A Grieve error
James Forsyth 5:28pm
The Conservative leadership claims that a British Bill of Rights would serve to guide judges in interpreting the European Convention on Human Rights and so give Britain some discretion in how the rights which exist in the Charter — many of which are vague — are applied in this country. But in the new issue of Standpoint the eminent legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg reports that Dominic Grieve, the shadow justice secretary and a firm supporter of the ECHR, thinks that a British Bill of Rights would only be introduced towards the end of a Cameron first term and might well not be on the statue book by the end of it. Grieve tells Rozenberg, "I would like to think we could do it in the course of a parliament". In other words, Britain will have to continue to accept judgments based on the ECHR until at least 2014.
As Rozenberg notes, there is no reason why Grieve could not be developing a bill now which is ready to go if the Tories win the next election. But it seems that the shadow Justice Secretary has decided to kick this issue into the long grass. That could be a decision that Cameron lives to regret if more cases relating to terrorism and national security end up going all the way to Strasbourg.
Previous
James
November 2nd, 2009 5:41pm Report this comment"In other words, Britain will have to continue to accept judgments based on the ECHR until at least 2014"
And this is so different from a 'British Bill of Rights' because...? It will still be based on the ECHR.
The Human Rights Act is not a problem. The Daily Mail's erroneous interpretations of it are.
Naomi Muse
November 2nd, 2009 5:57pm Report this commentThere is a problem with declarations of human rights as far as learned barristers of my acquaintance are concerned.
Some say they do not believe in the basis of human rights at all and other say that the problem is that when do you stop?
Are our human rights being threatened when the government pushes through new planning rules so that a wind farm can be put up on a site of special scientific interest, without the customary public consultation?
If a child loses his pencil at school and you look to see how far his or her human rights reach to is he or she entitled to another pencil as a human right and if so, from whom, parent or state?
Sounds daft but it appears to be quite a conundrum.
DavidDP
November 2nd, 2009 6:02pm Report this commentWhy, is Strasbourg noticeably lenient on terrorists or something?
Peter Oborne's essay on the Tory case for the ECHR is a must read.
Holly ......
November 2nd, 2009 6:19pm Report this commentNice little diversion to take our minds off Neather? It's a big world out there.
Gareth
November 2nd, 2009 6:49pm Report this commentWe have a Bill of Rights. It was written in 1689.
Edmund Jerk
November 2nd, 2009 7:37pm Report this comment"We have a Bill of Rights. It was written in 1689."
True! But how many of those rights do we have left?
Ian Walker
November 2nd, 2009 7:38pm Report this commentI'd prefer a Schedule of Rights, where the different rights of individuals, corporations (and that includes i.e. quangos) and society in general are placed in reference to each other.
Then you can state explicity, for instance, that an individual's right to the sanctity of their own home takes precedence over the right to life of an illegal intruder (or you can state the opposite if you wish).
That way you can sweep away the nefarious claims of "infrinjin me ooman rites" in situations where you have determined that another right takes precedence.
The nice thing would be that all other law would naturally flow down from the Schedule.
logdon
November 2nd, 2009 7:40pm Report this commentIf the ECHR can be used from the extremes of allowing an asylum seeker to stay because he has a cat and removal would infringe his rights to a family life, to allowing Afghan hijackers leave to remain because the place of origin is unsafe, is the Law truly an ass?
Brian E.
November 2nd, 2009 7:45pm Report this commentI don't think the problem is the Human Rights Legislation, I think it is the way many judges seem to be interpreting it.
That is why all our laws need to be far more specific, with parliament thoroughly examining the details so that there is minimal opportunity for judges to have to decide exactly what the law means.
Grieve needs to address the problem of judges over-riding the will of parliament (as in the case of dangerous terrorists who can't be deported because no-body wants them, but equally can't be detained because of their Human Rights) and ensuring they just administer the law fairly.
Barbara
November 2nd, 2009 7:46pm Report this commentWe've had the Magna Carta that has served this nation for centuries, we don't need any new legislation, and the EHRC is not an elected body, and run by Leninists, and not conducive to British ways, the Human Rights Act has caused more problems than enough and it should be repealed. We are over loaded with quango's that are not elected and they cost us millions that could be better spent. Lets go back to basics, with no silly legislation to hinder our freedoms of speech, back to the beginning where commonsense ruled.
logdon
November 2nd, 2009 8:41pm Report this commentChris
November 2nd, 2009 6:11pm
Down Lassie!
Mirtha Tidville
November 2nd, 2009 9:26pm Report this commentBarbara
How right you are. The ECHR was written after WW2 and in the immediate aftermath of Hitler to deal with problems at the time. The Uber Liberals took it under their wing. Successive Home Secretaries since the war thought better of letting the genie out of the bottle until the student activist idiot Straw came along. Never mind Grieve, Cameron just needs to bin it....might even vote for him if he shows some such bottle..
2trueblue
November 2nd, 2009 10:09pm Report this commentEverybody now has rights, but nobody has responsibilities.
Snowman
November 2nd, 2009 10:26pm Report this commentWhether one likes it or not, there are two irreconcilable aspects of the Human Rights approach to justice. First, no right can be absolute for each of us. In conflict, either I or the other party will have to give up on a right. Second, the decision as to who is to lose will have to be adjudged by someone. Under what legal guidance or precedence? There was little wrong with the British justice system. Why fix something that wasn’t broke?
Mirtha has my vote.
Ken
November 3rd, 2009 9:21am Report this commentCriminal prosecutions are now only to be taken forward after a potential criminal's human rights have been properly weighed among all the factors involved in a decision to prosecute or otherwise, says the latest Stalinist edict from the so very new Labour Director of Public Prosecutions.
(http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1224859/Think-criminals-human-rights-orders-DPP.html)
Barrister Grieve may grieve not, others will surely be more concerned.
Dorothy Wilson
November 3rd, 2009 10:17am Report this comment"The Human Rights Act is not a problem. The Daily Mail's erroneous interpretations of it are."
Sorry but I couldn't disagree more. The problem with the Act is that it the allows human rights of one set of people to over-ride those of others.
An in-coming Conservative government should make a Bill of Rights a priority not tip it into the long grass. I believe - but may be wrong here - that the Germans do not have a problem with the ECHR because of legislation they have introduced. If that is the case we need to have a good look at their example.
Marcher Baron
November 3rd, 2009 5:50pm Report this commentWe already have a Bill of Rights; here is part of the Oath included therein -
"And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God."
See:
http://www.constitution.org/eng/eng_bor.htm
Carl Gardner
November 3rd, 2009 7:52pm Report this commentGosh, people are confused about this.
Dominic Grieve (who was always in favour of incorporating the ECHR into our own law - I remember hearing him speak on the subject in the 1990s) has brought Tory policy in this area back to sanity, in my view. I'm not saying everything in the ECHR is perfect or that the Strasbourg judges or UK judges are always right. But the idea that the UK should denounce the ECHR is an extreme one, and I'm glad he's clear the Tories won't do it.
And once you accept that, there isn't all that much room for manoeuvre domestically. It's quite wrong to suggest that early reform is needed to avoid "more cases going all the way to Strasbourg". Any reform of the HRA that prevents British judges applying Strasbourg case law would make it more likely, not less, that cases would go to Strasbourg.
There's no mileage in tying down the judges. Most of their judgments under the HRA, for instance on non-deportation of terror suspects at risk of torture, are uncontroversial (in a legal sense) application of clear Strasbourg case-law. The Strasbourg decisions in Hirst, on prisoners' rights to vote, and Marper, on DNA databases (both of which judgments I disagree with) are quite clear. You simply cannot blame British judges or the HRA for those things.
What Conservatives who don't like some of these things should be pressing for is for William Hague to make serious proposals for negotations in the Council of Europe on amendments to the ECHR.
Back to top