Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK


by Guest    
11:28 am - July 22nd 2011

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

contribution by Karen Luyckx

In the past few days, 33 Peruvian farmers have received out-of-court settlements for the alleged torture they suffered after protesting against a UK company building a mine on their land.

And in the High Court, a group of elderly Kenyans have been given permission to bring a claim against the government for the abuse and torture they suffered in the 1950s.

It should be a week to celebrate, yet the Government is pressing ahead with legislation which will make it practically impossible for most people in poor countries to seek justice in British courts.

If the purpose of this legislation was to save taxpayers’ money, it might be understandable, but in the case of foreign nationals bringing human rights cases, no legal aid is paid.

In 2005, dozens of poor Peruvian farmers protesting against the construction of the Rio Blanco mine by UK-owned Monterrico Metals say that they found themselves variously beaten, threatened, hooded, held captive, shot, sexually assaulted and threatened with rape by Peruvian police. One protestor was shot and bled to death the following day.

After the farmers failed to find justice in Peru, UK law firm Leigh Day took up their case, and the allegations of torture were due to be heard in the High Court in October. While not admitting liability, Monterrico last week agreed to an out-of-court settlement with the farmers.

Without the prospect of a success fee recoverable from the defendant, and legal costs fixed below the level of compensation, the Monterrico case could never have been pursued, and the farmers would never have received compensation.

This legislation is called the ‘Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Bill’.

We at CAFOD are calling for two vital amendments. First, human rights cases should be exempt from the abolition of the success fee. If found guilty of human rights abuses, a company should have to pay both the claimants’ lawyers’ normal fees and success fees.

Second, if found guilty of human rights abuses, a company should pay all costs deemed necessary by the human rights’ legal team to prepare a credible base of evidence for the court case. Those costs should not be capped below the level of the compensation payments, and none of the costs should come out of the compensation paid to victims.

To add your support and voice to this campaign, please contact me at .

—
Karen is Chief Analyst at CAFOD

   Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
This is a guest post.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Foreign affairs ,Our democracy ,Westminster


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. J

“… the Government is pressing ahead with legislation which will make it practically impossible for most people in poor countries to seek justice in British courts.”

Meanwhile, the Catholic church is renowned for its open and transparent approach, in particular to those seeking justice for crimes committed by its clergy…

2. Watchman

Karen,

Please ignore the illiberal anti-Catholic bigotry (it’s odd how people can’t recognise such a large organisation will have good and bad points). However, it would be useful to know the actual logic behind these conclusions:

We at CAFOD are calling for two vital amendments. First, human rights cases should be exempt from the abolition of the success fee. If found guilty of human rights abuses, a company should have to pay both the claimants’ lawyers’ normal fees and success fees.

Second, if found guilty of human rights abuses, a company should pay all costs deemed necessary by the human rights’ legal team to prepare a credible base of evidence for the court case. Those costs should not be capped below the level of the compensation payments, and none of the costs should come out of the compensation paid to victims.

In effect you are stating that domestic human rights law should be treated separately from other laws, and that it should allow more punitive damages. That might be a case, unless, like me and many others, you understand all damages as reflecting a breach of the claimant’s rights, in which case there is a lack of logical underpinning.

There may be more practical reasons for this, but you have not set those out and need to do so.

3. Karen

Hi Watchman,

It is a very good point you have brought up and thank you for engaging on the issue in such detail. CAFOD is lobbying for exemptions for all cases of human rights violations where the victims have serious economic limitations stopping them from going to court.

The difference between domestic and foreign human rights abuses that come to court in Britain is the way in which the compensation amount to the victim/s is decided. When the abuse takes place outside the UK by a British organisation, the compensation is typically based on levels that the individual would expect to receive in the country where the abuse took place. This is often very small when compared with the costs of pursuing the case through in the UK. When the abuse takes place in the UK itself, compensation is set according to UK precedents.

Due to this differential, it is especially important to ensure that legal costs do not come from foreign victims’ compensation as this will often not cover costs and/or wipe out the compensation.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  2. David Carter

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  3. Watching You

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  4. Paul Trembath

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  5. Nicola Chan

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  6. Heather McRobie

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  7. Natacha Kennedy

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  8. Rose Ville

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  9. Samantha Watson

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  10. Double.Karma

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  11. Carl Baker

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK http://bit.ly/nSKkyS

  12. Ryan Bestford

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/4vCODMj via @libcon

  13. Alex Burrett

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/4vCODMj via @libcon

  14. Cryton Chikoko

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/PZOVtpi via @libcon

  15. Tom Skinner

    Ministers plan to make it harder to get human rights justice in the UK | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/Tb6Lrt5 via @libcon

  16. CAFOD Media+Policy

    If legal aid bill goes ahead, UK companies could commit human rights violations abroad without fear of being prosecuted. http://t.co/NmgxzRh

  17. EcoLabs

    If legal aid bill goes ahead, UK companies could commit human rights violations abroad without fear of being prosecuted. http://t.co/NmgxzRh





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.