Category: Human Rights and Civil Liberties

The Ministry of Justice needs leadership – but we are served scorecards

25th October 2021

Another weekend gone, and another proposed ministry of justice policy reported in the Sunday press.

The last one, if you recall, came from an interview given by the new justice secretary and Lord Chancellor (and deputy prime minister) Dominic Raab to the political editor of the Sunday Telegraph.

There he spoke of a ‘mechanism’ for ministers to ‘correct’ judgments which they happened to disagree with.

And not just any judgments, of course, but those where the courts had found that the state had interfered with fundamental rights and freedoms.

One would have thought that, if the effect of such judgments needed to be overturned, this would be a matter for parliament.

But no: ministers should be able to do this, it would seem, at a whim.

As this blog averred, the fact that such a thing was his ministerial priority when the criminal justice system is in crisis was enough to make any sensible person weep.

*

We now have another proposal, given to another political editor at another Sunday paper (though this was not an on-the-record interview but from a ‘source’, so it may have come from special advisors as opposed to from the justice secretary directly).

Scorecards.

This new proposal is as follows:

– Raab ‘wants people to be able to look up their local court online and check how quickly cases are dealt with’;

– the new national register ‘will give scores on the speed cases go through the system, and on the ‘quality’ of justice served, measured by the percentage of guilty pleas before cases come to court, as well as the number of cases rearranged because of problems with the prosecution’;

– the register will also score ‘victim engagement’, described as ‘how many crime victims give up and drop out of the process’

– the justice secretary has said ‘he wants ‘granular data’ on how courts are performing across the justice system’;

– the scorecards will be ‘introduced by the end of this year and data will be updated twice a year to monitor progress’; and

– it ‘is understood the Justice Secretary is keen on introducing scorecards on a regional level, so that in future members of the public would be able to look at the performance of local courts’.

*

One response to this proposal is to point out (which the ministry of justice ‘source’ either did not know or kept hidden) that much of this data is already published.

That statement of the should-be obvious fell to the main opposition spokesperson on justice:

*

And Lammy is right in another respect: the intention between this policy seems not for data to be published, but for court users to be misdirected.

The notion appears to be that court users will use the scorecards to put pressure on courts to perform better, and for courts to feel under pressure to show court users that they are performing better.

Court users will thereby be (mis-)directed into thinking that poor court performance is a matter for the individual courts.

But.

The problem about the court system is not micro, but macro.

The system is structurally under-resourced, and it needs leadership.

*

Here, let us turn our attention from the Sunday press to the National Audit Office:

The NAO published a major report just before the weekend.

The NAO did not propose scorecards.

Instead the NAO said: “if sustainable recovery in criminal courts is to be effective, the Ministry will need to improve its leadership of the system”.

Leadership.

Yes, the NAO used the ‘L’ word: Leadership.

But instead of leadership and solid policy, we get another weekend-special gimmick.

And not only just a gimmick – but one which appears to have the intention of misdirecting court users.

*

As this blog has previously averred: it does not have to be like this.

The justice secretary is a senior cabinet minister with the title ‘deputy prime minister’, as well as an experienced lawyer.

As such he is better placed than most recent justice secretaries to obtain better funding from the treasury, and to win the prize of serious reform.

But yet another weekend goes by where we are served trivial trinkets, instead of such a prize.

It is still enough to make any sensible person weep.

******

This blog needs your help to continue – each free-to-read post takes time and opportunity cost.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

******

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Understanding the hostility to the Human Rights Act – and why this matters

7th October 2021

This week the lord chancellor and justice secretary – in 2021 – had to resort to a 2009 case – where the law had already changed in 2014 – to support his demand for an ‘overhaul’ of the Human Rights Act 1998.

That was telling.

Those opposed to the Act often seem to find it difficult to find topical examples of cases to substantiate their disdain.

Some resort to blaming cats (and I am not making this up).

And so, if it is not the actual substance of cases under the Act that explains the antipathy to the legislation, what is the explanation?

What are the actual reasons why the Human Rights Act 1998 is so hated?

I think there are four reasons.

*

The first reason is its very title and its express mention of ‘human rights’.

For many this title seems alien – and provocative.

It is as if ‘human rights concerns’ are something you tell off foreigners about, rather than it being something that is of any domestic relevance.

The view seems to be that there is no need for ‘human rights’ in regard of the United Kingdom – for we have liberties.

This is, of course, misconceived – both in theory and practice.

In theory – because we have an executive under little or no day-to-day scrutiny, where state officials have unlimited power, and where the legislature has absolute power to make or unmake any law.

And in practice – taking torture, for example, there are documented examples of torture and inhuman treatment by United Kingdom agents in Northern Ireland, Afghanistan, Kenya, and elsewhere.

But we pretend that the United Kingdom is not like that – that we are always the good guys.

Yet the United Kingdom and its agents are as capable – both in theory and practice – of human rights abuses as in any other state.

*

The second reason is that the rights that the are given effect by the Human Rights Act are (seen as) ‘European’.

This is a similar sentiment to the hostility to the European Union that contributed to Brexit.

And it is the ‘E’ word that seems to make all the difference.

The United Kingdom has human rights obligations under various United Nations instruments, and few know and fewer care.

We are also subject to fundamental obligations as members of international organisations such as NATO and the World Trade Organisation.

And those who jeer at the ‘E’ word will somehow be horrified at suggestions that the United Kingdom renege on its obligations under NATO and the World Trade Organisation, even if they limit our autonomy in defence and trade matters respectively.

The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), however, could not – for some – be more provocatively named.

Had it been called, say, the British convention – and many treaties are named after places – or the Winston Churchill convention, after one of the politicians who supported it – then, at a stroke, the regime would be less contentious.

That the the rights are seen as ‘European’ is, of course, a misconception.

The ECHR instead was formulated in part by British lawyers seeking to codify for post-war European what they perceived to be rights existing in our domestic law.

Had it been called the British convention or the Winston Churchill convention, it would not have been that misleading, given the United Kingdom’s contribution.

But instead the ECHR provisions – and thereby the Human Rights Act – are European.

‘Ugh.’

*

The third reason is that the Human Rights provides rights for humans, including the humans many do not like.

The rights are not only for nice people but also for the Other: the people who are so bad or undesirable that many believe that they should be treated inhumanely.

For example: foreign criminals, domestic criminals, asylum seekers, and so on.

Why should these people have rights?

The sentiment is that such people should not have rights, because they don’t deserve them, or that they have forfeited them.

But that is the nature of human rights: you have them because you are a human.

But if the Other use their rights, then that ‘use’ is instantly converted to ‘abuse’.

You may ‘use’ your rights, but they – they ‘abuse’ their rights.

The notion is that those facing the coercive powers of the state – say incarceration or being separated from their families – should smile and nod along with that coercion, and certainly should not interrupt clapping and cheering those being coercive.

But it those who are facing the coercion of the state, especially those where there is no public sympathy, who are most in need of human rights.

If you think about it.

*

The fourth reason is about the failure of the Human Rights Act to get ‘buy-in’ from certain media and political groups since its enactment.

Here there is a contrast with, for example, the United States – say if a citizen did not like a particular right in the Bill of Rights (for example, the right to bear arms), that citizen would be unlikely to be in favour of repealing the entire Bill of Rights.

But in the United Kingdom there are many who do not see that the rights in the Human Rights Act protect them as well as the Other.

And part of this is – in my view – the fault of the courts themselves.

After the Act took effect, the courts moved rapidly to ‘develop’ (that is, invent) a new tort of privacy.

A right that was enforced in cases against the media.

But the corresponding right of free expression enjoyed no similar ‘development’ – and over twenty years later, it is difficult to cite a case where the right to free expression has made a difference, let alone led to the ‘development’ of the law.

No United Kingdom journalist, unlike their American counterparts, would ever think to assert loudly and proudly their legal right under Article 10 to free expression.

Had the British courts made Article 10 (free expression) as meaningful as Article 8 (privacy) then the British press would be as horrified at the prospect of repeal of the Human Rights Act as the American media would be at the repeal of the entire Bill of Rights, including the right to a free press.

The populist media of the United Kingdom are not aware that the ECHR and the Human Rights Act protects (or should protect) them as well as the subjects of their coverage.

If the Article 10 right of free expression had been taken half-as-seriously by British judges as the Article 8 right to privacy, one suspects no politician would dare suggest ‘overhauling’ the Human Rights Act as a whole, let alone its repeal.

*

As this blog recently averred, at the heart of the issue of the Human Rights Act is symbolism, not substance, and for both ‘sides’.

The Act does not actually do a great deal, but it does enough to make a difference in certain situations.

But the main reason for its repeal (or ‘overhaul’) seems to be the sheer symbolic value in doing so, and the main reason to oppose such moves is the equal-and-opposite sheer symbolic value in preventing those moves.

And so the Act is caught up in political and media battles that have little or no connection to the Act’s actual legal significance.

It is almost as if the Human Rights Act in the political and media imagination has an autonomous existence, distinct from the actual legislation and what that legislation does.

But.

There is a problem here.

A real problem, which sensible liberals should not ignore.

Some legislation – for example, equalities law – can start off controversial but will become less controversial as the years go by.

Laws such as the Race Relations Act were – believe it or not – controversial at the time.

The Human Rights Act – twenty-one years after it took effect  – remains controversial and – in good part – unloved.

It has not simply become embedded as part of the political consensus.

And that is a failure.

A failure that cannot be wished away.

So there is a question for all sensible people, who support human rights in general and the ECHR in particular: are there better ways of protecting these substantive rights than by the Human Rights Act?

For it is those substantive rights, and their availability to those who need to use those rights, that are the important things, and not their legal form.

The Human Rights Act 1998 is still not a popular piece of legislation in 2021, and unless those who value human rights think constructively about other ways of enforcing those same rights, there will be a risk that the Act and the rights it provides for will all topple together.

*****

This blog needs your support to continue, for your benefit and the benefit of others.

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of £1 upwards for each useful post, or of £5 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Was Dominic Raab, the justice secretary, aware that the law had already changed when he made his conference speech?

6th October 2021

Yesterday Dominic Raab, the Justice Secretary and Lord Chancellor, made a speech to Conservative party conference.

In that speech, as this blog described yesterday, he cited a 2009 immigration decision as the reason why where needed to be an ‘overhaul’ in 2021 of the Human Rights Act 1998.

This 2009 decision – which was upheld on appeal in 2011 on technical grounds – was (as Adam Wagner has identified) used in a speech of that year by Theresa May, the then Home Secretary:

*

But the problem with using this case in a 2021 speech in favour of ‘overhauling’ the Human Rights Act 1998 is that the relevant law changed in 2014.

So: was the justice secretary aware that the law had been changed when he made the speech?

Or was the case used by him (or his speechwriter) without checking whether the law had changed?

I asked the press office of the Ministry of Justice but they could only refer it to the minister’s political advisors, as this was a political speech, not a ministerial speech.

(Which is fair enough.)

I was then contacted by (and I use journalistic convention) ‘sources close to the justice secretary’.

Here it was confirmed that the case alluded to was indeed the 2009 decision.

But I pressed on whether, at the time the secretary of state made the speech, he was aware that the relevant law had changed?

I was then told by ‘sources close to the justice secretary’:

– the Immigration Act 2014 was ‘a step forward’, but that it focused on foreign national offenders serving sentences of four years or more – which left out a large number of less serious offenders (and in the 2009 case the sentence had been 18 months); and

– the 2014 Act also introduced an ‘elastic balancing test’ which the courts apply relying on longstanding case-law, rather than making clear the overwhelming public interest in deportation.

*

But.

Neither of these two propositions are correct.

The 2014 changes expressly provide: ‘The deportation of foreign criminals is in the public interest’.

That is, all foreign criminals.

So the 2014 law did makes ‘clear’ that deportations of foreign criminals are in the public interest.

This would apply to the 2009 case.

The changes also expressly provide: ‘The more serious the offence committed by a foreign criminal, the greater is the public interest in deportation of the criminal.’

Again, this applies to all foreign criminals – and not just those with sentences higher than four years.

This also would apply to the 2009 case.

The additional provisions on those with four-year sentences provide that, subject to exceptions such as the person having ‘a genuine and subsisting relationship with a qualifying partner, or a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and the effect of deportation on the partner or child would be unduly harsh’, there will be a deportation.

But even those deportations are subject to exceptions.

*

This more detailed  response from ‘sources close to the justice secretary’ did not answer my question of whether the justice secretary had been aware of the 2014 legal changes, and it appeared to me that this exposition had been mugged-up after the speech.

However, when pressed a third time, I was finally told that the justice secretary had indeed been aware of the 2014 legal changes when he made his speech.

Taking this eventual confirmation at face value then it appears that the justice secretary does not understand the effect of the 2014 legal changes.

The 2014 legal changes made expressly ‘clear’ that ‘the deportation of foreign criminals is in the public interest’ and the ‘more serious the offence committed by a foreign criminal, the greater is the public interest in deportation of the criminal’.

So there are either two explanations.

Either: contrary to he assurance of ‘sources close to the justice secretary’ the justice secretary had not actually known the law relating to the 2009 case had changed (and this cannot be admitted).

Or: if he did know of the 2014 changes, the justice secretary had not understood that his 2009 example case had been overtaken by the law.

But what cannot be the case is that the justice secretary both knew and understood that the law had changed in 2014 in respect of the 2009 decision that he is citing as the reason why the Human Rights Act needs to be ‘overhauled’ in 2021.

(And, finally, if there was a need to make changes in this area, those presumably would be in respect of immigration legislation – a Home Office responsibility – rather than the Human Rights Act itself.)

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of £1 upwards for each useful post, or of £5 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

“We will overhaul the Human Rights Act” – What this means, and why the case cited by Raab for doing so may not be a sound example

5th October 2021

Conference season: the time of year where it is customary for Conservative politicians to declare their attacks on the Human Rights Act 1998.

This year it is the turn of the new Lord Chancellor and Justice Secretary Dominic Raab.

Here is his conference speech this morning.

You will see the speech does not even mention legal aid.

But you will also see, right at the end (and thereby just before the expected applause) the following:

“And there’s one other big change the public want to see.

“Too often they see dangerous criminals abusing human rights laws.

“In one case, a drug dealer convicted of beating his ex-partner,

“A man who hadn’t paid maintenance for his daughter,

“Then successfully claimed the right to family life to avoid deportation.

“Conference, it is absolutely perverse that someone guilty of domestic abuse could claim the right to family life to trump the public’s interest in deporting him from this country.

“We’ve got to bring this nonsense to an end.

“So, today I can tell you that, under this Prime Minister and before the next election,

“We will overhaul the Human Rights Act

“To end this kind of abuse and restore some common sense to our justice system.”

*

So: “overhaul”.

You would think that, with the current transport chaos, government ministers would avoid haulage metaphors – but no, Raab goes straight in.

But.

Why was that word chosen instead of another word “repeal”?

Could it be that he has realised that the time and effort involved in repealing this legislation, and the fact that at least in Northern Ireland it would have to be replaced with identical legislation under the Good Friday Agreement, means that repeal would not be worth it?

And what is an overhaul?

Perhaps he is waiting for the report of the Gross committee.

But on any view, an overhaul suggests something less than outright repeal – and it may mean very little indeed.

Of course: repeal cannot be ruled out – and this government has done dafter, more illiberal things.

But today Raab chose not to announce repeal, but to say something less.

*

And what of this case he cites?

“In one case, a drug dealer convicted of beating his ex-partner,

“A man who hadn’t paid maintenance for his daughter,

“Then successfully claimed the right to family life to avoid deportation.”

It appears to be a reference to this case – and, if so, it is to a decision from 2009.

A decision twelve years old, and from before the current government.

It is not even a recent case.

Furthermore, a significant change in the law in 2014 already provides for how courts should approach such Article 8 family life cases.

So not only is not a recent case, it may be that the issue identified by Raab in his speech has already been addressed.

*

If that is the case on which Raab relies then he has hardly made out that ‘overhaul’ is urgent.

Of course: facts and citations do not matter – this is politics, and not law.

One can quite imagine the Human Rights Act 2000 being repealed just for the symbolic sake of it – even if parts of it then have to be reenacted under another less-provocative name.

But.

The ministry of justice only has limited resources and a limited claim on the legislative timetable.

There are many other – higher – priorities for a justice secretary, some of which he mentioned in his speech.

A symbolic ‘overhaul’ will probably be all that can be managed – and may not even have a bill to itself.

Supporters of the Human Rights Act must always be vigilant – but the blast of the repeal trumpet today was not a loud one.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of £1 upwards for each useful post, or of £5 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

How significant would the repeal of Human Rights Act really be?

3rd October 2021

Yesterday was the twenty-first birthday of the Human Rights Act 1998 taking full effect.

This statute gives direct effect in domestic law to rights contained in European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

The Act, however, may not be in effect for that much longer.

This is for two reasons.

First: the new lord chancellor and justice secretary Dominic Raab is a long-time critic of the legislation, and as a junior justice minister previously sought to get the Act repealed.

Second: there is a review soon to report that may be the occasion (or pretext) of the Act being repealed.

*

How significant would repeal be?

In one way it would have to be of no effect: for the Good Friday Agreement expressly mandates the United Kingdom to ensure that the ECHR is enforceable directly in the courts of Northern Ireland.

Unless the United Kingdom seeks to breach the Good Friday Agreement then any repeal must not have the effect of making such direct enforcement impossible.

Another way in which repeal would have limited effect is that since 2000, the ‘common law’ has ‘developed’ so that domestic law is more consistent with the ECHR without needing to resort to relying on the Human Rights Act.

So, in a way, the stabilisers can now come off the bicycle – the direct effect of the ECHR has now had its beneficial impact, and we can now perhaps do without it.

And there is certainly no need for the legislation to have such a bold and (for some) provocative title: a replacement law could be boringly titled as the European Convention on Human Rights (Construction of Statutes and Related Purposes) Act.

*

But the real reason why the repeal of the Act may not have a dramatic effect across the legal board is (in a stage whisper) it was never really that powerful an Act in the first place – even though it has had some impact on legal development.

For example, and unlike with European Union law, a domestic court could not disapply primary legislation for being in breach of a pan-European law.

Almost all the convention rights are ‘qualified‘ in that the government can often infringe those rights easily if it has its legal wits together.

And although there are some areas of legal practice – for example family proceedings and immigration appeals where convention rights can (and should) make a difference – these specific areas do not now need an entire Human Rights Act.

Also: there are many ways in which courts will still be able to have regard to the ECHR in interpreting and constructing legislation, even without the Act.

And as long as the United Kingdom remains party to the ECHR – and the current government says that this will not change – there will still be the right of United Kingdom citizens to petition the Strasbourg court if the United Kingdom in in breach of its obligations, as was the situation before the Act was passed.

*

So: if the Act is repealed, it would not necessarily be a practical disaster.

The significance of the repeal of the Human Rights Act would be much the same as the significance of having such an Act in the first place: symbolism.

What some people put up, other people want to knock down.

If the Human Rights Act were a statue rather than a statute, Raab would want to throw it into the harbour, just for the sheer symbolism of doing so.

Splash.

*

But as a matter of practical law, the general effect of repeal would not be that legally significant, especially if provision was made for it to continue to have effect in Northern Ireland and in specific practice areas.

Yet symbolism is important, rather than trivial and dispensable.

Having a statute called the Human Rights Act that expressly gives general domestic effect to our international human rights obligations and providing minimum (even if qualified) rights is a good thing in itself.

And so, even if the practical significance of repeal would not be that great, it is still a Good Thing that we have the Human Rights Act.

Perhaps this review of the Act will be as mild in its proposals as the recent review on judicial review.

Perhaps, as this blog has previously averred, Raab would be well-advised not to use his limited ministerial time on this issue instead of dealing with the legal aid and prisons crises (and on this also see former lord chancellor and justice secretary David Gauke here)

Perhaps; perhaps not.

Perhaps there will be a direct hit on liberal sensibilities and that, this time next year, there will not be a twenty-second anniversary of the Human Rights Act still having effect.

Us woke libs wud be pwned.

But, even if repeal does come to pass, those twenty-one years were good ones for the development of our domestic law.

And so if the Human Rights Act is repealed, those twenty-one years of impact on our domestic laws will not (easily) be abolished.

The Act’s memory will be its blessing.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary – for the you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of £1 upwards for each useful post, or of £5 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Why the advice of the Metropolitan Police that those concerned by wrongful arrest ‘wave down a bus’ is besides the point

1st October 2021

The metropolitan police have published statement in response to the public concern about the case of Sarah Everard, who was murdered by a police officer using his police powers.

The statement is here.

In the final part of the statement there are suggestions about what to do if you are arrested by a lone plain clothes officer, and it concludes with this advice:

‘If after all of that you feel in real and imminent danger and you do not believe the officer is who they say they are, for whatever reason, then I would say you must seek assistance – shouting out to a passer-by, running into a house, knocking on a door, waving a bus down or if you are in the position to do so calling 999.’

Waving down a bus.

Just think about this.

As the estimable Hannah Rose Woods avers:

Imagine the scenes of a person challenging what may be a lawful arrest by stopping a bus and getting the bus driver involved.

It would probably end up with the hapless bus driver being arrested as well.

One gets the sense that the writer of this police statement had, by the end of it, ran out of ideas and was winging it like an unprepared student in the last half-hour of an examination.

But even the other advice in the statement is unrealistic and misconceived.

Anyone challenging arrest can say hello to the offence of resisting or wilfully obstructing a constable in the execution of their duty.

They may also say hello to Mr Taser.

*

https://twitter.com/davidallengreen/status/1443889485234704401

*

Telling you how to vet whether someone stopping you in the street is actually a plain clothes police officer is rather besides the point, when it is the actual police officers that are the problem.

For this is the problem with the Everard case.

The murderer was a police officer, using police procedure.

The problem is not about public confidence about whether these people are police officers or not.

The problem is that they are police officers.

Here consider these two tweets from the writer Eleanor Penny:

https://twitter.com/eleanorkpenny/status/1443499311636025346

https://twitter.com/eleanorkpenny/status/1443502729645764609

She is absolutely right.

The problem is not that this murder was a ‘wrong un’ – a bad apple, and so on.

A problem is the immunity and impunity with which police officers routinely and casually use their coercive powers.

They know they can use their coercive powers at will, with no real accountability.

The powers of stop and of arrest are so general, and the thresholds they have to meet (or say they meet) are so low, that they can freely inflict what would otherwise would be an assault as they wish.

And even if, in a particular instance, an officer exceeds their authority, there is no real consequence for the officer: a civil action may be brought against the police force, or a complaint may be made, but the officer will continue in their job unaffected.

When you come to believe that a warrant card is a casual device, then – at the extreme – you have the situation in the Sarah Everard case.

An extreme on a scale, and not something isolated.

*

Yesterday this blog set out why the whole-life sentence for the murderer of Sarah Everard was spot-on.

Because the offence was committed by means of the use of police power, then it was so exceptionally serious as to warrant an exceptional sentence.

But.

The misuse and abuse of police powers are relevant in many other situations, and the law – and judges – should similarly be alert to their presence, and not just in the extreme cases.

And it should not be for those facing arrest to vet the credentials of an arresting officer.

Still less wave down a bus driver to get them involved and possibly also arrested.

The problem is about how police officers are, in effect, unchecked and (to use a phrase) a law to themselves, with no real accountability.

And this should not be made the responsibility of the arrestee or potential victim.

That bus has passed.

*****

If you value this free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Each post takes time, effort, and opportunity cost.

Suggested donation of £2 as a one-off, or of £4.50 upwards on a monthly profile.

This law and policy blog provides a daily post commenting on and contextualising topical law and policy matters.

*****

You can also have each post sent by email by filling in the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

*****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Are President Biden’s comments on ‘the Irish Accords’ a life line for the Human Rights Act?

22nd September 2021

Yesterday United States President Biden spoke about his concern about a possible change to what he called ‘the Irish Accords’.

From the context of the question and answer, Biden meant the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement – though the question was framed in terms of the Northern Irish Protocol of the Brexit withdrawal agreement.

The question and answer are here and you should watch and listen for yourself:

You will see in the tweet above that the estimable Sonya Sceats, the chief executive of Freedom from Torture, avers that the exchange is a life line for the Human Rights Act 1998.

Is she right?

And what is the connection between that exchange and the Human Rights Act 1998?

Here we need to see what the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement says.

In respect of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the agreement says the following:

‘There will be safeguards to ensure that all sections of the community can participate and work together successfully in the operation of these institutions and that all sections of the community are protected, including […] the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland supplementing it, which neither the Assembly nor public bodies can infringe, together with a Human Rights Commission [and] arrangements to provide that key decisions and legislation are proofed to ensure that they do not infringe the ECHR and any Bill of Rights for Northern Ireland’

and

‘The British Government will complete incorporation into Northern Ireland law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), with direct access to the courts, and remedies for breach of the Convention, including power for the courts to overrule Assembly legislation on grounds of inconsistency’.

*

These passages are explicit: the ECHR is a ‘safeguard’ and the ECHR has to be enforceable in the courts of Northern Ireland.

The agreement does not expressly mention the Human Rights Act 1998 – not least because that legislation had not yet been passed at the time of the agreement.

But one of the things that the act does in respect of Northern Ireland – as well as for the rest of the United Kingdom – is to make the ECHR enforceable directly in the courts.

This is instead of requiring a party seeking to rely on the ECHR to petition the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, as was the position before the act took effect.

Of course: you do not – strictly – need the Human Rights Act 1998 to be in place to fulfil the express requirements of the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement, as long as the ECHR remains enforceable locally in Northern Ireland.

But if the Act were to be repealed – which is a long-term goal of the new lord chancellor and justice secretary Dominic Raab – then there would need to be replacement legislation in place the very day the repeal took effect for ECHR rights to remain directly enforceable in the courts of Northern Ireland.

*

So does this mean the Human Rights Act 1998 is safe?

I am not so sure.

I averred on this blog when Raab was appointed (and I am sorry to quote myself):

‘And one would not be surprised that one stipulation made by Raab in accepting the position as lord chancellor is that he get another crack at repealing the human rights act.

‘If so, then the act will probably be repealed – though there will no doubt be a less strikingly (and provocatively) entitled ‘European Convention on Human Rights (Interpretation and Incorporation of Articles) and Related Purposes Act’ in its stead – not least because the Good Friday Agreement provides that the convention has to be enforceable in Northern Ireland.’

Having seen the exchange with Biden, I am now wondering if my (dismal) view is correct.

A wise government of the United Kingdom will be anxious not to give the slightest indication that anything related to the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement was up for any change – and continuing local enforcement of the ECHR is an express provision of that agreement.

A wise government, concerned about its relations with the United States, would thereby not touch the repeal of the Human Rights Act 1998 with a barge pole.

It would just take one credible complaint that the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement was at risk, and there would be an international problem.

Repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 would not be worth these risks – especially as it would have to be replaced immediately with legislation having the identical effect in respect of Northern Ireland.

But we do not have a wise government – we have a silly government.

And given the long-term obsession of the new lord chancellor with repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 – and that this may even be a reason for why he accepted his political demotion – one can see the repeal (and its immediate replacement) still going ahead in symbolic form – even if not in much substance.

*

But the politics of symbolism does not just have one direction.

Against Raab’s fixation with the symbolism of repealing the Human Rights Act 1998 is the transatlantic symbolism of doing anything that could remotely affect the Good Friday/Belfast Agreement.

So it may be that Sceats’ view is correct – and the Human Rights Act 1998 is safer than before.

But, on any view, repeal seems an unwise political path to take, given how much politically – and how little legally – is at stake.

**

Hello there –  if you value this daily, free-to-read and independent commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

Please do support this sceptical liberal constitutionalist blog – and do not assume it can keep going without your support.

***

You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Was the ‘surveillance state’ a price worth paying?

 

30th August 2021

Over at the Foreign Affairs journal is this fascinating, well-argued article:

From a liberal perspective, there are parts of the piece that are both convincing – and disturbing.

For example, the author Thomas Hegghammer avers that not only is the west better resourced:

‘Western governments have also proved to be less scrupulous about preserving civil rights than many expected in the early years of the war on terrorism. When faced with security threats on their own soil, most Western states bent or broke their own rules and neglected to live up to their self-professed liberal ideals.’

The gist of this seems true – and what is disturbing for the liberal is that it may well have been a ‘price worth paying’.

Hegghammer amplifies this point in respect of privacy laws and the surveillance state:

‘The reason information technology empowers the state over time is that rebellion is a battle for information, and states can exploit new technology on a scale that small groups cannot. The computer allowed states to accumulate more information about their citizens, and the Internet enabled faster sharing of that information across institutions and countries. Gadgets such as the credit card terminal and the smartphone allowed authorities to peer deeper and deeper into people’s lives. I sometimes serve as an expert witness in terrorism trials and get to see what the police have collected on suspects. What I have learned is that once the surveillance state targets someone, that person no longer retains even a sliver of genuine privacy.’

*

Hegghammer sets out that surveillance and the disregard for civil liberties are just one element of a general anti-terrorist strategy – alongside techniques, resources, intelligence, and the dynamics of the state-terrorist relationship.

And it is not clear whether it is an essential element.

Had Western governments and their citizens been more mindful (or to critics, precious) about their civil liberties, would it have meant that the other elements of anti-terrorism policy would not have worked so well?

And what would it have practically meant for Western governments to have been more ‘scrupulous about preserving civil rights than many expected in the early years of the war on terrorism’ rather than less?

Most liberals will accept that the state can do all sorts of things for the purpose of anti-terrorism, as long as it has a lawful basis and is subject to democratic and judicial supervision and the principle of proportionality, and it lasts no longer than necessary.

Would such requirements really have hindered the security services in their work?

*

To a certain extent Hegghammer’s argument has a flavour of ‘just so’ story – there is less terrorism now than before, and so what happened between then and now must explain why there is less terrorism.

But that said: Hegghammer’s observation that the state now has access to online information and communications data that makes it difficult-to-impossible to use electronic devices, media and payments for the purposes of organised terrorism is compelling.

However: terrorism, like other forms of human cruelty, adapts.

It may well be that we have not ascertained or imagined how the next generation of terrorists will work out how to be cruel.

But in the meantime: we will still have the surveillance state – and no state voluntary surrenders its powers.

Perhaps that was – and will continue to be – the ‘price worth paying’.

The price was a high one, all the same.

**

Hello there – please do support this sceptical liberal constitutionalist Brexit blog – and do not assume it can keep going without your support.

If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

Whatever happened to ‘regime change’?

16th August 2021

Once upon a time geopolitics seemed so much easier.

As Christopher Hitchens commented back in 2001, after 9/11:

‘The Taliban will soon be history. Al-Qaida will take longer. There will be other mutants to fight. But if, as the peaceniks like to moan, more Bin Ladens will spring up to take his place, I can offer this assurance: should that be the case, there are many many more who will also spring up to kill him all over again.’

*

I was one of those who nodded-along with Hitchens at the time, but I quickly realised the reality of ‘regime change’ did not correspond to what was said in sterling newspaper columns and comment pieces.

And by the time of the Iraq invasion (with which I did not nod-along) it was plain that no actual thought was going into what happened next in any of these adventures.

Now, twenty years after the invasion of Afghanistan, the west are retreating in circumstances which show that there was never any practical, sustainable plan for ‘regime change’.

Indeed, instead of a changed regime in Afghanistan, we have a regime resumed.

And the full resumption only took a day, after some twenty years of occupation.

*

Back in 2017, at the Financial Times, I put the calls for ‘regime change’ together with other simple notions from the first part of this century, as part of a general politics of easy answers:

*

I remember as a United Kingdom government lawyer around 2003/4 being asked to help on a commercial procurement matter involving the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq.

I did not have much idea what I was doing, though I did my best – and it was soon obvious that nobody at the Coalition Provisional Authority knew what they were doing.

I remember thinking at the time that it is one thing to clap and cheer at ‘regime change’ but for it to happen in reality was quite different.

*

This is not to argue absolutely against military interventions – either ‘liberal’ or otherwise.

What it is an argument against, however, is the notion that ‘regime changes’ are easy, or even effective.

Interventions are not political exorcisms, where the demons are expelled forever.

Instead, the notion of ‘regime change’ is a form of magical thinking.

And it always was.

**

Thank you for reading.

Please support this liberal and constitutionalist blog – and please do not assume it can keep going without your support.

If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.

The depressing political theatre of the United Kingdom as Kabul falls

15th August 2021

On this depressing day of news from Afghanistan, we also get the sorry spectacle of domestic performative politics.

As Kabul falls – in minutes and hours, as opposed to the ‘thirty to ninety days’ of some recent expert commentary – the United Kingdom government is convening a COBR meeting and parliament is to be summoned.

The foreign secretary has even cut short his holiday:

Why did we not realise before that we could just ‘tell’ the Taliban to protect human rights?

Well, that’s them now told.

*

All this political theatre – this post facto posturing – misdirects us from an even more depressing truth.

That the government of the United Kingdom – for all its post-Brexit claims – is internationally impotent here as in other areas, but it cannot accept this.

It would not have mattered much – if at all – if the COBR meeting and the recalled parliament had happened before the fall of Kabul.

Only the sequencing would have been different.

We have the illusion of focus, and the pretence of control and influence.

We tell ourselves and others that we can do something, and that we will do something.

But it is only for show.

While Kabul falls, in real time and in fast-forward.

Our government cannot admit its international irrelevance – not even to itself.

**

Thank you for reading.

Please support this liberal and constitutionalist blog – and please do not assume it can keep going without your support.

If you value this daily, free-to-read and independent legal and policy commentary for you and others please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.

***

You can subscribe for each post to be sent by email at the subscription box above (on an internet browser) or on a pulldown list (on mobile).

****

Comments Policy

This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.

Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated.

Comments will not be published if irksome.