I Agree - Scrap the Human Rights Act

When the 56 SNP MPs arrived in Westminster on Monday I was delighted and hoped that they would be an effective and sensible opposition.

Today the Guardian's headlines read ‘The SNP will not consent to Tory plans to scrap Human Rights Act’.  

I suggest this is very short sighted of them and I do hope they’re not going to turn into a group like Scottish Labour in the Scottish Parliament where Labour oppose most proposals for no good reason.

The 1998 Human Rights Act needs to be replaced as it appears to benefit the criminal rather than the victim. We need a Human Rights Act in which our courts and justice system have the last word. In recent years the Supreme Court was introduced and the word of these justices should be final or our justice system will continue to be puppet theatre whose strings are pulled by Brussels.  What is the point in us spending billions on justice if the EU have the final say?  Why don’t send all High Court cases to Brussels and save our money to spend on those in need?

The Act is going to be replaced by a British Bill of Rights which, I believe, will be very similar to the Human Rights Act but with amendments such as disallowing criminals going to Brussels to have their case ruling overturned.  The current balance of human rights is wrong and has to be corrected.  It’s wrong that foreign murderers are allowed to stay in this country because they have children here.  It’s wrong that UK taxpayers spend millions of pounds on numerous appeals from criminals resisting deportation.  It’s wrong that people in need are being deprived of help when human rights lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank.

I trust the new MPs in Westminster will debate this proposal and use common sense to make a decision.  Nobody knows the content of the Tory’s proposal as yet but seem happy to oppose it anyway.

That’s not the type of politics I expect from the SNP.  Let’s wait to see what the British Bill of Right contains before more knee jerk reactions are voiced.

Tweet

My Country's Laws Count for Nothing

I know next to nothing about the law on a professional basis.  My own dealings with legal people have ensured the legal profession made far more out of them than me.

The Cadder case did attract my attention though and I've followed it through the legal eagle blogger Peat Worrier. The verdict on this case was given today.

Kenny MacAskill announced in the Scottish Parliament today that he will propose changes to the Scottish legal system tomorrow and is expected to carry the Parliament with him.  The new rules, it is understood, will increase the length of time a suspect can be held without charge from the current six hours to twelve.  That time can be doubled if a senior officer deems it appropriate.

For those of you outside England who aren't too aware of the Scottish legal system, for decades we have had many safety nets available to protect anyone under suspicion of committing a crime.  In the case of Cadder, I understand an offer was made to him to contact a solicitor yet he refused.  Then he made particular confessions without a solicitor present.  His appeal was on the grounds that his human rights were abused but do read Peat Worrier and other sites by googling 'Cadder'.

There's a morsel of relief from the decision today. Past cases will be excluded from appeal and only those pending will have to adhere to the decision.

Will this make our legal system fairer?  I don't think so but I certainly think it will make lawyers richer including those who offer legal aid.  Earlier tonight I think it was the HR lawyer Paul McBride I heard on radio saying:  "It's a disgrace that a court in England can overturn law made by Scottish judges but that's the way it is in the Scottish devolution settlement." Forgive me if I have the wrong lawyer but I had just jumped in the car.  The words are certainly those of a prominent Scottish lawyer.

Time we took Independence rather than asking for it because now it's more than obvious our laws, (which protect us), count for nothing and a court in another country can over-rule our justices.  Of course if people still want to be part of the EU then it will ever be thus.

Tweet

The First Tory Promise to be Broken

I wonder how many votes the Tories acquired from those who believed their promise that they would replace the act with a UK Bill of Rights.

For some time now many have been concerned that the Human Rights Act is too easily exploited by the undeserving over those it was designed to protect. I am one of those people who considers it protects criminal more than innocent people.

But Ken Clarke, now head of the Ministry of Justice, has suggested this was not high on the list of actions by the new government while the pledge was notable by its absence in the coalition agreement published this week.

Mr Clarke said: “We are not committed to leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, we have committed ourselves to a British Human Rights Act.

“We are still signatories to the European Convention on Human Rights.

“I have also got to see when the coalition agreement is completed how high a priority this is going to be given.”

This was a major pledge in the Tory manifesto and I trust tory voters will ensure the new Prime Minister is aware just how cheated they feel.

Tweet

Why The Human Rights Act Must Be Reformed

The person on the right in the above picture is Laith Alani, a paranoid schizophrenic from Iraq.

He has spent the past 19 years in s secure hospital after he killed two NHS consultants in a horrific frenzied attack because he believed he had received a "command from Allah."

The Home Office wanted to deport him on his release to protect the British public, but he appealed to the Asylum and Immigration Tribunal (AIT) where a panel led by Lance Waumsley, a senior immigration judge, ruled he could remain in the UK.

The reasons given were deportation would breach his human rights, insofar as he has a right to a private and family life because he moved to the UK with his parents as a child, plus that if he was sent back he would be unlikely to receive medicine which keeps his paranoid schizophrenia under control.

The judgement, was delivered in October but has only just been revealed. This man could be set free next year.

David Cameron hasn't mentioned his proposals for reform of The Human Rights Act recently but cases like this show just how necessary urgent action is required.

Source

Tweet

Justice At Last

Judges have thrown out a government appeal by deciding that the Human Rights Act can apply to British troops, even on the battlefield.  The judgement the MoD appealed against said "right to life" meant it had a legal duty to supply proper equipment. 

The rulings centred on a case brought by the family of Private Jason Smith who died of heatstroke while serving with the Territorial Army in Iraq in 2003.  Pte Smith's mother Catherine said she was overwhelmed with the verdict and was angry at the MoD for going so far to fight the case.  

However, the MoD have been given leave to appeal again, to the House of Lords.

The Equality and Human Rights Commission's group legal direct John Wadham said, "Our service personnel are sometimes required to lay down their lives for this country.  In return we should afford them the same human rights protection as every other citizen."

The MoD and the Westminster government have done everything possible to stop this becoming law.  The latest spin from Armed Forces Minister Bob Ainsworth, after the judgement, was 'they were surprised and disappointed by the judgement.'  I bet they were because their incompetence regarding troop equipment and their hiding of facts at inquests will now have to be addressed.

Our troops deserve nothing less.

My thanks to JessTheDog for bringing this to my attention.

Tweet

Update on EC and ECHR post

 

 UPDATE

Since this post of mine yesterday, there have been some excellent contributions from commenters. Indy contributed the following:

The European Convention on Human Rights was drafted under the authority of the Council of Europe – not the EU, although all EU members subscribe to the Convention. It is not exclusive to EU members however as the Council of Europe is not a part of the EU – so, for example, Russia is a member and in theory must incorporate ECHR.

Lallands Peat Worrier has written a post of his own as well as putting forward a very informed argument. I confess to being quite ignorant about what happens in Europe these days and the fault lies mainly with me, but it's refreshing to read arguments in plain English from my readers.  To understand my present ignorance the excuse is I was asked, back in the 80s, to read the Maastricht Treaty and produce a 2 page report.  It took me many days and the jargon was most difficult to interpret.  Usually I read German papers a few times a week and they often have a different translation of EC and ECHR communications compared to the UK.

OK, ignorance is no excuse, but I tried.

Tweet