Human Rights Act/European Convention on Human Rights
rovacs, 22 Jul 2006 14:41:48
Obviously the whole issue of human rights obligations is a very important consideration with reference to these legislative proposals and many respondees to the Consultation have pointed out how such legislation is almost certainly too flawed to qualify for an exemption to the relevant law/Convention Articles-therefore would be "incompatable" and thus an abuse of human rights by HMG.
I have been reading the guidance to human rights legislation. From this it would seem that if such a law was passed and the police acted against an individual because of it,the person could immediately take legal action against the police as abusers of human rights. This before a person was tried/found guilty and sentenced etc. The police are a public body under the human rights legislation and any public body interfering with an aspect of human rights can be called to account for it. Thus invading someone's house and seizing material etc by the police in a matter that impinges upon an area of an individual's human rights guaranteed in the Act and Articles of the Convention would/could be viewed as a very serious and unwarrented human rights abuse!
This is an interesting and perhaps little appreciated aspect of this whole nasty business. Clearly it's putting legislators in a position where they should NOT be making any laws which drive a coach and horses thru their human rights obligations,as even their minions responsible for enforcement can end up in trouble as human rights abusers. Blair will not just be making grief for individuals if he goes ahead with these mad proposals,but for himself and his collaborators as well-and all for nothing.
I would be interested if anyone reading the Act/guidelines thinks I've somehow got this wrong. To me it seems to be the case.
The Coutts appeal business is interesting. So much of this dopey proposal coasts on that one case and the Government made much of the fact that Coutts committed murder to justify their scheme. I don't know how long it will take for Coutt's case to go to Appeal,but while it is up in the air as it is now,the Blair crowd can't go on about it as a means to justify the legislation proposed. If Coutts is found guilty of manslaughter and the possibility that the killing may have been the result of some consensual actions by the victim blows Mrs Longhurst's campaign apart,as her daughter was not merely the unwiitting victim of a perverted killer,but had a degree of responsibility for the tragedy which occurred. Of course all this is speculation at present. I appreciate what some have said about not making too much of Coutts. However,Clarke decided to attempt to introduce this extremist human rights abusing legislation as a direct result of a hysterical campaign based on Coutts. If Coutt's conviction as a murderer proves unsafe,an important plank on which this dangerous proposal is based will have developed significant cracks in it.Before say the ECHR,Govt.lawyers trying to justify the legislation not only have no research based evidential case to present to argue for exemption from Articlae 8 and 10 of the Convention,but the one "fact"-Coutts the sex murderer(which isn't very convincing even if Coutts is a murderer anyway),would be gone. Concerning another matter this was called "going naked into the conference chamber."
Teddy, 24 Jul 2006 00:04:18
Rabinder Singh's opinion was that the very EXISTENCE of such legislation might constitute an interference with Human Rights laws, before anyone might be actually prosecuted. I know that the Spanner Trust said in their consultation response that they plan to seek a high court declaration if the legislation is forced through.
T.
Author wrote:
> Obviously the whole issue of human rights obligations is a very important consideration with reference to these legislative proposals and many respondees to the Consultation have pointed out how such legislation is almost certainly too flawed to qualify for an exemption to the relevant law/Convention Articles-therefore would be "incompatable" and thus an abuse of human rights by HMG.
> I have been reading the guidance to human rights legislation. From this it would seem that if such a law was passed and the police acted against an individual because of it,the person could immediately take legal action against the police as abusers of human rights. This before a person was tried/found guilty and sentenced etc. The police are a public body under the human rights legislation and any public body interfering with an aspect of human rights can be called to account for it. Thus invading someone's house and seizing material etc by the police in a matter that impinges upon an area of an individual's human rights guaranteed in the Act and Articles of the Convention would/could be viewed as a very serious and unwarrented human rights abuse!
> This is an interesting and perhaps little appreciated aspect of this whole nasty business. Clearly it's putting legislators in a position where they should NOT be making any laws which drive a coach and horses thru their human rights obligations,as even their minions responsible for enforcement can end up in trouble as human rights abusers. Blair will not just be making grief for individuals if he goes ahead with these mad proposals,but for himself and his collaborators as well-and all for nothing.
> I would be interested if anyone reading the Act/guidelines thinks I've somehow got this wrong. To me it seems to be the case.
> The Coutts appeal business is interesting. So much of this dopey proposal coasts on that one case and the Government made much of the fact that Coutts committed murder to justify their scheme. I don't know how long it will take for Coutt's case to go to Appeal,but while it is up in the air as it is now,the Blair crowd can't go on about it as a means to justify the legislation proposed. If Coutts is found guilty of manslaughter and the possibility that the killing may have been the result of some consensual actions by the victim blows Mrs Longhurst's campaign apart,as her daughter was not merely the unwiitting victim of a perverted killer,but had a degree of responsibility for the tragedy which occurred. Of course all this is speculation at present. I appreciate what some have said about not making too much of Coutts. However,Clarke decided to attempt to introduce this extremist human rights abusing legislation as a direct result of a hysterical campaign based on Coutts. If Coutt's conviction as a murderer proves unsafe,an important plank on which this dangerous proposal is based will have developed significant cracks in it.Before say the ECHR,Govt.lawyers trying to justify the legislation not only have no research based evidential case to present to argue for exemption from Articlae 8 and 10 of the Convention,but the one "fact"-Coutts the sex murderer(which isn't very convincing even if Coutts is a murderer anyway),would be gone. Concerning another matter this was called "going naked into the conference chamber."
>
>
rovacs, 24 Jul 2006 10:37:58
Author wrote:
> Rabinder Singh's opinion was that the very EXISTENCE of such legislation might constitute an interference with Human Rights laws, before anyone might be actually prosecuted. I know that the Spanner Trust said in their consultation response that they plan to seek a high court declaration if the legislation is forced through.
> T.
Even if the UK courts/Strasbourg ruled that such a law is "incompatable" with human rights legislation,the UK Govt.is not forced to scrap or even amend the law. However in practice,where declarations of incompatability have been made it has been usual to change the domestic law accordingly. These have mainly been concerned with secondary rules and regs I believe. However,these porn proposals represent the first time I am aware of a case where a UK regime has proposed major PRIMARY criminal legislation which impacts so severely and injustifiably on human rights obligations which have been guaranteed to citizens by the HRA and Convention-ie where they are wanting to do something where no well established need can be identified and used as a case for such a law being "necessary" to tackle some huge problem/issue which is causing significant grief in UK society. Whether Blair would be prepared to wear the label of human rights abuser over this issue in order to keep such legislation is a moot point.
These proposals are totally monstrous-the very fact that they are talking of creating sex criminals out of people not classified as such in any other comparable country,shows just how bizarre and wicked the idea the bright sparks in this control freak Government have come up with is. Even the Obscene Publications Act does not criminalize the "user" of material,but publishers/distributors etc.
*** This message has been edited by rovacs on 24 Jul 2006 11:43:01 ***