Home -> Law Blog Directory -> International Law Blogs -> prisonlawinsideout

International Law

: prisonlawinsideout

Jack Straw and Nick Herbert should themselves take responsibilities

By John Hirst

Jack Straw and Nick Herbert should themselves take responsibilities

Nick Herbert, the Shadow Justice Secretary, is wrong to claim that "Today marks the 10th anniversary of the Human Rights Act - legislation that was meant to embody the values that our servicemen, who we honour today, have fought and died to defend". The Human Rights Act 1998 came into force on 2 October 2000. Moreover, the legislation has sweet FA to do with servicemen and any values they may hold. Not a good start for Nick Herbert not only getting his dates mixed up but also being mistaken about the nature of the Human Rights Act. It is a pathetic attempt to tie his political argument into Remembrance Sunday. He should be ashamed of trying to make cheap political capital out of such an occasion.

As pointed out, Nick Herbert, is the Shadow Justice Secretary in Her Majesty's Opposition, and yet he has failed to oppose the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, on this issue. As Jamie Doward points out "Being hauled before the European Court of Human Rights for failing to comply with the convention is an unpalatable prospect for the government". How does Nick Herbert address this issue, does he attack Jack Straw and the government for the failing? No. Instead he jumps into bed with both Jack Straw and the government: 'The idea that our entire democratic process could be overturned in this way is ludicrous,' said shadow justice secretary Nick Herbert. 'Claiming sweeping new entitlements for prisoners is a classic example of over-reaching human rights laws which have lost sight of the importance of balancing responsibilities. Parliament should make these decisions, not European judges'.

What is ludicrous is Nick Herbert's statements based upon his ludicrous thinking.

The democratic process is based upon the principle of the universal franchise, ie, one person one vote. The Prisoners Votes Case exposed the fact that prisoners had been denied the right to vote and yet the issue had not been first debated in Parliament. At the High Court stage of the legal challenge Lord Justice Kennedy attempted to abdicate responsibility by ruling that this was a matter for Parliament to decide. However, the issue was whether the Representation of the People's Act was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. The European Court of Human Rights decided that the UK was guilty of violating convicted prisoners human right to the vote.

In my view, the ECtHR acted responsibly with its decision. Jack Straw and Nick Herbert are both making noises abouts rights being balanced with responsibilities. Before either of these two speak about the responsibilities of others, surely they should take responsibility themselves on the issue of convicted prisoners and their human rights to the vote.

Full post as published by prisonlawinsideout on November 09, 2008 (boomark / email).