http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/22...-liz-trus/

Just thought I'd give my thoughts on this subject and write about aspects of it.

The Act is very misunderstood. It has helped many good people and has been put to good use. Papers like the Daily Fail tend to focus on stories where some criminal has used it to their advantage but even then the Daily Fail will put spin on it.

It enabled people to enforce their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights through the domestic courts rather than having to take human rights matters to Strasbourg. The ECHR came about after the war to ensure such atrocities and breaches of freedoms would never happen again. If you want to read a good case on human rights, try this one: R (Purdy) v DPP (2009) UKHL 45.

That being said, I am the first to start moaning when terrorists and supporters such as Abu-Hamza cannot be deported because they will face treatment that contravenes Article 3 of the ECHR: “No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.” Why should such evil people have these rights is what many people say? Then again, the rights must apply across the board otherwise what kind of totalitarian system would we have if the courts could say the rights apply to you but not to you. What if, as some argue, criminals lose all their rights? Then we would have the problem of the wrongfully accused. People sometimes have their convictions quashed on appeal so it would be unjust if they had lost their rights in the meantime. I do not agree that criminals should lose all their rights in any case.

The problem is that the countries we aim to deport them to have such questionable Criminal Justice systems that it enables them to play such cards. I do recognise though that even without that, the process through the courts and opportunities to appeal to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court can take an awfully long time.

Rights such as Articles 2 (right to life) and 3 (above) are absolute and cannot be interfered with by the state. Other rights such as Article 8 are qualified and are subject to interference from the state if it "is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others."

Article 8, contrary to what some people think, is not a right to privacy. It is a right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. An example of justified interference in the above paragraph would be if the state interfered with someone's Article 8 rights to protect someone else's Article 2 rights. Terrorism springs to mind and Article 2 trumps Article 8 of course.

In terms of human rights matters, the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg is above our Supreme Court but that does not mean an appeal will always be granted. Rulings of that court are not binding on the domestic courts either, though they must be taken into consideration.

A landmark case in the Supreme Court was R v Horncastle [2009] UKSC 14. Here, the appellants argued that the hearsay evidence allowed in under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, breached their right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the ECHR. They were convicted of serious crimes on the strength of witness statements and the witnesses could not be cross examined by the defence counsel.

The Act allows evidence to be read out if, for example, the witness is deceased, suffering mental health problems or out of the country and it is not practicable to secure attendance. The court went against an earlier ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in Al-Khawaja and Tahery v UK (2009) 49 EHRR 1 and dismissed the appeals. Lord Phillips delivering a judgment with which the other six members of the Court – Lady Hale, Lord Brown, Lord Mance, Lord Neuberger, Lord Kerr and Lord Judge – agreed. Lord Phillips noted ([2009] UKSC 14, [11]) that “[t]he requirement to ‘take into account’ the Strasbourg jurisprudence will normally result in this Court applying principles that are clearly established by the Strasbourg Court”. The present case, however, represented one of the “rare occasions where this court has concerns as to whether a decision of the Strasbourg Court sufficiently appreciates or accommodates particular aspects of our domestic process. In such circumstances it is open to this court to decline to follow the Strasbourg decision, giving reasons for adopting this course.”

In conclusion, I recognise concerns but I have no problem with the Act remaining in force. The above demonstrates that contrary to what the papers would have you believe, it is not some all powerful legislation that means we answer to the European Court of Human Rights. Each case is judged on its own merits and will be duly tested in the courts. Neither is there some big right to privacy that we cannot interfere with.

Would I sing to a different tune if me or my family had been affected by terrorism and I had watched them resist deportation on Human Rights grounds? Absolutely. I am fortunate enough to write this without emotions running high and influencing my thoughts.

We all have the rights and can enforce them if the need arises. The nature of the Criminal Justice system will inevitably throw the subject up often and give the press some mouthwatering opportunity for spin. This in turn leads to headlines that anger the public and leads to the potential for misinformed conclusions being drawn about the Act and whether or not it should be scrapped.

Right, I'm off to enjoy Article 2 now!  LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

think you need the love of a good woman Doc

Iain

I'll tell her that just after I've told her to do a better job of home made Chicken Balti next time The repercussions are too terrible to imagine My Article 2 rights will cease to exist LL.B (Hons) - University of Derby
LOT (Lord of Time) - University of Gallifrey

nice one Doc

Iain