« How the revolution ends | Main | Crisis. What Crisis »
June 28, 2006
Who will rid me of this meddlesome judge?
Okay, so Henry II actually wanted rid of a meddlesome priest, one Thomas Becket, but I'm sure Tony Blair and John Reid feel the same way about Mr Justice Sullivan.
BBC - Judge quashes anti-terror orders
A key plank of the government's policy to combat terrorism has been thrown out by the High Court.
A senior judge has ruled that control orders made against six men are incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Control Orders were introduced by Charles Clarke as part of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 and were introduced after the House of Lords deemed powers specified under part 4 of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 to be incompatible with articles of the European Commission on Human Rights that relate to the right to liberty, and the right to freedom from discrimination.
The 2001 act in turn extended powers originally covered by the Terrorism Act 2000. And we mustn't forget the Terrorism Act 2006, which gained Royal Assent on 30th March 2006, and was not a direct response to the July attacks on London as new terrorism legislation had already been planned.
So in 6 years and 3 Home Secretaries, we've had 4 anti-terrorism acts which have between them attempted to introduce draconian powers of detention for those suspected of involvement in terrorism. And once again the European Convention on Human Rights has been used, justifiably, to overturn such powers.
So now the government must trot off to the Court of Appeal and try and get Mr Justice Sullivan's ruling overturned. It still strikes me as incredible that the government has been unable or incapable of producing a fair, equitable and just set of anti-terror laws after all this time. How Blair must grimace when he thinks back to 1998 when the Human Rights Act 1998 (which enshrined in law the rights contained in the European Convention) received Royal Assent.
Still, at least Blair is trying to work with the Act to some degree. David Cameron would rather scrap the Act and instead implement a British Bill of Rights.
The Guardian - Axe Human Rights Act, says Cameron
The Human Rights Act should be scrapped and replaced by a written Bill of Rights and Responsibilities for Britain, Conservative leader David Cameron has said.
Mr Cameron said existing human rights law was hindering the fight against crime and terrorism, while failing to protect ordinary people's civil liberties.
Now Cameron's ideas may well prove unworkable, muddled and dangerous, but they are no worse than this government's own Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill which in its original guise would have let government do almost anything it wanted. Maybe David just lacks the subtlety of Blair or perhaps he has decided that no Tory Home Secretary will be ritually humiliated in the High Court and the Court of Appeal.
The trouble is that now is not the best time to allow governments and wannabes to draw up fundamental guiding principles of Human Rights to be enshrined in law. We do indeed need a Bill of Rights and a written Constitution, but these documents are so important that they should not be left to politicians to write.
Menawhile, a round of applause, if you please, for the meddlesome Mr Justice Sullivan.
Posted by Clive on June 28, 2006 4:20 PM in the category Politics