Human rights chief issues warning to UK over weakening of laws

Human rights chief issues warning to UK over weakening of laws

Watering down British laws 'would send a dangerous signal to undemocratic states', says Thomas Hammarberg

The Tory wish to check the human rights court at Strasbourg could unleash global problems, according to Thomas Hammarberg. Photograph: Olivier Morin/AFP/Getty

The UK's increasing estrangement from Europe will be demonstrated this week when the European commissioner for human rights warns that any attempt by the government to overhaul British human rights laws would have a damaging effect on global democracy.

The prime minister has expressed his desire to replace the Human Rights Act, which integrates the European convention on human rights (ECHR) into domestic law, with a new Bill of Rights.

A series of high-profile cases has stirred Tory animosity towards the act and, in particular, the role of the European court of human rights. Conservative MPs have been angered by the court's rulings on issues including giving prisoners the vote and granting sex offenders the right to challenge their place on the sex offenders' register.

In a speech on Tuesday, Thomas Hammarberg, the European commissioner for human rights, will launch a thinly veiled attack on Tory plans to check the power of the Strasbourg-based court. "Any weakening of the human rights protections in the act would be noted outside the UK, and welcomed by less democratic states as tacit encouragement to weaken their own human rights protections," Hammarberg will say. "What the UK does today will send a powerful signal to other states about what they can do tomorrow."

The convention was drawn up after the atrocities of the second world war and ratified by the UK in 1950. Hammarberg describes it as possibly the "most successful international instrument for protecting human rights in the world".

Cameron has promised "to fight in Europe for changes to the way the European court works and we will fight to ensure people understand the real scope of these rights and do not use them as cover for rules or excuses that fly in the face of common sense".

In his speech to the UK's equality and diversity forum (EDF), Hammarberg will say that countries should not be able to invoke a "democratic override" that allows them to choose the judgments with which they will comply.

"What seems to be forgotten by some of the critics also here in the UK is that the convention is built on the notion of a collective guarantee. The fact that one state has a treaty right to question the behaviour of other states, provided that it accepts the quid pro quo, has been of enormous importance in the efforts to ensure respect for human rights globally."

Hammarberg's comments were welcomed by Amanda Ariss, chief executive of the EDF. "The Human Rights Act protects elderly people, disabled people and women fleeing domestic violence – among others," Ariss said. "Dilute it and you are leaving some of our most vulnerable communities exposed.

"Equally worrying, you risk setting a dangerous precedent that sends a signal to nations with poor human rights records, like Russia and Turkey, that they can do even less to protect the rights of their most vulnerable communities."

Hammarberg will express frustration with some politicians for failing to make the case for Strasbourg. "I must say that I find some of the criticism here in the UK against the Strasbourg system surprisingly ill-informed, and I have hoped that the politicians who know better would stand up stronger against this populist and xenophobic discourse," he will say.

Last year more than 60,000 applications were filed before the court, bringing the total number of pending cases to 154,000. But Hammarberg will claim the backlog is due to states failing to implement the convention fully: "It is vital therefore that all member states, including the UK, ensure that their domestic law and practices fully incorporate and operationalise convention rights."

One of the European court's rulings – that prisoners have the right to vote – has been ignored by the government, opening the Ministry of Justice up to legal action from inmates.

"I have been disappointed by statements made by parliamentarians and others on this issue," Hammarberg will say. "Universal suffrage is a fundamental principle in a democracy. My position is that a blanket, automatic ban does indeed violate basic principles. If deprivation of the right to vote is to be a punishment, then this should be expressly spelled out in each individual case by a judicial authority."

A number of European countries, including Denmark, the Netherlands and Switzerland, allow prisoners to vote. "This is a non-issue in these countries. Why is the UK so different?"

Inspection link to inmate's death

Inspection link to inmate's death

A report into the death of a prisoner has suggested he was moved from a jail - where he felt safe - because an inspection was due to take place.

Christopher Wardally, who had mental health problems, hanged himself when back at Wandsworth Prison, in south London, after spending a fortnight at Pentonville jail, in north London.

The ombudsman said an inspection at Wandsworth had "influenced the thinking" of those who moved Wardally.

Wardally, 25, died in June 2009.

It had not been in Wardally's best interests to be transferred to Pentonville, where he had previously tried to kill himself, the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) report said.

'Considerable anxiety'

Wardally attempted suicide there again, and three days after being taken back to Wandsworth he was found hanged in his cell.

An investigation previously found that 11 inmates had been switched to different jails to "manipulate the outcomes of inspections".

Wardally was transferred to Pentonville shortly before inspectors arrived at Wandsworth.

The ombudsman found evidence of a "connection" between the two events.

Prison officials have rejected the ombudsman's recommendation for a fresh disciplinary inquiry, saying the matters were dealt with as part of a previous investigation.

The ombudsman said Wardally had been released from prison on licence in March 2009 but had reoffended the following month.

He had been remanded into custody for an unspecified offence.

The ombudsman's report said: "From the evidence of the governors and staff, I am satisfied that, on both 26 and 27 May, anticipation of the forthcoming inspection at Wandsworth influenced the thinking of those responsible for the man's movement around the London prison system."

It added: "I have borne in mind throughout my consideration of the man's transfers between prisons that he was a vulnerable prisoner with mental health difficulties.

"I consider that the transfer on 26 May was not in his best interests. It was an avoidable disruption to his continuity of care.

"The man was removed from a prison where he said he felt safe and was returned to a prison that had caused him considerable anxiety."

Prison video

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "The National Offender Management Service carefully considered the PPO's recommendation that a further disciplinary investigation should be held, but concluded that the PPO investigation did not provide any new information to merit a further disciplinary investigation."

Ben Conroy, a lawyer at Wardally's inquest, said the jury found he had hung himself whilst of a disturbed mind, and the movement between prisons had "clearly played a part".

He said Wardally's family had been "extremely upset" by what had happened, and were keen to make sure other people with mental health problems were protected.

He added it was "plainly clear" that some junior prison governors felt a "huge amount of pressure".

Earlier this year, the Wandsworth Guardian newspaper published a video Wardally had made in prison two months before his death.

In it he said: "I want to achieve, I still have targets - get a nine to five, gain some qualifications. Become a qualified mechanic, that was my dream."

He warned young people not to get caught up in drugs or crime and said he was confident he would recover after his time in prison.

Corrupt politicians caught out trying to corrupt top ECtHR judge!

Corrupt politicians caught out trying to corrupt top ECtHR judge!

Sniping at Strasbourg will only hinder reform is the title of an article written by Anthony Lester (Times 6 December 2011, behind a paywall £).

The author begins his argument by stating: "With no written constitution, Britain needs the Human Rights Court to protect its citizens". I agree with this point. Even Rabinder Singh QC (Matrix Chambers), who represented the UK in the Prisoners Votes Case, has written about the need for a written constitution.

Anthony Lester continues by stating: "The Strasbourg court is under constant attack by some sections of the British media and politicians who accuse it of over-reaching its power. But criticisms of the supposed judicial “activism” of the European Court of Human Rights are unfair and politically motivated; they are also dangerous and counter-productive". It is true that the Court is being attacked and for the reasons stated. It is also true to state that the attacks are political in nature, and that they are unfair. The UK signed up to the Council of Europe, and agreed to abide by the Articles under the Convention and abide by the Court's decisions. The UK agreed to the Court's jurisdiction to decide cases, and that the Courts decision is final.

Lord Lester continues his argument: "The most recent flashpoint has been votes for prisoners. The court ruled in a case brought by John Hirst, a former prisoner, that exclusion of all convicted prisoners in custody from the right to vote was in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights". When The Sun advised the government to ignore the ruling, and Tony Blair stated in the House of Commons that convicted prisoners would not get the vote under a Labour government, this combination lit the fuse. It is obvious it would blow up and not blow away.

The author then goes on to say: "The fightback against this ruling began in February, when David Davis introduced a Commons debate. The former Tory Shadow Home Secretary supported by Jack Straw, the former Lord Chancellor, accused the court of overinterpreting the convention to extend its jurisdiction improperly. Whether prisoners should have votes was, they argued, a matter for elected MPs. Last week, Mr Straw and Mr Davis went to Strasbourg to remonstrate with the British judge, Sir Nicolas Bratza, the court’s President". Given the finality of the Court's decision, and the UK's legal obligation to abide by it, is there legitimate scope for a fightback? I contend that there is not and that the so-called fightback is unlawful. I am very concerned that Davis and Straw were allowed a secret hearing by the President of the Court. I intend taking this matter up with the Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers and the Court. I contend that at the very least I am entitled to know what is going on behind the scenes relating to a case I won fair and square in open court.

Anthony Lester furthers his argument: "It is a shame that Mr Straw, who deserves credit as Home Secretary for enshrining the convention into British law through the Human Rights Act, is campaigning to disobey the court’s judgment. It is also bizarre for elected politicians to argue that the right to vote is not a fundamental human right". I agree that Jack Straw should hang his head in shame. That credit requires being reduced because Articles 1 and 13, allowing for guaranteed rights and an effective remedy for their breach by a public authority, were not incorporated into the HRA 1998. Alex Bailin QC (Matrix Chambers) has argued that because of these omissions, in relation to Hirst v UK (No2), the HRA is toothless. It also needs to be bourne in mind that as Foreign Secretary and Justice Secretary Jack Straw failed in his Ministerial Responsibilities to ensure human rights in the UK. No wonder he is engaged in the so-called fightback, he is trying to cover up his unlawful conduct whilst in office. It is more than bizarre for politicians to continue to argue the point the UK lost in my case. It is unlawful conduct.

Lord Lester continues with his argument: "Britain has had a fine and unblemished record in complying with Strasbourg’s judgments and in upholding the European rule of law. But the continuing failure to introduce the legislation to allow votes for prisoners sets a dangerous example to countries with a less pristine record. There are governments elsewhere in Europe that would love to clip the court’s wings and pick and choose which judgments to respect". Others are less than convinced with the UK's record for compliance. At best the UK, when it complies at all, does so to the minimum extent possible. I don't think it helps matters to refer to European rule of law. The Council of Europe's objectives are Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law. The UK signed up to these. The Hirst No2 case involves all 3 of these objectives. Rule of law is rule of law whether in Europe or in the UK. Lord Lester is introducing a false distinction. I do not think it helps to claim that our record is pristine when it is nothing of the sorts. True there are countries with worse records, but that is no excuse for the UK to do the right thing and keep its own backyard clean. Just because some other Member States desire to be free from the Court's scrutiny, is no excuse for the UK to also seek to be on the verge of a rogue or pariah State. That the UK is seeking to do this should light warning beacons and send alarm signals to the people of the UK. First they came for the prisoners...

The author goes onto further his argument: "Some of the media attacks on the court are self-interested. The British media have good reason to support the court; as a result of cases brought by The Times and other newspapers we now have an enforceable legal right to freedom of expression. But some elements dislike the way the court has promoted the right to privacy, a very necessary protection against unwarranted media intrusion". It is true that certain elements of the media have a hidden agenda. I believe there should be a free press. I would argue that biased reporting for this hidden agenda is not in keeping with a free press at all but is a controlled presss. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this issue, it should keep out of the issue of convicted prisoners human right to the vote.

Anthony Lester continues: "It is also untrue to claim that the court has overreached itself or become “activist” in a political sense. It has repeatedly stressed that national authorities are better placed than an international court to judge local needs and conditions, and that these national courts and parliaments have a wide margin of discretion in enforcing convention rights at home". As the UK agreed to the Court's jurisdiction and to abide by its decisions, the Court cannot overreach itself. The UK signed up to the idea that there would closer harmony between Member States, that is united and not waving the national flag in defiance. The Court is merely ensuring that this ideal, which the Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and Committee of Ministers have agreed should come about happens. Sadly, the UK is 60 years behind Europe and needs dragging away from the Dark Ages. What Anthony Lester fails to mention is that the national authorities are required to act in relation to human rights and not abdicate responsibility. For example, the courts should not defer to suprermacy of Parliament like happened with the Prisoners Votes Case.

Lord Lester continues to bang his drum: "In the Hirst case, for example, the court recognised that the right to vote is not absolute and that Parliament enjoyed wide discretion in organising electoral systems. It noted that while there is no place for automatic disenfranchisement “based purely on what might offend public opinion”, restrictions on who can vote may well be justified to prevent crime. What the court found wrong was the UK’s “general, automatic and indiscriminate restriction” on prisoners". By not absolute it means the vote can be restricted by age, nationality, etc, and for offences such as electoral fraud. It does not mean that the UK can decide who is human and who is subhuman and not entitled to human rights, therefore the restriction does not mean the fact that someone is in prison justifies disenfranchisement. Democracy expects only in limited exceptions can the human right to vote be removed. The disenfranchisement on crime prevention grounds would be very difficult to justify. For example, if A Terrorist was caught going to a Polling Station with the intent of blowing up voters and the Polling Station this could be justified. Any restriction simply based upon less than 4 years or under 12 months would be arbitrary and a breach of Hirst No2 and Article 3 of the First Protocol.

The author furthers his argument: "Ireland and Cyprus, though not directly bound by the Hirst judgment, promptly gave prisoners postal votes. But successive British governments have failed for seven years to give Parliament a chance to consider legislation on this issue. The court is likely to decide early next year that legislation must at last be introduced, provoking, no doubt, more furore". Anthony Lester fails to mention that all 47 Member States agreed at the Interlaken Conference, that where the same points arise in cases against other Members States which affect those Member States not a party they should still be bound by the Court decision. For example, in the Republic of Ireland prisoners were not prevented by voting by law but because the State had not provided the facility to allow them to exercise the vote. It is worth noting that the Republic of Ireland recognised that this was an element of my case and it was stated that it was intended to amend the law to fully comply with the judgment. The right includes requiring the State to be proactive as opposed to merely failing to act. It was obvious from the ouset that s.3 of ROPA 1983 must be amended to comply with Hirst No2.

Anthony Lester continues: "Meanwhile, the sniping undermines the Government’s efforts to muster support for reform of the court. The Commission on a Bill of Rights for the UK, of which I am a member, has advised the Government on what it sees as urgent practical reforms. They include improving how judges are selected and elected, ways of urgently tackling the crushing backlog of some 165,000 pending cases so that the court is able to focus on the important issues, and changes to the court’s remedies so that financial awards become exceptional". What Anthony Lester fails to point out is that the Interlaken process contains three elements; reform of the Court, and reform within Member States, and sanctions against Member States for non-compliance. Because the UK has failed to implement Hirst No2, the UK has added 3,500 more prisoners votes cases to that backlog! If the Court had awarded me damages it is arguable that the UK would have complied rather than face huge compensation payouts.

Lord Lester concludes: "Despite the need for reform, the Strasbourg court deserves defending. Before the Human Rights Act, there were insufficient legal remedies in Britain — a country without a written constitution — for breaches of our basic rights. Were Parliament to scrap or emasculate the Human Rights Act or withdraw from the convention, British citizens would once again lack effective protection by our courts against the tyranny of majorities and the abuse of state power". It is clear from the Interlaken process that the Court has been undergoing reform for 10 years. Of course a court which defends human rights deserves defending. The Court puts human rights of citizens of Member States above such outdated notions as sovereignty of Parliament. The HRA could form part of a written constitution guaranteeing human rights, it would only be effective if breaches were remedied by the courts; including the jurisdiction to strike down offending primary legislation. For the UK to threaten to not allow all citizens to have human rights if the Court upholds human rights of prisoners is an abuse of State power. It is the illogic of a dictatorship. The people should be saying not in our name.

Sentencing madness!

Sentencing madness!

Case study 1

Killers of transgender people to get longer sentences

The starting point used by the judge to set the tariff - or minimum term - will double from 15 to 30 years.

Case study 2

Nathan Allen jailed for killing crying son Fletcher

A father who killed his 14-month-old son because he was crying has been jailed for nine years.

Inside Romania's secret CIA prison

Inside Romania's secret CIA prison

In northern Bucharest, in a busy residential neighbourhood minutes from the heart of the capital city, is a secret the Romanian government has long tried to protect.

For years, the CIA used a government building — codenamed "Bright Light" — as a makeshift prison for its most valuable detainees. There it held al-Qa'ida operatives Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, and others in a basement prison before they were ultimately transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, in 2006, according to former US intelligence officials familiar with the location and inner workings of the prison.

The existence of a CIA prison in Romania has been widely reported, but its location has never been made public. The Associated Press and German public television ARD located the former prison and learned details of the facility where harsh interrogation tactics were used. ARD's programme on the CIA prison is set to air today.

The Romanian prison was part of a network of so-called black sites that the CIA operated and controlled overseas in Thailand, Lithuania and Poland. All the prisons were closed by May 2006, and the CIA's detention and interrogation programme ended in 2009.

Unlike the CIA's facility in Lithuania's countryside or the one hidden in a Polish military installation, the CIA's prison in Romania was not in a remote location. It was hidden in plain sight, a couple blocks off a major boulevard on a street lined with trees and homes, along busy train tracks.

The building is used as the National Registry Office for Classified Information, which is also known as ORNISS. Classified information from Nato and the European Union is stored there. Former intelligence officials both described the location of the prison and identified pictures of the building.

In an interview at the building in November, senior ORNISS official Adrian Camarasan said the basement is one of the most secure rooms in all of Romania. But he said Americans never ran a prison there.

"No, no. Impossible, impossible," he said in an ARD interview for its "Panorama" news broadcast, as a security official monitored the interview.

The CIA prison opened for business in the autumn of 2003, after the CIA decided to empty the black site in Poland, according to former US officials.

Shuttling detainees into the facility without being seen was relatively easy. After flying into Bucharest, the detainees were brought to the site in vans. CIA operatives then drove down a side road and entered the compound through a rear gate that led to the actual prison.

The detainees could then be unloaded and whisked into the ground floor of the prison and into the basement.

The basement consisted of six prefabricated cells, each with a clock and arrow pointing to Mecca, the officials said. The cells were on springs, keeping them slightly off balance and causing disorientation among some detainees.

The CIA declined to comment on the prison.

During the first month of their detention, the detainees endured sleep deprivation and were doused with water, slapped or forced to stand in painful positions, several former officials said. Waterboarding, the notorious interrogation technique that simulates drowning, was not performed in Romania, they said.

After the initial interrogations, the detainees were treated with care, the officials said. The prisoners received regular dental and medical checkups. The CIA shipped in Halal food to the site from Frankfurt, Germany, the agency's European centre for operations. Halal meat is prepared under religious rules similar to kosher food.

Former US officials said that because the building was a government installation, it provided excellent cover. The prison didn't need heavy security because area residents knew it was owned by the government. People wouldn't be inclined to snoop in post-communist Romania, with its extensive security apparatus known for spying on the country's own citizens.

Human rights activists have urged the Eastern European countries to investigate the roles their governments played in hosting the prisons in which interrogation techniques such as waterboarding were used. Officials from these countries continue to deny these prisons ever existed.

"We know of the criticism, but we have no knowledge of this subject," Romanian President Traian Basescu said in a September interview with AP.

The CIA has tried to close the book on the detention programme, which President Barack Obama ended shortly after taking office.

"That controversy has largely subsided," the CIA's top lawyer, Stephen Preston, said at a conference this month.

But details of the prison network continue to trickle out through investigations by international bodies, reporters and human rights groups. "There have been years of official denials," said Dick Marty, a Swiss politician who led an investigation into the CIA secret prisons for the Council of Europe. "We are at last beginning to learn what really happened in Bucharest."

During the Council of Europe's investigation, Romania's foreign affairs minister assured investigators in a written report that, "No public official or other person acting in an official capacity has been involved in the unacknowledged deprivation of any individual, or transport of any individual while so deprived of their liberty." That report also described several other government investigations into reports of a secret CIA prison in Romania and said: "No such activities took place on Romanian territory."

Reporters and human rights investigators have previously used flight records to tie Romania to the secret prison program. Flight records for a Boeing 737 known to be used by the CIA showed a flight from Poland to Bucharest in September 2003. Among the prisoners on board, according to former CIA officials, were Mohammed and Walid bin Attash, who has been implicated in the bombing of the USS Cole.

Later, other detainees — Ramzi Binalshibh, Abd al-Nashiri and Abu Faraj al-Libi — were also moved to Romania. A deceptive al-Libi, who was taken to the prison in June 2005, provided information that would later help the CIA identify Osama bin Laden's trusted courier, a man who unwittingly led them the CIA to bin Laden himself.

Court documents recently discovered in a lawsuit have also added to the body of evidence pointing to a CIA prison in Romania. The files show CIA contractor Richmor Aviation, a New York-based charter company, operated flights to and from Romania along with other locations including Morocco and the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay.

For the CIA officers working at the secret prison, the assignment wasn't glamorous. The officers served 90-day tours, slept on the compound and ate their meals there, too. Officers were prevented from the leaving the base after their presence in the neighbourhood stoked suspicion. One former officer complained that the CIA spent most of its time baby-sitting detainees like Binalshibh and Mohammed whose intelligence value diminished as the years passed.

The Romanian and Lithuanian sites were eventually closed in the first half of 2006 before CIA Director Porter Goss left the job. Some of the detainees were taken to Kabul, where the CIA could legally hold them before they were sent to Guantanamo. Others were sent back to their native countries.

AP

Yes to reforming the European court of human rights. No to overriding it

Yes to reforming the European court of human rights. No to overriding it

Urban myth mustn't be allowed to undermine the ECHR

Sigrid Rausing
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 6 December 2011 20.30 GMT

Remember John Hirst? In 1979 he killed his landlady with an axe and soon became Britain's most litigious prisoner. Finding that he couldn't vote, he took a case to the European court of human rights in Strasbourg, and won. The court ruled that the UK's indiscriminate disenfranchisement of prisoners was, indeed, illegal.

The issue proved controversial, to say the least. Jack Straw delayed dealing with it for three years while in government. Last January the former Labour home secretary and the Conservative MP David Davis secured a Commons debate on the subject. Davis, according to the BBC, said: "We've got a crisis here which has been brought about by the court extending its own power, trying to overrule in effect a parliament."

The Conservative MP Dominic Raab agrees. He has presented a case for fundamental reforms of the relationship between parliament and the European court in a recently published paper for the think-tank Civitas (2011). In it, he questions the Strasbourg Court's supremacy over British Parliament. He argues that the Hirst ruling risks triggering a constitutional crisis, because parliament voted against it. He claims that the Strasbourg judges are pursuing a political agenda – the enfranchisement of prisoners – that undermines the rule of law and democratic accountability. He suggests amending the Human Rights Act so that "adverse" Strasbourg rulings can be debated, and voted on, in the Commons: so-called democratic override.

For people in favour of democratic override the Hirst case is a convenient reference. He is guilty of a heinous crime, and few people are interested in prisoners' right to vote. If, as Raab says, non-compliance has no serious consequences, why should we comply? There are two answers to this: about human rights principles, and how we act within the Council of Europe.

Human rights is about principles, and the most important one is this: we are all equal before the law. In practice this can be controversial because there will always be people whose rights we would prefer not to defend. How, then, do we in practice make distinctions? The deportation of foreign-born criminals, for example, is an issue people do care about. Lawyers and judges in deportation cases usually refer to article 8 of the Human Rights Act: "Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence." A very small minority of foreign-born criminals up for deportation are in fact violent criminals. Judges will want to discriminate between violent individuals and individuals who pose no threat to the community, and in fact they can – because the article is hedged to allow for exactly that. In other words, the law is not at fault, but the interpretation may sometimes not be sufficiently robust.

Interpretation is everything. Even in America, where no one disputes the supremacy of the law, liberals and conservatives argue, increasingly bitterly, over the interpretation of particular amendments. In Britain, by contrast, a debate that should be about the interpretation of the law often ends up questioning our obligation to comply with the law, and the authority of the Strasbourg court. The reason is that human rights law is commonly associated with a European system of thought and law, transplanted on to British common law. The layers of overlapping jurisdictions and bodies of law complicate the landscape, and make it vulnerable to attack. We have, in essence, transformed a number of aspirational principles (the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948), to a legally binding instrument (the Human Rights Act 1998), via the European Convention of Human Rights (1952) and the European Court of Human Rights. The Conservatives pledged to repeal the HRA in their election manifesto; the Liberal Democrats are committed to keeping it. As a compromise, a Commission has been appointed to consider whether we need a Bill of Rights for the UK, and, separately, to advise on how to reform the Strasbourg court, which currently has a backlog of over 165,000 cases.

There is no question that the court needs reform. We need to resolve the issue of the backlog of cases, discourage or disqualify trivial claims, and make sure that the judges elected are sufficiently experienced and qualified. It's complicated because of the number of parties concerned, but it can be done.

The need for reform, however, should not be used as evidence that we need to fundamentally transform the relationship between the court and parliament in the UK. The Russian government has long lobbied in the Council of Europe on the issue of democratic override, in their case that the Duma should have supremacy over the Strasbourg court on Russian matters. Given the state of Russia's democracy that is obviously a bad idea. But if we too claim democratic override, on what grounds can we argue it is a bad idea for Russia?

Arguing for democratic override sets a bad example in Europe and, in a context that is all about patient negotiation, hampers the reform process of the court. The recently elected British President of the Strasbourg Court, Sir Nicolas Bratza, has warned of the dangers of British xenophobia in relation to on-going political intervention in the court. He is right to do so. Like health and safety, human rights is becoming entangled in a web of urban myths and populist conservative attacks. An important debate to be had about the efficiency of the Strasbourg court should not be confused with the debate about the relationship between the court and parliament.

The law on murder is most foul. Kenneth Clarke should reform it

The law on murder is most foul. Kenneth Clarke should reform it

The public and the legal profession want change. It would be a tragedy if the justice minister is thwarted by his peers

The justice secretary, Kenneth Clarke, should beware of a report published this week advising a change to the law on murder. He has been mugged four times already in the dark alley that passes for law reform. He gets no support from his leader, his colleagues, his party, the opposition or the media. They hurl at him the hobgoblins of prejudice, fear, conservatism, vindictiveness and xenophobia, supported by the ghouls of Fleet Street. In reply, Clarke can deploy only common sense and public opinion, and in penal policy they hardly raise a squeak.

The judges and academics of the Homicide Review Advisory Group point out, for the umpteenth time, that the British law on murder is shockingly out of date. It requires a "mandatory" life sentence of at least 15 years for a crime that lumps together premeditated killing, mercy killing, killing under extreme provocation and gang violence that results in death. Attempted murder, where death may have been averted only by assiduous medical care, is treated quite differently. In the case of murder, sentencing does not match the circumstance or the perpetrator. There is no scope for plea-bargaining. Judges have no discretion to take into account the likelihood of rehabilitation or the lack of risk of reoffending. It is all primitive.

Any violent death is awful, and murder especially so. It is also rare, and each one is peculiar. Those who have studied murder rates in different countries see them as reflecting many social and economic factors. They tend to be highest in the drug economies of Central and South America. They vary with the availability of weapons, with migrant cultures and with the efficiency of emergency services. New York murders fell dramatically when hospitals were compelled to admit critical cases irrespective of insurance cover, cutting the lag before treatment and thus the chance of survival by a crucial 20 to 23 minutes.

When capital punishment in Britain was abolished in 1965, a notional pact was reached between parliament and public that life sentences "should mean life". This was interpreted as at least 15 years followed by the possibility of release on a "life licence". Ever since, parliament has treated this pact as a sacred icon of retributive justice. While other states, even the US, updated their laws, Britain remained intransigent. If you kill someone, even if you did not really mean to do so, you go to prison for 15 years and are never fully "released".

Time and again the judicial establishment has pleaded with parliament for a more sophisticated approach to homicide. In 2004 the Law Commission called the law on murder "a mess". A year later it was "a rickety structure set on shaky foundations". A further year passed, and three sorts of homicide were identified for different treatment, with a fixed tariff only for the most serious premeditated killings.

Two directors of public prosecutions, Lord MacDonald and Kier Starmer, have added their voices to pleas for reform. According to Starmer, many juries "instinctively kick against the idea that someone should be convicted of murder with a mandatory life sentence" when there was no intention to kill. This replicates the pre-1965 situation, where juries refused to convict people if it meant they would hang – a phenomenon thought to have created Britain's then "low" murder rate.

The left used to wear with pride a liberal reputation on law reform. Past Labour governments oversaw the end of capital punishment and reforms to divorce, homosexuality and abortion. This ended abruptly in the 1990s, with Tony Blair's cynical soundbite, "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime". The prison population soared to 85,000 under Labour, and home secretaries lived in terror of the tabloids. The lord chancellor, Lord Falconer, said he was "not convinced of the need for a change", and that was that.

True, in the Dutch auction for penal retribution, the Tories gave not an inch. No peep of progressive thought on sentencing came from them in decades. This was the more puzzling in that public opinion, as opposed to knee-jerk newspaper editorials, was relatively open-minded. Surveys showed a readiness to reform cannabis law. Polls indicated an acceptance of non-custodial sentences where appropriate. A Nuffield survey last year found widespread agreement that murder embraced complex crimes and that punishment should reflect this. Only 20% thought a gang member who did not actually kill should be liable for a murder.

On coming to office last year Clarke proved himself a pragmatic reformer. He seemed determined to rescue his party and the justice system generally from its reputation for reactionary inertia. This was not, he declared, because he regarded most punishment as excessive, but because it was wasteful, inefficient and counterproductive. It created criminality rather than reduced it.

Spurred by a curb on prison spending, Clarke proposed to cut remand in custody and permit a 50% cut in sentences for early guilty pleas. He hinted that violent rape might be treated differently from date rape. He wanted to end the growth in indeterminate sentences that had 3,000 people still in prison beyond their indicative tariff. The only word for most of this was commonsensical.

The response was grimly familiar. Clarke was shouted down in his plea that too many people were in jail for too long and for trivial reasons, and that remission for guilty pleas would save court time. His proposals were rubbished by the prime minister and home secretary, and he was forced to accept the primitivism of mandatory prison for knife crime and mandatory life for "two strikes" serious offenders. There is no way he'll cut the prison population.

David Miliband and Labour's justice spokesman, Sadiq Khan, played to the gallery with demands that Clarke was setting 2,500 "dangerous offenders free" and should be sacked. The days are clearly not over when Labour front benches bayed in cringing unison with the Daily Mail and the Sun. The Clarke affair has seen Britain's political community at its most depressing.

Justice requires that punishment fit the crime and its perpetrator. In the case of murder, this is what judges, prosecutors, the legal profession, the Law Commission and public opinion now regard as the way forward. For once there is a progressive justice minister in place with radical intent. It would be a tragedy if he is thwarted by the bovine tendency in British politics.

Sentencing: bloodlust for life

Sentencing: bloodlust for life

Even though the public is aware that full-life tariffs are highly exceptional, the rhetoric of 'life for a death' remains seductive

Editorial
guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 6 December 2011 21.15 GMT

Another interesting report on criminal justice, and another sane plan that will not come to pass. The debate that keeps our prisons packed makes the rational heart grow weary.

Of course it is right, as the Homicide Review Advisory Group argued yesterday, that not all murders are the same – just compare a serial predator with an assailant in a pub fight gone wrong. Of course it follows that judges should be free to sentence in the light of the facts. And of course it is daft that their hands remain somewhat tied by a mandatory life sentence introduced in a deal to abolish hanging nearly 50 years ago. Within hours, however, No 10 and Labour alike demonstrated they were incapable of digesting these truths. Even though the public is well aware that real full-life tariffs are highly exceptional, the rhetoric of "life for a death" remains seductive. Despite Ken Clarke's professed desire to enhance judicial discretion, he recently announced there would soon be more, not fewer, mandatory terms – with mandatory life extended from murder to other serious crimes for the first time.

The justice secretary took this retrograde step to secure a bigger prize, the abolition of New Labour's indeterminate sentences of imprisonment for public protection (life terms in all but name). In principle, IPPs are an affront to justice because the presumption of liberty is withdrawn: prisoners serve their time and still have to prove they deserve freedom. In practice, the problems multiply. Firstly, because – as human beings confronted with difficult decisions – judges can be tempted to pass the buck. Passing an indefinite sentence allows them to do that, by shunting the question of how early an offender can safely be released towards the parole board. Consequently, some very short sentences were made indefinite and, although this practice has since been curbed, there are still inmates who have been trapped inside for years on the strength of a notional sentence of a few months. Demonstrating, from behind bars, that one poses no risk is never easy. It is impossible in a Kafkaesque world where cash-strapped prisons can tell inmates they are not dangerous enough to justify a costly risk-rating exercise at the same time as the parole board tells them they cannot be freed without it.

But this is the world we are in as Mr Clarke's bill wends its way through the Lords. Shamefully, Labour's Sadiq Khan has dug in for IPPs. It must be hoped that this is mere cynical posturing, not a serious signal of intent to unite with the Tory right to keep IPPs on the books. After promising he would not play politics by branding Ken Clarke soft, Ed Miliband needs to consider that a fight to preserve IPPs would stain his reputation into the indefinite future.

Mandatory life sentences are 'unjust and outdated'

Mandatory life sentences are 'unjust and outdated'

Mandatory life sentences for murder in England and Wales are both unjust and outdated, legal experts said today.

The Homicide Review Advisory Group, which includes judges, academics and former QCs, said neither mandatory sentences nor the system for setting minimum terms allow for sentences to match individual crimes.

A so-called mercy killing attracts the same mandatory life penalty as serial killings, the group said.

It called for sentencing for murder to be discretionary.

The group's report added that the indefinite and misleading nature of life sentences - which may or may not involve a life spent behind bars - was both unjust and incomprehensible.

It added that the time has come for a move to fixed sentences for murder so that the exact circumstances of offences can be properly reflected by the courts.

The mandatory life sentence replaced the death penalty in 1965.

The group said it was brought in as a compromise to ensure the abolition of the death penalty made its way through both Houses of Parliament.

The starting point for a minimum term to be served for less serious murders is 15 years.

Having served their term, offenders are released on life licence, but can be recalled to prison at any time if they go on to breach its terms.

The report comes after research published last October showed there was no evidence of widespread support for mandatory life sentences for murder.

Fewer than one person in five believed that sentencing cases of murder was "about right", the study found.

Report authors law professors Barry Mitchell and Julian Roberts said serious consideration should be given to using mandatory life sentences for "particularly serious cases" only.

Prof Mitchell, from Coventry University, and Oxford University's Prof Roberts said they wanted to test the assumption that anything less than automatic indefinite jail terms would undermine public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Their study, funded by charity the Nuffield Foundation, found that the public had limited understanding of how convicted murderers were sentenced.

In particular, the vast majority of people wrongly assumed the murder rate in England and Wales has increased over the past decade, when it had actually begun to decline.

And a big proportion of those surveyed underestimated the length of time that most murderers spend in prison before being released on life licence.

More than 1,000 people were questioned across England and Wales.

In October this year, Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke unveiled plans to extend the use of US-style mandatory life sentences to crimes other than murder for the first time.

The surprise announcement came just a day after he told MPs that mandatory sentences were not the British way and led to a game in which judges would look for any excuse not to hand down the set terms.

Magistrates and solicitors warned the "two strikes" approach would erode judges' discretion.

The move, part of plans to scrap the controversial indeterminate sentences for serious offences, would release hundreds of dangerous criminals on to the streets early, helping to slow the rising prison population by 2,500 places by 2030, a Ministry of Justice (MoJ) impact assessment showed.

Mr Clarke said that around 20 people a year could expect to receive the new mandatory sentence aimed at those guilty of two sexual or violent offences each deserving 10 years or more in jail.

Judges would retain the discretion not to impose a mandatory sentence if it would be unjust to do so, he added at the time, saying: "I find it difficult to imagine that anybody convicted of two such serious sexual and violent attacks wouldn't have been given life anyway."

A Ministry of Justice spokesman said: "We have no plans to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder.

"The most serious crimes deserve the most serious sentences."

Comment: I don't believe that 15 years should be the starting point for less serious murders. Even under the transportation system a life sentence averaged 7-8 years before parole. In Sweden and Holland the life sentence is 8 years.

With a determinate sentence the most serious crimes will still attract the most serious sentence, therefore the MoJ position against reform does not stand up.

Met Police search for truth not Madeleine

Met Police search for truth not Madeleine

The Metropolitan Police force has said there would be no limits in its re-examination of the search.

The search has to start with Apartment 5A and seek to establish why the McCanns felt the need to make false statements claiming that there had been a break-in. Apart from this being a cover up, it is strong indication that when the McCanns went out that evening there was only the twins alive and well in Apartment 5A. There is evidence of no break-in, but no evidence of either an abductor or abduction. It's not so much a search for Madeleine, but a search for the truth.

It's not just the English channel which divides the UK from Europe!

It's not just the English channel which divides the UK from Europe!

A Convention to protect your rights and liberties

The European Convention of Human Rights is the first Council of Europe’s convention and it aims at protecting human rights. Its ratification is a prerequisite for joining the Council of Europe. It was adopted in 1950 and entered into force in 1953.

More than 200 conventions are a part of the Council of Europe legal framework. They are legally binding agreements with which a member state is obliged to comply once it has signed and ratified them.

Comment:

"A Convention to protect your rights and liberties".

Enforcement is necessary for the human rights under the Convention to be guaranteed.

"They are legally binding agreements with which a member state is obliged to comply once it has signed and ratified them".

Legally binding in which jurisdiction?

The member governments of the Council of Europe work towards peace and greater unity based on human rights and fundamental freedoms. With this Convention they decide to take the first steps to enforce many of the rights contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

According to Wikipedia: Unity is the state of being undivided or unbroken.

If certain newspapers and politicians are anything to go by, rather than unity there is disunity between the UK and the Council of Europe.

Given that it is 60 years since the UK took its first steps, surely it is way past time that the UK takes further steps?

Russian prisoners cast their votes in parliamentary elections

Russian prisoners cast their votes in parliamentary elections

Topic: Russian State Duma Elections (2011)

MOSCOW, December 4 (RIA Novosti)

Approximately 90% of Russia’s inmates serving time in the country’s penitentiaries have cast their ballots in the parliamentary elections, NTV news channel said on Sunday.

With only five hours remaining until polls close in Russia’s westernmost time zone in the exclave of Kaliningrad, 25.4% of eligible voters have cast their ballots. The Siberian region of Krasnoyarsk has just closed its polls.

NTV also reported that prisoners are casting their votes according to a strict time schedule and that none of the prisoners so far have declined to vote.

The first preliminary results of the lower house of parliament’s elections will be announced shortly after 9:00 p.m. Moscow time [GMT 04:00]. The first official preliminary results will be announced in the early hours of Monday.

At 4am GMT voting began in Moscow and in most of European Russia, while Far Eastern and Siberian regions have already presented reports about the first hours of the vote, that show that turnout was generally lower than in the previous elections in 2007.

More than 7,000 journalists, including 389 foreign reporters, from 4,000 media are covering the elections, the Central Election Commission said.

Voting violations have been registered throughout the country, though the Central Election Commission has not confirmed any of them. Police have launched more than 200 administrative investigations on violations.

All of Russia's seven legally-registered political parties are competing for representation in the Duma election but pollsters have predicted that only the four incumbents, United Russia, A Just Russia, the Communists and the Liberal Democratic Party, will find enough support to win seats.

Prisoners Vote Out of the Public Eye

Convicted prisoners are banned from voting, but suspects in pretrial detention are not. People in psychiatric facilities are also allowed to participate in elections unless they are ruled legally incompetent.

Humber Bridge Board to cut car tolls by March 2012

Humber Bridge Board to cut car tolls by March 2012

The toll to cross the Humber Bridge are expected to be cut to £1.50 before March 2012

Tolls on the Humber Bridge will be cut before March 2012, the organisation which operates the bridge has pledged.

The chairman of the Humber Bridge Board, David Gemmell, said the £3 charge for a one-way bridge crossing by car would be slashed within weeks.

Chancellor George Osborne had earlier called on the board to cut tolls after announcing the government had written-off £150m of the bridge's £330m debt.

Mr Gemmell said the board aimed to cut car tolls by the end of February.

He said the Humber Bridge Board was "delighted" with the chancellor's announcement about the debt write-off in his Autumn Statement on Tuesday.

Mr Gemmell said it was now down to the local authorities represented on the Humber Bridge Board to accept the government's debt write-off, but he said he believed they would do so.

"It is something the bridge board has been trying to get for many, many years," he said.

Breathtaking Britain: photographs of Peak District landscapes by Ben Hall

Breathtaking Britain: photographs of Peak District landscapes by Ben Hall

Higger Tor at dusk

Source.

Scoppola v Italy (No3) Observations of the Government of the UK

Scoppola v Italy (No3) Observations of the Government of the UK

Scoppola v Italy (No3) Observations of the Government of the UK

Dog shoots man in buttocks, US police reveal

Dog shoots man in buttocks, US police reveal

An American man was rushed to hospital after being shot in the buttocks by his dog during an ill-fated duck hunting accident in Utah.

The 46 year-old, who has not been named, was hit just a few feet away from his "excited" pet canine, which had stepped on a shotgun in his boat.

He escaped serious injury – only receiving an injury to his buttocks and, almost certainly to his pride. Police confirmed the incident was not a hoax.

Sweden comes to the rescue of UK prisoners on votes issue

Sweden comes to the rescue of UK prisoners on votes issue

Dear Mr Hirst,

We hereby confirm the reception of your e-mail dated October 17, 2011, in which you express your concern for the issue of the U.K. comply of the judgement of your case.

Please be informed that Sweden in the Committee of Ministers will supervise how the judgement will be implemented in the U.K.

Best regards,

The Swedish Representation
to the Council of Europe
67, Allée de la Robertsau
67000 Strasbourg
FRANCE

A fox pounces on a mouse under the snow in Yellowstone Park

A fox pounces on a mouse under the snow in Yellowstone Park

This sequence of photos shows a fox pouncing on a mouse under the snow in Yellowstone Park. Wildlife photographer Richard Peters caught the action while travelling through Lamar Valley in Yellowstone National Park. He explained: "We watched it walk across the snow, stopping from time to time to listen for mice activity underneath the snow cover...
Picture: Richard Peters/Rex Features

Have a weary Christmas and a crappy New Year...

Have a weary Christmas and a crappy New Year...

Britain will be back in recession this winter, warns OECD

Longer dole queues in prospect, says thinktank, as Bank governor speaks of 'enormous challenges'

See you in court Ma'am!

See you in court Ma'am!

Hirst v Executive, Parliament and Judiciary (case no.1KH04685)

As I am a freeman I have no wish to serve the Foreign Secretary and Justice Secretary like I was a servant and they my masters. Save for serving them with a court summons issued at Hull County Court. In particular, William Hague and Kenneth Clarke are the Ministers responsible for failing to abide by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) judgment in Hirst v UK (No2).

Apparently, the District Judge states "It is not clear who the Cabinet Office, Electoral Commission or Parliament is.

I claim that those collectively responsible for the breach of human rights should accept service of the County Court summons.

The District Judge states I need "to clarify and specifically name in [the] claim form".

I believe that the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) clarifies the position from an international and European law perspective: "4. In order to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the Convention system, the principle of subsidiarity must be fully operational in all states parties to the Convention. The Interlaken process should therefore take into account, in particular, a number of matters to which the Assembly attaches particular importance and which do not require amendment of the Convention: the need to strengthen implementation of Convention rights at the national level (including the res interpretata authority of the Court’s case law); the improvement of the effectiveness of domestic remedies in states with major structural problems, and the need to rapidly and fully execute the judgments of the Court".

I specifically name the UK, that is, the 3 arms of the State; Executive, Parliament and Judiciary.

The Queen is said to be the Head of State, and David Cameron is the head of government. Executive power is exercised by Her Majesty's Government, on behalf of and by the consent of the Monarch, as well as by the devolved governments of Scotland and Wales, and the Executive of Northern Ireland. Legislative power is vested in both the government and the two chambers of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the House of Commons and the House of Lords, as well as in the Scottish parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. The judiciary is independent of the executive and the legislature, the highest national court being the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom (Source: Wikipedia).

What remedy does justice demand? Clearly s.3 of ROPA 1983 must be amended to ensure that it is compatible with Article 3 of the First Protocol of the ECHR. The Human Rights Act 1998(HRA) also needs to be amended to include Articles 1 and 13 of the ECHR, had this been done in the first place it is possible that my case need not have gone all the way to Strasbourg and back again. The High Court abdicated responsibility, and erred in law by deferring to Parliament. Given the lack of political will in Parliament for such a necessary reform, and to honour the UK's obligations to the Council of Europe, the Judiciary needed to exercise its independence and provide a check and balance upon State abuse. Given that the FCO argued that £1,000 for the loss of the vote is reasonable, this should be paid to each inmate who suffered the human rights abuse during each election since my case was decided.