Why we should stay with the “madness” of European human rights court


by Septicisle    
1:12 pm - January 29th 2012

Tweet       Share on Tumblr

Despite the briefing it received in advance, David Cameron’s speech to the Council of Europe on reforming the European Court of Human Rights was fairly tame stuff.

With the exception of his promotion of a “sunset clause”, which it has been rightly pointed out could result in a denial of justice, the exact thing the ECHR is meant to prevent, it certainly wasn’t the “savaging” the Sun described it as, nor did the elite seethe.

The real problem we have is the insistence of the tabloids that we should have the right to send anyone back to wherever they came from if they’re considered a threat – even if that means depositing them in a country in the middle of a civil war. Or in the case of Abu Qatada, to face a trial where the evidence against him was in the ECHR’s opinion overwhelmingly the product of torture.

The real danger is that we would be doing the biggest disservice to those in the less free nations in eastern Europe. Figures compiled this week show that comparatively, the decisions that go against the UK at the ECHR are relatively few.

Indeed, more were dismissed than allowed. Turkey, by contrast, had 159 out of 174 decisions go against her, while Russia had 121 out of 133. Both France and Germany also had far more cases heard and go against them than the UK did, with the courting finding there had been a violation in 23 and 31 of the applications respectively.

If those on the right got their way and we withdrew from the convention, then it can be guaranteed that Russia would do the same and point towards our decision in justification.

As right as Sir Nicolas Bratza was in criticising politicians for using “emotion and exaggeration” when taking on the ECHR, it also bears pointing out how they ignore cases which don’t fit into the standard tabloid “human rights madness” archetype.

It was only after the family of Christopher Alder went to the court that the government admitted they had been initially denied a proper independent investigation into his death, as well as accepting that the neglect he suffered at the hands of the police was so serious that it amounted to inhuman or degrading treatment, breaching article three of the convention.

By all means reform the court so the backlog it currently has can be swiftly dealt with – what must not be allowed to happen is any dilution of its right to intervene in cases which “have been dealt with properly in the national courts”, something liable to be highly subjective.

   Tweet   Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
'Septicisle' is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He mostly blogs, poorly, over at Septicisle.info on politics and general media mendacity.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,Law


Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. So Much For Subtlety

Figures compiled this week show that comparatively, the decisions that go against the UK at the ECHR are relatively few.

So it is a useless but extremely expensive Court that adds nothing substantive to the British legal process? Fine. There is no point being a member then.

Although it is not the number of decisions that go against us, it is the quality. Britain being a law-bound society so that it only takes one idiotic decision for the rest of the law to subtly shift.

If those on the right got their way and we withdrew from the convention, then it can be guaranteed that Russia would do the same and point towards our decision in justification.

Who precisely is going to guarantee it? And who cares? We do not suffer to improve the quality of the Russian legal process. The Russians are members for their own reasons. It does not suit our interests to take part. So we should stop. The Russians can then decide on their own in their own interests what they want to do. I imagine they will stay.

2. D-Notice

So it is a useless but extremely expensive Court that adds nothing substantive to the British legal process? Fine. There is no point being a member then.

If the UK lost a lot of cases, you’d probably be demanding we’d leave for not respecting the UK’s values…

BTW do you have anything to support your claims of it being “useless but extremely expensive”?

3. So Much For Subtlety

2. D-Notice

If the UK lost a lot of cases, you’d probably be demanding we’d leave for not respecting the UK’s values…

Of course I would. In modern multicultural Britain I am taking lessons from Omar – if it contradicts British law it is wrong, if it supports it, it is unnecessary. Burn it down.

BTW do you have anything to support your claims of it being “useless but extremely expensive”?

Do I need to? Do you have any idea what appealing a case costs?

4. ukliberty

SMFS,

BTW do you have anything to support your claims of it being “useless but extremely expensive”?

Do I need to?

You don’t “need” to; it would be nice, though, if you substantiated your assertions from time to time.

5. D-Notice

Do you have any idea what appealing a case costs?

As a matter of fact, I do.

I’m a legal costs lawyer, so it’s the sort of thing I keep a track of as part of my job.

6. Andreas Moser

But this human rights expert says otherwise: http://andreasmoser.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/human-rights-with-hollie/


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. leftlinks

    Liberal Conspiracy – Why we should stay with the “madness” of European human rights court http://t.co/tXsZEKUb

  2. Patron Press - #P2

    #UK : Why we should stay with the “madness ” of European human rights court http://t.co/xHRtfaPI

  3. BevR

    Why we should stay with the “madness” of European human rights court | Liberal Conspiracy http://t.co/eAoyslrT via @libcon

  4. David Davies

    Why we should stay with the “madness” of European human rights court ~ http://t.co/VyQ8eVJW





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.