Robin Wilton's esoterica

« Wanted: Vulcan Juror... | Main | Another "9/11" miles... »

12 Apr · Wed 2006

Two UK laws fail on Human Rights criteria

Looking back over the last year's headlines, this government seems to have had a penchant for record-breaking in parliamentary debate. Control orders (punitive measures without judicial review), Prevention of Terrorism Act (proposals for 90-day detention without charge...), the ID Cards Bill (five rejections by the House of Lords), have all in their various ways exceeded the norms of parliamentary process. Marathon sittings in the Commons, record opposition by the Lords, compromises on parliamentary review and so on. Regrettably I think they see that as a good thing. We have just reached the anniversary of the 'Control orders' legislation; the compromise in that case was that the Prime Minister agreed that the law would be reviewed one year on (and by MPs, rather than by a single Queen's Counsel). Well, I don't know what MPs have concluded, but a high court judge has just ruled against the Home Office in the first of a dozen control order cases. Mr Justice Sullivan described it as "conspicuously unfair" that the control order was not independently reviewed, and said that the defendant was denied a fair hearing. The judge further commented that the effect of this Act was that defendants' rights were determined "by executive decision-making, untrammelled by any prospective of effective judicial supervision". In other words, that the Home Secretary is executing the law directly and without recourse to the courts. It's not clear to me whether the other 11 or so control orders will be similarly reviewed, but the judge's ruling is that the Act is incompatible with the applicable Human Rights laws. The government has stated its intention to appeal against that ruling, but if it is upheld, the laws must either be amended or the Act returned to Parliament. A similar fate has befallen new regulations intended to prevent alleged 'sham' marriages. "People born outside the EU and some bordering European nations who have only six months' permission to be in the UK must seek special permission from the Home Office to marry, irrespective of the status of their partner. The application costs £135 and only 76 specially selected register offices can deal with the proposed marriage. If the home secretary refuse[s] permission to marry, there is no right of appeal, other than to apply to the High Court. The only exemption is for people who marry in the Church of England. Another High Court judge, Mr Justice Silber, ruled this week that those measures were unreasonable, incompatible with the applicable human rights laws, and discriminated against some people on religious grounds. That declaration again means that the rules must be amended or the act returned to parliament. Amnesty International has commented frequently that the recent Anti-terror laws in particular have undermined the extent to which the UK system respects human rights. What I find strange is the obduracy of the government in the face of such High Court rulings. In the 'sham marriages' case, the Home Office has at least said it will partially suspend the rules pending an internal review. In the case of the control orders, however, their stated position is this: "The Home Office said it did not accept the judge's ruling [...] A spokesman said the act 'contains rigorous safeguards to protect the rights of the individual, including judicial oversight and reporting and reviewing requirements'. He said the ruling would not force the government to revoke any current control orders, nor would it be prevented from issuing any further orders." I'm forced to wonder what a High Court judge would have to say to prompt any actual change...

Posted by racingsnake @ 05:50 PM GMT+00:00 [ Comments [2] ]

Comments:

While I agree its a great that the Home Office have been taken on about this outrageous piece of interference in people's civil rights and civil life, the Lords/Commons ping pong over ID cards is not the worst ever seen, nor outside the norms of normal parliamentary behaviour. It is however the first time such a row has occurred since the majority of the heriditary peers were expelled.

Posted by Dave Levy on April 12, 2006 at 07:36 PM GMT+00:00 #

Fair comment, Dave - the Lords also rejected the Anti-terror proposals 5 times; even so, that many rejections is hardly 'normal'.

You're absolutely right to note that the composition of the Lords has been radically changed (by this government)... so the latter's whinging about the Upper House 'standing in the way of the will of the people' has a distinctly hollow ring to it. Especially given the record low voting turnout in the last election.

ho hum

Posted by Robin Wilton on April 13, 2006 at 08:36 AM GMT+00:00 #

Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
« December 2009
	1	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12	13
14	15	16	17	18	19	20
21	22	23	24	25	26	27
28	29	30	31

Today