the Court's judgments, and given that it is only the 6 of September today, it is harly likely that any decision has been made to allow the UK to delay fully complying with my judgment.
BRITAIN could be spared from being forced by European human rights judges to give prisoners the right to vote, it emerged last night.
Ministers have been granted a delay in scrapping the blanket ban on inmates voting in Westminster and European Parliament elections pending a test case in Italy. Whitehall sources said the case could even lead to the law change being dumped.
A Cabinet Office spokesman said: “This is good news. We are waiting to see what happens.”
MPs campaigning against the judgment by the European Court of Human Rights last night demanded a full statement by the Government.
Tory MP Priti Patel plans to raise the issue of the delay in the Commons this week. She said: “MPs have taken the view that we should say no to Europe and that is what the Government should do.”
Ministers have been told they do not have to come up with proposals until six months after the conclusion of the case, due to start in November.
But Whitehall insiders believe the case could undermine the human rights court’s ruling that Britain’s ban infringed prisoners’ human rights and spare David Cameron from having to scrap it.
Comment:
As the case which challenged the ban is the leading case of Hirst v UK (No2), the UK has got no option but to fully comply with the judgment.The UK already sought to delay the issue with Greens and MT v UK but the ECtHR ruled that the UK has until 11 October 2011 to bring forward proposals to amend the law.This article is a pathetic attempt to ignore human rights, democracy and rule of law.I won't let the UK get away with its obligations and responsibilities. And that includes you David Cameron. You have been warned!
Execution of Judgments of the European Court of Human Rights
Respect of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and, in particular, of the European Court of Human Rights's judgments, is a crucial element of the Council of Europe's system for the protection of human rights, rule of law and democracy and, hence, for democratic stability and European unification.
1120th Committee of Ministers Human Rights meeting
The Committee of Ministers will hold its 1120th Human Rights meeting on 13 and on 14 September 2011.
Given that the CoM supervises execution of the Court's judgments, and given that it is only the 6 of September today, it is harly likely that any decision has been made to allow the UK to delay fully complying with my judgment.
Monday, September 05, 2011
Does prison work?
Does prison work?
By Josie Channer
Recent events have brought the question of prisons back to the fore. As a former prison officer I wonder if prison is able to deliver either punishment or rehabilitation, and whether or not prison is the best answer to our troubles.
In the days and weeks that have followed we have been asking why it happened, how can we stop it from happening again and whether or not this was just simple criminality and opportunism or a sign of something deeper. The answer to those questions has been to lock ‘them’ up, make examples of them through tough sentences and for more robust policing. This has been greeted with the seal of public approval. In the short term this may seem to have quelled the fury on London’s streets, but I am not convinced that harsh prison sentences will do anything in the short or long term.
From my experience in the Prison Service I believe that we need to address an already-failing system. The prison population has doubled in size from 41,000 in 1991 to well over 86,000. This trend now seems set to grow.
Forty-three per cent of prisoners are repeat offenders, in and out of prison with their issues never being addressed. Ken Clarke, the justice secretary, surprisingly started off listening to prison governors on how we treat less serious crimes. But, given the sudden shift to the right on law and order, I will be interested to see if he will return to the familiar Conservative policy of just building more prisons.
I remember on my first day of training as a new prison officer, being told that prison was not a punishment – having their freedom taken away by the courts was the punishment – prison was there to rehabilitate. This was an ethos I held dear, but found frustrating as we did nothing to promote rehabilitation.
When I started at HMP Holloway, Europe’s largest female prison, in 2002 it was common for prisoners to spend up to 22 hours a day in their cells with little to keep them occupied. Visitors would be shocked at the level of noise, which would sound as if the prisoners were going mad in their cells. In the years that followed I saw reform and investment that had an effect on conditions and the way the prison was run. All of the cells got TV sets and staff levels increased, which allowed for activities, such as art lessons or gym. But is this rehabilitation? I agree with prison governors who say that, due to the short sentences that many prisoners receive, it is not possible for the prison system to be as constructive as it would like.
At a cost of £38,000 a year for each prisoner, I believe that there are more effective ways this money could be spent, such as drug rehabilitation, training or developing our industrial and service sectors so that there are jobs out there. These are long term solutions that I believe that we now need to promote more than ever.
I find it difficult to accept the view that the riots were just ‘mindless’ violence and ‘copy cat’ opportunism, which prison is going fix. I also believe that there’s more to the argument that they were due to an unequal society, which investment in deprived communities can fix. Throwing money at a problem tends to yield few results. The questions I think we should be asking is whether or not there is sufficient social mobility for those near the bottom to believe that they have the opportunities to bridge that gap and for hard-working, low-income families to feel their efforts are rewarded with an acceptable standard of living.
The reasons for the violence might be a combination of many things. For me, the demise of our industrial economy over the last 30 years, coupled with the fierce competition (not least from the ‘new’ communities) for jobs in the service and retail sectors, has given huge challenges to London’s working class, both black and white, to find pride in earning a living wage, to find affordable decent homes and to find inspiration in local communities that appear barren.
An already-struggling prison system in need of reform will not address the wider and long-term issues surrounding the riots. I hope that a much deeper debate on the underlying challenges that London faces with result in more than just superficial changes.
Josie Channer is Labour’s London assembly candidate for Bexley and Bromley
Judge allows ill inmate to sue California prison
Judge allows ill inmate to sue California prison
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge has refused to dismiss most of a former prison inmate’s allegations that the government was negligent in exposing him to a potentially deadly disease while he was incarcerated in California.
U.S. District Judge Gary Feess’ written ruling, issued Thursday, could clear the way for a trial for Arjang Panah as early as next year, said his attorney, Ian Wallach. Officials with the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles did not immediately respond to email and phone messages left Saturday.
Panah was sentenced to prison in 2004 for dealing methamphetamine. He was originally incarcerated in New York but was transferred to the Taft Correctional Institution in California’s Central Valley in 2005. It was there that he contracted Coccidioidomycosis, or cocci, more commonly known as Valley Fever. The disease is caused by a fungus found in soil, particularly in the southwestern United States.
Wallach says the U.S. government was negligent in putting Panah in a prison where it knew the disease was rampant and not warning him.
“The government had an obligation to provide a safe place for him,” Wallach said in a phone interview. “What they did instead was they released him into a place where there was an outbreak of illness.”
Panah has since been released from prison and has a job but continues to suffer from the illness, Wallach said.
“He’s going to require lifelong treatment, and it’s a potentially fatal illness,” the attorney said, adding he didn’t want to release too much more information about Panah out of concern for his privacy.
Wallach said Panah will seek unspecified damages for pain and suffering, as well as for his medical treatment and for missed work time.
No trial date has been set.
In his ruling, Feess said the government’s immunity from prosecution in such cases does not extend to matters where it knows someone is in danger and does nothing about it.
“In short, the discretionary function exception test does not apply to plaintiff’s negligence claims to the extent they are based on defendants’ failure to warn of the cocci outbreak,” the judge said.
LOS ANGELES (AP) — A federal judge has refused to dismiss most of a former prison inmate’s allegations that the government was negligent in exposing him to a potentially deadly disease while he was incarcerated in California.
U.S. District Judge Gary Feess’ written ruling, issued Thursday, could clear the way for a trial for Arjang Panah as early as next year, said his attorney, Ian Wallach. Officials with the U.S. attorney’s office in Los Angeles did not immediately respond to email and phone messages left Saturday.
Panah was sentenced to prison in 2004 for dealing methamphetamine. He was originally incarcerated in New York but was transferred to the Taft Correctional Institution in California’s Central Valley in 2005. It was there that he contracted Coccidioidomycosis, or cocci, more commonly known as Valley Fever. The disease is caused by a fungus found in soil, particularly in the southwestern United States.
Wallach says the U.S. government was negligent in putting Panah in a prison where it knew the disease was rampant and not warning him.
“The government had an obligation to provide a safe place for him,” Wallach said in a phone interview. “What they did instead was they released him into a place where there was an outbreak of illness.”
Panah has since been released from prison and has a job but continues to suffer from the illness, Wallach said.
“He’s going to require lifelong treatment, and it’s a potentially fatal illness,” the attorney said, adding he didn’t want to release too much more information about Panah out of concern for his privacy.
Wallach said Panah will seek unspecified damages for pain and suffering, as well as for his medical treatment and for missed work time.
No trial date has been set.
In his ruling, Feess said the government’s immunity from prosecution in such cases does not extend to matters where it knows someone is in danger and does nothing about it.
“In short, the discretionary function exception test does not apply to plaintiff’s negligence claims to the extent they are based on defendants’ failure to warn of the cocci outbreak,” the judge said.
Sunday, September 04, 2011
David Cameron: Where is the responsibility of letting children starve to death?
David Cameron: Where is the responsibility of letting children starve to death?
We’ve got to show people their actions have consequences
By DAVID CAMERON
Plans to withdraw child-benefit payments to parents of youngsters who play truant from school are being considered by the Government.
Might it not be a consequence of withdrawing child benefit payments that there is a danger some children will suffer the fate of starving to death?
We’ve got to show people their actions have consequences
By DAVID CAMERON
Plans to withdraw child-benefit payments to parents of youngsters who play truant from school are being considered by the Government.
Might it not be a consequence of withdrawing child benefit payments that there is a danger some children will suffer the fate of starving to death?
Lost dogs on death row
Lost dogs on death row
Financial squeeze sees 345 dogs abandoned every day
The number of dogs being abandoned as strays has soared to its highest level in more than a decade, with the recession and the growing use of animals as fashion accessories or status symbols being blamed for the increase.
With their wide eyes and pleading expressions, they could be any dogs looking for a family.
But these animals face becoming the latest casualties of Britain's stray dogs epidemic. They face an uncertain future: if they cannot be found a new home soon, they will be put down.
These latest inmates of the council pounds in Swindon and east London have been rounded up as numbers of strays soar across the country.
Local authorities picked up around 345 stray dogs every day in the UK last year and 20 every day had to be put down because they went unclaimed or could not be rehomed.
Financial squeeze sees 345 dogs abandoned every day
The number of dogs being abandoned as strays has soared to its highest level in more than a decade, with the recession and the growing use of animals as fashion accessories or status symbols being blamed for the increase.
With their wide eyes and pleading expressions, they could be any dogs looking for a family.
But these animals face becoming the latest casualties of Britain's stray dogs epidemic. They face an uncertain future: if they cannot be found a new home soon, they will be put down.
These latest inmates of the council pounds in Swindon and east London have been rounded up as numbers of strays soar across the country.
Local authorities picked up around 345 stray dogs every day in the UK last year and 20 every day had to be put down because they went unclaimed or could not be rehomed.
Friday, September 02, 2011
David Cameron: A Major disaster?
David Cameron: A Major disaster?
A little bird pecks away at Cameron's two-faced approach to morals and youthful misbehaviour. Bullingdon Club antics were nothing like the riots, says Cameron
Prime minister embarrassed when asked if there was any parallel between rioters and members of notorious Oxford club
I recall the downfall of John Major when he fell off his high moral horse and landed face down in manure...
Back to Basics (campaign)
People in glass houses are exposed to scrutiny. I suspect that it is not a curtain that is being twitched here, but the rosy red buttock cheeks of David Cameron.
Let's see what William Hague is putting out on the washing line:
"Our foreign policy should always have consistent support for human rights and poverty reduction as its irreducible core and we should always strive to act with moral authority, recognising that once damaged it is hard to restore".
Propping this up is what Kenneth Clarke states at the MoJ under the heading Our responsibilities:
"Human rights
The Human Rights Act ensures that your human rights are respected by public authorities, and makes it unlawful for them to act against your rights.
If you believe that your rights have been interfered with unreasonably, it gives you a way of doing something about it.
We are responsible for developing human rights policy. We can explain what the Act should do and how public authorities should behave under the Act. However, we can't investigate alleged human rights violations and we can't give legal advice. Everyone in the UK is protected by the Act".
Given the above from two of Cameron's Cabinet, it begs the question why David Cameron is attacking the idea of human rights for citizens in the UK?
DAVID CAMERON: HUMAN RIGHTS IN MY SIGHTS
Common sense from a knee-jerking, Bullingdon Club Tory Toff? Perhaps, it's time he had a go at stand up comedy?
A little bird pecks away at Cameron's two-faced approach to morals and youthful misbehaviour. Bullingdon Club antics were nothing like the riots, says Cameron
Prime minister embarrassed when asked if there was any parallel between rioters and members of notorious Oxford club
I recall the downfall of John Major when he fell off his high moral horse and landed face down in manure...
Back to Basics (campaign)
People in glass houses are exposed to scrutiny. I suspect that it is not a curtain that is being twitched here, but the rosy red buttock cheeks of David Cameron.
Let's see what William Hague is putting out on the washing line:
"Our foreign policy should always have consistent support for human rights and poverty reduction as its irreducible core and we should always strive to act with moral authority, recognising that once damaged it is hard to restore".
Propping this up is what Kenneth Clarke states at the MoJ under the heading Our responsibilities:
"Human rights
The Human Rights Act ensures that your human rights are respected by public authorities, and makes it unlawful for them to act against your rights.
If you believe that your rights have been interfered with unreasonably, it gives you a way of doing something about it.
We are responsible for developing human rights policy. We can explain what the Act should do and how public authorities should behave under the Act. However, we can't investigate alleged human rights violations and we can't give legal advice. Everyone in the UK is protected by the Act".
Given the above from two of Cameron's Cabinet, it begs the question why David Cameron is attacking the idea of human rights for citizens in the UK?
DAVID CAMERON: HUMAN RIGHTS IN MY SIGHTS
Common sense from a knee-jerking, Bullingdon Club Tory Toff? Perhaps, it's time he had a go at stand up comedy?
Thursday, September 01, 2011
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Here is the weather forecast
Here is the weather forecast
It's been a coldish Summer, and a cold Winter is expected.
This summer has been the UK's coolest since 1993, provisional Met Office figures indicate...During the last few years the run of poor summers has coincided with colder weather during the winter months.
It's been a coldish Summer, and a cold Winter is expected.
This summer has been the UK's coolest since 1993, provisional Met Office figures indicate...During the last few years the run of poor summers has coincided with colder weather during the winter months.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)