UK Liberty

How the Government responds to adverse human rights judgements

Posted in law and order, politicians on liberty by ukliberty on December 8, 2008

A recent article, written after the ECHR ruling on the DNA database, quoted a Guardian article that briefly outlined the approaches taken by the Government to human rights judgements that go against it, in particular contrasting Hirst v UK with Aslef v UK.

In Hirst v UK the court found that the general ban on prisoners voting in the UK was a violation of their rights. The government has made various proposals but, more than three years on, the law has still not been changed.

Legislative change happens more quickly when it is in tune with political will. Last year in Aslef v UK the court ruled that legislative change was needed to permit trade unions to expel members who belonged to the BNP or other political parties. Less than one year later amendments were linked to the employment bill, which is still going through the Commons.

The Joint Committee on Human Rights recently published a report, Monitoring the Government’s Response to Human Rights Judgements: Annual Report 2008, which looks at issues like this – and notes, disturbingly, that “there are a number of cases against the United Kingdom which have been outstanding for longer than five years”.

It seems that political expediency determines how and when a judgement will be responded to.

Update

The Government published a response to the JCHR (318 Kb PDF) in January 2009. With regard to Hirst,

The Government remains committed to taking appropriate steps in respect of the judgement in Hirst, and to carrying out a second, more detailed, public consultation that takes account of the findings of the first stage consultation. The Government acknowledges that there has been a delay to the timetable originally envisaged for the conduct of that second consultation. The current intention is that the results of the first consultation will be published together with a second stage consultation document.

Since the judgment, [handed down in October 2005] the Government has kept the Committee of Ministers updated, including a detailed note in April of last year. A further brief update noting the Government’s position was submitted in October ahead of the December meeting of the Committee of Ministers’ Deputies. We will continue to keep the Committee of Ministers updated on our progress on this case, and have undertaken to submit further information in due course on the form and timing of a further consultation.

In implementing the judgment, the Government will need to take account of the wide spectrum of opinion on the issue, as well as the practical implications for the courts, for prison authorities and for the conduct of elections. The solution that we reach must respect the Court’s judgment, and must also respect the traditions and context of the United Kingdom. As noted in the April update, the Government will consider the outcome of the consultation and will bring forward legislation to implement its final approach as soon as Parliamentary time allows.

So far they have had three years and three months.

Advertisements

3 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. […] Interesting development on prisoners’ votes Posted on March 2, 2009 by ukliberty Regulars may recall my short article on how the Government responds to adverse judgements. […]

  2. Jack Straw « UK Liberty said, on March 3, 2009 at 7:26 pm

    […] He asserts that the Human Rights Act is an “overriding and systematic protection for people’s rights and liberties”.  This is a ridiculous  falsehood – it does not override the will of Parliament, which retains ultimate sovereignty.  If for example primary legislation is found to be contrary to the Human Rights Act our courts may only make a declaration of incompatibility. And by then it is too late for that person to the extent that his rights and liberties have already been interfered with – and may have been interfered with (such as being indefinitely detained without trial) for months if not years, bearing in mind how long it takes for these issues to go through our legal system.  Even adverse judgements handed down from the European Court of Human Rights may not promptly be resp…. […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: