Human Rights

Image Sign in front of the CJEU's Palais de la Cour de Justice

At a meeting yesterday, I asked about/EU/UK cooperation within the justice pillar.  I asked if in order to develop further cooperation, the UK would need to sign up to the EU’s charter of fundamental rights. The senior MEP present stated that they thought that self-exclusion was a barrier to fuller cooperation; the Labour minister present confused the Charter of Fundamental Rights with the European Convention on Human Rights and stated that non-compliance, particularly on issues of the right to family life were reasonable. This is a proof point of the consensus in Westminster that haggling with the EU ‘to win’ all the time, is acceptable behaviour of good citizenship.

The reason we had so many opt-outs from the Justice Pillar is that the New Labour governmentdidn’t want their immigration and trade union laws tested by the CJEU and as reprise act, I read that ‘blue labour’ are questioning whether we should remain signatories to the ECHR.

In 2024, there were three cases at the ECtHR, and the UK lost one; the plaintiff was the Daily Mail who were complaining about lawyers’ fees in cases where they settled, they claimed it was in breach of their rights of free speech. The last time I looked this up, the problem was within the administration of justice and prisons if I remember correctly. The Tories harsh environment in prisons was considered in conflict to human rights law.

But the reason we should remain members is that human rights are a benefit to all citizens and residents.

Image Credit : Luxofluxo, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons …

The rEUle of law

The rEUle of law

I once attended a HoC home affairs select committee where I saw that some Tory members were quite shocked that the EU would require guarantees on the rule of law to both accept the European arrest warrant and police co-operation through Europol. By guarantees, they require adoption of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and enforcement/appeal to the EU Court.

Democratic control of state surveillance is a global problem and one about which most of Europe due it its history is much more attuned. The UK’s current legal framework is the Investigatory Powers Act 2016, proposed by Teresa May, and “opposed” by Andy Burnham and Sir Kier Starmer.

The whole of Labour’s ploy is to create something beyond the EU, to offer to share access to weapons & intelligence in exchange for single market opt-outs, a single market for munitions, but not for labour or people.

They probably want to keep the justice pillar opt-outs too, although given the changing politics of the EU and the Labour government, there is little point. The opt-outs were negotiated to protect the British state against the EU court’s potential interference in UK immigration and labour laws. But escaping the CJEU is not enough; it should also be noted that most of the recent ECtHR losses by the British government have been over the administration of justice, not unexpected when one reviews the recent Home Secretary and Justice Secretary incumbents …

Reading Labour’s tea leaves

Reading Labour’s tea leaves

I wrote about the possibility of a youth mobility proposal from the EU; I’d say it’s now dead and that may be what the Commission was trying to achieve, to stop the UK cherry picking, stop us levying the NHS fee and high [unreasonable] visa fees, although the Commission may not give up. The bad news is that it has enabled those that oppose freedom of movement to reinforce their arguments.

During the discussion I was pointed at the FT’s comments on David Lammy’s Foreign Affairs article extolling “Progressive Realism (in foreign affairs)”.  On the EU, it is my view that Labour will seek to use enhanced security co-operation to further their cakeist approach to the single market. The FT article on Lammy’s speech https://www.ft.com/content/7a8484d5-3348-4df6-810f-81c1b53dd4ad?shareType=nongift makes it clear that using our military budget as a negotiating tool for single marker opt-outs will not be easy and everyone in the UK is ignoring the fact  that justice co-operation requires a common basic law and that the majority of the UK’s recent case losses at the ECtHR have been on issues of justice. Lammy also repeated/published his views in a Guardian piece. Lammy in his article, and in his speech to Labour Party conference 23 has articulated the need the greater cooperation with both the European Union and its member states. He always adds the mantra of the new red lines, but he clearly sees and speaks for the need for greater cooperation over a range of issues.

I have also been pointed at Martin Kettle, in an article, “Starmer can’t dodge the Europe question for ever. In office, the economy will answer it for him”. He reckons, it’ll be Reeves who’ll break first, I don’t agree. She’s remarkably stubborn and well trained by the high priests of QMT in the Bank & Treasury. I wonder if it might be Lammy. While I gave up trying to read the tea leaves from the speeches of Labour’s front bench, Lammy’s speeches read as if he may want to do something else but adds the red lines because he has too. …

Human rights and the ECHR

Human rights and the ECHR

The Govt have published their response to the consultation on Human Rights Act. The responsible minister is Dominic Raab, for whom it has been a long term aim to weaken people’s access to legal remediation, well for anything actually. Raab co authored, The Assault on Liberty. In this case, the target human rights and their 1st target is the right to a private and family life, arguing that honouring this right makes deporting people harder, articulate bu Jim Carrey in 'Liar, Liar', I point at my article on the GMB London Region’s evidence to the consultation, I concluded that too much attention was being placed on the relationship between the various institutions and insufficient on what might occur if a sense of impunity were developed in the administrative organs of the State. The article concludes with some quotes and links to Prof. Mark Elliot's contribution to the debate. There's more overleaf ...

On the ECHR, again

On the ECHR, again

I am trying to write something for the Govt. consultation on the HRA, and came across this nugget from the ECtHR, Facts and Figures 2020, we can assume, that 2021 is not yet available,

“Almost half the judgments concerned 3 of the 47 member States, namely the Russian Federation (185), Turkey (97) and Ukraine (86). Nearly a quarter of all the judgments delivered by the Court concerned the Russian Federation.

Of the total number of judgments delivered in 2020, the Court found at least one violation of the Convention by the respondent State in 87% of the cases.”

Facts and Figures 2020

I last looked at the Court and its impact on the UK in this article, Sovereignty, in 2016, which pointed at two articles, one, a fact check from Channel 4, and one from the EHRC describing the impact of the Court on British Law.

The featured image, is from wiki media, CC cherryx 2012 BY-SA …

Right to a fair trial

judges gavel

For reasons, which to my friends will will be obvious, I feel the need to post the text of Article 6 of European Convention on Human Rights.

ECHR Article Six

  1. a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
  2. Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.
  3. Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
    • a.  to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
    • b.  to have adequate time and the facilities for the preparation of his defence;
    • c.  to defend himself in person or through legal assistance of his own choosing or, if he has not sufficient means to pay for legal assistance, to be given it free when the interests of justice so require;
    • d.  to examine or have examined witnesses against him and to obtain the attendance and examination of witnesses on his behalf under the same conditions as witnesses against him;
    • e.  to have the free assistance of an interpreter if he cannot understand or speak the language used in court.
 …

Nelsen & Others vs. Evans

Nelsen & Others vs. Evans

During the week, Judge Butcher delivered a disappointing ruling in Neslen & Others vs Evans. Diana Neslen and her co-plaintiffs were suing the Labour Party over their treatment under the disciplinary code. This is  reviewed at the Mirror, Morning Star by Ammar Kamzi, who has also posted a blog article, , and presented in judgement form at Bailli.

Most disappointing is the idea that the accused do not need to know the charge against them, merely the gist and that the Labour Party’s investigation policy can be secret. I have argued before that the absence of a policy to guide investigators was just deplorable, but the Judge seems to think it’s OK.  Apart from being against the Party’s values, this would all seem to be in contradiction of ECHR Article 6.

I might read the judgement and comment further. I’d be interested to know if C2.II.7, a member’s right to fair treatment was deployed.

I feel disappointed that I took my foot of the accelerator over the need to incorporate the ECHR into Labour’s Rules.

Some of us who had more hope in judicial review may need to think our strategies. …