A great day for British justice: Theresa May vows to take UK out of the European Court of Human Rights
- Mrs May wants to withdraw from the convention before next election in 2015
- Attempt to reform the convention last year was dismissed as a flop
|
Bold: Home Secretary Theresa May wants to withdraw from the convention by 2015
Britain is set to pull out of the discredited European Convention on Human Rights that has allowed dangerous criminals and hate preachers to remain in the UK.
It marks a triumph for The Mail on Sunday’s campaign against the ludicrous abuses of justice carried out in the name of human rights.
The historic move, to be announced soon by Home Secretary Theresa May, would mean foreign courts could no longer meddle in British justice.
The European Convention has led to such hugely controversial decisions as banning the deportation of radical cleric Abu Qatada and giving British prisoners the right to vote.
Mrs May’s bold proposals to include the move in the next Tory Election manifesto reflect the party’s growing hostility towards Europe. If enacted, her policy would leave British judges free to interpret the law without interference from the Strasbourg-based European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).
Mrs May wants to withdraw from the convention before the next Election in 2015, but Liberal Democrat Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, a keen pro-European, has made it clear he will veto the initiative.
As a result, it is set to be a manifesto promise to be put into action if David Cameron wins an overall majority. Together with the Prime Minister’s vow to hold a referendum on Britain’s membership of the EU, it will give the Tory manifesto a strong anti-European theme to combat the increasing appeal of UKIP.
The provisions of the European convention are already enshrined in British law in the Human Rights Act – but under Mrs May’s plan, the final right of appeal would be to the British Supreme Court, not Strasbourg.
The proposal is bound to be seen as a response to the Tories’ humiliation of being beaten into third place in the Eastleigh by-election by Nigel Farage’s rampant UKIP. But well-placed sources insist the Home Secretary has been working on the issue for months, supported by Mr Cameron and Justice Secretary Chris Grayling, and say it is not a ‘knee jerk’ response to the drubbing.
Controversial: Britain may pull away from the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg
Last night, Nick de Bois, secretary of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs and a member of the Commons Justice Select Committee, hailed the move as ‘hugely significant’.
He said: ‘This would be a crucial pledge that will convince many, many voters to return a Conservative government at the next Election.
‘It is imperative that we have legal decisions made here, not in Strasbourg. With this pledge, no longer will foreign criminals be able to take refuge in this country when they should be deported immediately after being released from prison.’
Voice of hate:A European Court ruling allowed radical cleric Abu Qatada, seen here with a companion, to remain in Britain
Mr Clegg blocked a similar move after Mr Cameron became Prime Minister in 2010.
As a compromise, the Coalition set up a panel to investigate the possibility of a British Bill of Rights.
But after 19 months and £700,000 of taxpayers’ money, the panel was branded ‘fatally flawed’ when it produced its findings last year: it did not even discuss whether Britain should pull out of the European Convention on Human Rights.
An attempt to reform the convention last year by Mr Cameron was dismissed as a flop after experts said it amounted to little more than ‘tinkering’.
The Prime Minister said the European Court was in danger of being ‘swamped’ by unimportant cases and had undermined its own reputation by overturning judgments decided in British courts.
Fewer cases should go to Strasbourg and British judges should be left to decide outcomes more often, he said.
But Mr Cameron’s move to significantly limit the court’s powers to influence the British legal process was opposed by Sir Nicolas Bratza, the British judge who headed the Strasbourg court until November.
Sir Nicolas, 67, accused countries such as Britain of trying to ‘dictate’ how it should operate.
He demanded independence for the court’s judges and said he was determined to protect ‘minority interests’ who bring cases to the court.
Sir Nicholas said that he had ‘no sympathy’ with critics of the ECHR who call for a shift in power away from Strasbourg.
The ECHR was set up after the Second World War to prevent torture and human rights abuses. The court was established in 1959, giving complainants direct access to justice at a European level.
But critics say the court has grown out of all proportion, and its judges do not even need to have any judicial experience in their homeland.
Lord Hoffman, a former Law Lord, said last year: ‘The Strasbourg Court has taken upon itself an extraordinary power to micromanage the legal systems of the member states of the Council of Europe. The very concept of human rights is being trivialised by silly interpretations.’
In theory, the Council of Europe, a body with 47 member states which oversees the Strasbourg court, could retaliate against Mrs May by expelling Britain. But this has not happened to other countries found guilty of flouting human rights laws in the past.
Opposition to the ECHR in Britain has been fuelled by a series of high-profile cases. The court wants to see tens of thousands of prisoners, including murderers and rapists, being given the vote, regardless of the offence that they have committed.
Its ruling, in defiance of a 100-year ban on votes for prisoners in the UK, came after the ECHR backed a complaint by John Hirst, a convicted axe killer.
The ECHR rejected an overwhelming vote by MPs for maintaining the ban, as Mr Cameron protested that the thought of prisoners voting made him feel ‘physically ill.’ Instead the ECHR threatened to award compensation in thousands of cases if the Prime Minister refused to change the law.
Last November, hate preacher Abu Qatada was freed after defying attempts by Mrs May to deport him to Jordan, where he is wanted on terror charges.
His victory came after an ECHR ruling that his trial in Jordan could be unfair because some of the evidence might have been obtained by torture. The original objection was that Qatada himself could face torture, prompting Mrs May to accuse the ECHR of ‘moving the goalposts’.
Qatada has received hundreds of thousands of pounds in benefits, while his praise for terror attacks led to him being dubbed Al Qaeda’s ‘ambassador in Europe’.
New outrage as Taliban suspect told he can stay
By Robert Verkaik
In a new human rights case to cause anger, an Afghan man suspected of being a member of the Taliban has won the right to live in the UK because it would be too dangerous to send him home to face prosecution.
Abdul Martin Shizad, 20, who lives in South-East England, was ordered by the UK Border Agency to leave the country in April last year.
But he mounted a legal challenge under human rights laws, claiming he would be arrested and mistreated by the Afghan authorities, who wanted to question him about his alleged links to the Taliban.
MP Priti Patel said judges should be protecting the British public
In a judgment released last week, the head of the immigration appeals tribunal, Sir Nicholas Blake, overturned the Home Secretary’s decision and backed Shizad’s claim for asylum.
Last night a Home Office spokesman said it was ‘extremely disappointed’ by Sir Nicholas’s ruling and argued that Shizad ‘did not need or deserve refuge in this country’.
The Home Office argued that instead of returning Shizad to his home in Kandahar, it would be safe to return him to another part of Afghanistan, such as the capital Kabul, and questioned the credibility of his evidence.
But Sir Nicholas said: ‘Questions of internal relocation would be inapplicable if the appellant had a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of perceived political opinion because the governmental authorities suspected that he was a supporter of the Taliban insurgency.’
He added: ‘Torture and beatings are also commonly used as the police believe that this is the only way to extract confession. Although the law prohibits arbitrary arrests and detention, all sources reckon that this remains a serious problem.’
Last night Conservative MP Priti Patel said: ‘Decisions such as this undermine public confidence in the asylum and immigration system.
‘Soft judges should be protecting the British public instead of finding excuses to let potentially dangerous foreigners into our country.’
Shizad’s brother-in-law, who had been fighting with the Taliban, was captured by the Afghan Government.
During interrogation, he identified Shizad as also working for the insurgency. In his account to the court, Abdul Shizad said: ‘The Taliban started to come to me and ask me to join them . . . On two occasions they came to the madrassa to talk to me.
‘I would tell them that I did not want to join them. This happened about six times. The last time they came, they took me away into the woods, tied up my hands and beat me.
‘It was then that I decided that I needed to leave Afghanistan.’
A spokesman for the Brighton Housing Trust, which represented Shizad in his case, declined to comment.
Why we must be allowed to kick out terrorists, by Tory MP for Dover and Deal CHARLIE ELPHIKE
Britain needs to restore trust in the human rights ideal. We should sweep away the discredited Human Rights Act and replace it with a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
A key element would be to ensure our freedoms are under the control of the UK Supreme Court and not European judges. It’s wrong for Strasbourg to decide these things. British judges in British courts should have the final say on laws passed by Parliament.
Moreover, this is what the British people want – three out of four people tell pollsters the Human Rights Act is a charter for criminals and the undeserving.
The fact that the British people feel so strongly is not surprising when you look at the ham-fisted judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. Too often the Strasbourg judges create more problems than they solve.
Under the current laws, villains and terrorists too often appear to have the upper hand. Remember all that trouble about throwing out Abu Qatada? And the case of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim? The Iraqi knocked down and killed 12-year-old Amy Houston with his car and yet was allowed to remain in the UK. Immigration judges ruled that sending him home would breach his right to a ‘private and family life’. What about the family life of little Amy and her family that was so cruelly snatched away?
We should be able to secure our borders and deport people who commit crimes without delay. Nor should it be so hard to uphold the principle that criminals should lose certain rights – including the right to vote in elections.
There is a real sense among a lot of people that our citizens do not have the protection under our laws that they should have. Many worry that our long-held freedoms have not been sufficiently protected. Fundamental principles such as freedom of speech and of religion are too often under siege.
At the heart of any society lies a basic social contract. A contract where rights are matched by responsibilities.
You don’t hear enough about that when human rights are discussed. It always seems to be, ‘I know my rights’. We should hear, ‘I know my responsibilities’ as well. Such a social contract should lie at the heart of a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities.
It is because we need to protect our ancient customs, liberties and freedoms that I presented such a Bill to the Commons to replace the Human Rights Act. A new settlement to restore trust and confidence in human rights.
We, the British people, should have the final say on our rights. We should decide on the social contract at the heart of our society, not Europe nor anywhere else.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287183/A-great-day-British-justice-Theresa-May-vows-UK-European-Court-Human-Rights.html#ixzz2MVBs3ZbT
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
No comments:
Post a Comment