Human Rights Act 1998: Time for a Substantial Rethink?
| Author | James Morton |
| DOI | 10.1350/jcla.70.4.273 |
| Published date | 01 August 2006 |
| Date | 01 August 2006 |
| Subject Matter | Opinion |
OPINION
Human Rights Act 1998: Time for a
Substantial Rethink?
James Morton
It was the Canadian humorist, Stephen Leacock, who wrote, ‘Lord
Randolph threw himself on his horse and rode off in all directions’. I
forget now who wrote or said, ‘When in danger or in doubt, yell and
scream and rush about’. Both seem to be an apt way of describing the
present situation in the sentencing and pastoral arms of the criminal
justice system. To complete a trio of quasi-quotations it might be said
that ‘Good news is no news’, but seemingly since the start of 2006 there
has been a stream of bad news about released offenders who re-offend
immediately; of releasing prisoners for fear of breaching their human
rights; of failure to supervise violent prisoners who have been released;
and of cases where prisoners are suing the Home Office because they
have been make to go off drugs ‘cold turkey’ again in breach of their
human rights. A convicted arsonist successfully argued that a ban on her
carrying a cigarette lighter would stop her from smoking and so infringe
her right to free expression. One prisoner obtained damages because the
old ‘slopping-out’ system was degrading—as indeed it was—and in
breach of his human rights. Fortunately, another prisoner failed in his
claim that because prison was boring, it breached his rights. The trouble
is that many of these human rights actions brought by prisoners and the
public at large are blackmailing ones. It is far easier to pay up a relatively
small amount than to fight a case which will cost thousands of pounds
and, in the case of a serving prisoner, will still end up in a large bill for
the taxpayer.
Indeed in the case of the boxer, Naseem Hamed, sentenced to impris-
onment for 15 months for dangerous driving, it appears (The Times, 13
May 2006) that the trial judge was not in possession of his driving record
because the DVLA thought that to disclose it to the court would breach
the defendant’s human rights.
It is small wonder, therefore, that the Conservative leader has said
that if his party comes to power it will amend the Human Rights Act
1998 substantially and, if that is not practical, it will be repealed. The
road to Hell is paved with good intentions and, of course, the Human
Rights Act was created with that in mind. It is not as though we were not
warned. In the debate in the House of Lords on 3 November 1997, Lord
McClusky reminded the House of the Canadian senator who had de-
scribed a similar Bill as ‘a field day for crackpots, a pain in the neck for
judges and a gold mine for lawyers’. He went on to add, ‘by incorporat-
ing into our domestic law vague, imprecise and high-sounding state-
ments of legal rights, we hand what is truly legislative power away from
273
To continue reading
Request your trial