Last month you may remember I wrote about the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s threat to go to court claiming the Counter-Terrorism Bill is incompatible with Convention rights, and mentioned that Jacqui Smith had written to CEHR boss Trevor Phillips defending the Bill.
Well, finally the Home Office have sent me a copy of her letter.
Well, she would say that wouldn’t she! These letters etc. are all very well but they should test it in court.
I just found this pretty awesome article, The Last Patriot, that sheds some light on the first encounters America had with Jihadist back in the late 1700s. Its a really interesting article worth checking out.
Hi HoL
Can you comment on the following,
“The purpose of the [Regulation of Investigatory powers] act was to give legal structure to surveillance following the introduction of the Human Rights Act. The surveillance was aimed at serious criminals and, though terrorists would fall into the category, it is wrong to describe this as anti-terror legislation.“
From, here (Lord Patel).
Note that the Home Secretary is silent on the subjects of secret inquests & special coroners & their compliance with Article 2 of the ECHR.
She does not address the concerns (raised the by the cross-bench UK Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights in their report to parliament, published 30 January 2008) (they called the measures astonishing!) that Clauses 64 & 65 of the Counter-Terrorism Bill (dealing with 'secret inquests' & 'special coroners') are a contravention of Article 2 of the ECHR. Similar concerns have been expressed by INQUEST.
The proposed Clause 64 & 65 measures (which have received very little reportage/commentary) relate to changes to the coroners inquest system that would permit hand-picked ‘suitably trained’ coroners to carry out inquest sessions in ‘secret‘, without the presence of a jury and/or family members. (Note that this legislation will affect a number of presently adjourned inquests, including all those of the July 7th victims).
André Rebello (Secretary, Coroners’ Society of England and Wales), in the Commons Committee stage debate of the CT2008 bill on 24th April 2008, when asked (Question 352) about the meaures allowing a government hand-picked coroner, responded:
“I am very uncomfortable about that. I think that it drives a coach and horses through the separation of powers. If a suitably qualified or specially ticketed coroner needs to be brought in, it certainly cannot be any part of the Executive that appoints the coroner. Well, it could be, but our rule of law would be going out the window.
Good Job! 🙂