Gove and the Human Rights Act

It's quite terrifying Whitewave and there appears now to be no way of stopping this.

That should read

Not punished for something NOT against the law!!!

Perhaps add to it that a victim is entitled to live life after a crime free from fear of the perpetrator harrassing them?

rose no good - he is intent on abolishing it

www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/news/blog/human-rights-headlines-fight-save-our-human-rights-act-starts-now

Let us hope it will be replaced by something that will have more relevance to Britain today. Sometimes it seems that perpetrators have rights to family life at the expense of the victims they have terrorised.

It does need looking at.

there have been some cases where the balance bewteen the rights of two sets of people are/ seem unfairly weighted to one side but that is nowhere near enough reason for throwing the whole act out and bringing in some weak replacement inspired not by the grand ideals underpinning the Convention but by a party political agenda based on narrow self interest

In my work, I sometimes have to grapple with Article 6 ( right to a fair trial). Sometimes it's frustrating but look at countries that don't have this.

rose what would be more relevant to the UK today, which part of the act would you argue is irrelevant?

I would hope that most (including article 6 obviously) will be enshrined in the new legislation.
Perhaps some should be re-interpreted and re-written to ensure that judges do not have their hands tied by legislation where strict adherence to the law results in questionable decisions.

The CJA of 2003 was an attempt to modernise a system where previous failure had resulted in miscarriages of justice.
Just because something has been in place for a long time does not mean it should not be subject to scrutiny and amendment if needed.

I agree that every Act should be subject to scrutiny and review - that makes sense; but this Act is so fundamental to our liberties and the party in power is so regressive in its approach that it is understandable that there are those who have concerns.

My basic problem is that I just don't trust the motives behind this and that if the DM thinks it's a good thing then I am even more suspicious

Wasn't it 1998? Not 1988

And Gordon Brown approved plans for constitutional reform of this act in 2007, so Labour too thought it was not fit for purpose.

I thought the UK Human Rights Act 1998, which came into force only in 2000, was a codified version of the law as set out by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). It meant, among other things, that people in the UK could take their HR cases to UK courts instead of having to go to Strasbourg.

Since the UK is a signatory to the ECHR as well as to the UN convention on human rights, why is it felt necessary to have a special UK version. Apart from the fact mentioned above about not having to go to Strasbourg, which is, presumably, an advantage, what else is gained?

Did the UK have its own HR Act before the 1998 one or did we use the international ones?

That's interesting, RQ.

Magna Carta 1215
Bill of Rights 1689

www.theguardian.com/humanrightsandwrongs/800-years-making

I will reserve judgement.

My understanding was that having to go to Strasbourg was seen as a huge advantage and actually brought back some power into the UK

Seen as a huge advantage by whom? Government or people challenging what they see as attacks on their human rights?

I think one of the advantages is that it speeds the process up which is actually one of the aspects of Article 6.

Oh dear - I mssed out a not in my 11.36 post - sorry

Not having to go speeds up the process? Yes, that makes sense. But I would have thought that with a will, the UK could organise that without having to have a massive great HR Act of its own. Maybe not but it doesn't seem an impossible idea.

Laws do like to tie things in knots though.

I can't see how constitutionally appals agsinst the European Convention could be heard in UK Courts - it just doesn't work like that , they would have no locus and thus no legitimacy

It's like all reasonable ideas the practice is different to the theory.

It has been abused and found wanting in many areas and could be bettered.

It can't just be 'abolished' without going through due process.

It is hardly likely that it would be repealed and replaced by nothing; it will be either amended or replaced by a modified law.

Depending on any of the above getting through Parliament which it may not.