David Cameron To Attempt Significant Reforms Of The European Court Of Human Rights

Cameron European Court Reform

The Huffington Post UK   First Posted: 25/01/2012 05:59 Updated: 25/01/2012 11:40

David Cameron is seeking to change the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) so that it no longer serves as an automatic last resort for criminals, including foreigners awaiting deportation. But the proposal has been attacked by Labour who believe the prime minister may be paving the way to "walk away" from the court.

Cameron will use Britain's presidency of the Council of Europe to attempt to make changes to the court. However Downing Street has admitted that getting agreement on how to speed up the Court's operation will be an enormous challenge.

The ECHR's remit covers 800 million people in 47 countries and now has a backlog of more than 150,00 cases.

In a speech in Strasbourg on Wednesday the prime minister will say the court should be free to deal with the "most serious violations" of human rights and should not be "swamped" with an endless backlog.

"The court should ensure that the right to individual petition counts; it should not act as a small claims court. And the Court should hold us all to account; it should not undermine its own reputation by going over national decisions where it does not need to," he will say.

In a clear sign that Britain is no longer prepared to tolerate the European Court being an automatic backstop for those convicted in the UK, Whitehall sources have indicated that a detailed draft of proposed reforms will be ready by the end of February, with a conference of European justice ministers being convened in April.

Britain holds the rotating presidency of the Council of Europe until May, reflecting the speed at which the PM is seeking to make these changes. Whitehall is expecting a series of "short but intense" negotiations on the reforms, and while there is agreement within the coalition and among many European nations that the court is unfit for purpose, it is far from clear how reforms which can quickly separate genuine human rights abuses from spurious cases can be achieved.

In a sign of frustration in Number 10 with the court's interpretation of its powers under the European Convention on Human Rights, the prime minister will also say: "We are hoping to get consensus on strengthening subsidiarity – the principle that where possible, final decisions should be made nationally."

The current wait for a case to be heard by the court is around two years, leading to many would-be deportees languishing in jail. The system leads to long-running and emotive cases, including that of the Islamist cleric Abu Qatada, whose deportation to Jordan was blocked by the European Court on human rights grounds last week. The case caused Tories to call for a withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights, although what's being proposed falls far short of that.

Downing Street sources spoke of a "single agenda, which is reforming the court." There is no apparent move by Britain to amend the European Convention itself, with government sources suggesting that even making the changes outlined will be "very difficult".

There is nothing in the coalition agreement on changing the ECHR, but sources close to Nick Clegg said the deputy prime minister was entirely supportive of Cameron's plan. "Nick has been calling for reform of the court for many years, and as with all speeches this was agreed beforehand," said one source.

Labour have criticised the PM's rhetoric on reforming the ECHR, suggesting it could be the first step towards a unilateral move away from its auspices if the negotiations fail.

Shadow Justice Secretary Sadiq Khan accused the PM of "peddling myths that denigrate the human rights successes of the Court and the Convention. It smacks of throwing ‘red meat’ to the hungry pack of Conservative backbenches so recently emboldened by the Prime Minister’s waltzing away from the European negotiating table."

He went on: “The Labour Party is fiercely proud of the UK’s role in protecting and championing human rights across Europe, and beyond. Other countries look up to the UK, and our moral authority as a member of the club of 47 nations empowers us to pressure those who have weaker human rights records. To simply walk away, as the prime minister has hinted, would constitute a gross neglecting of our duties as a beacon of civility amongst the family of nations.”

The human rights group JUSTICE has also criticised Cameron's comments. Angela Patrick, director of human rights policy said some of the cases the government does not like deal with issues that are "far from small" involving "at their heart a fundamental commitment to an absolute bar on torture".

"Comparing the Strasbourg Court to a small claims court damages our public commitment to the international rule of law," she said.

Conservative MPs reacted with glee at Labour's instant opposition to the proposals, with one telling HuffPost UK they were finding it hard to believe that Ed Miliband was managing to be out of touch with public opinion on another issue.

"Who's advising him?" said one Tory MP, who was entirely supportive of the plans.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST UK POLITICS

David Cameron is seeking to change the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) so that it no longer serves as an automatic last resort for criminals, including foreigners awaiting deportation. But the p...
David Cameron is seeking to change the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) so that it no longer serves as an automatic last resort for criminals, including foreigners awaiting deportation. But the p...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 182
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4  Next ›  Last »  (4 total)
15:26 on 27/01/2012
The justice system here in the UK is fractured and corrupt. Cameron again uses convenient examples, this time of threats to Britain but what of threats to Briton's whose rights are continually being abused in UK courts but cases are to small to make it in to the serious crimes catergory? I am a British citizen and my hope is that the ECHR will ignore Camerons absurd attempt to further strip away the rights of human beings.
17:06 on 27/01/2012
I wouldn't call Abu Qatada a human being.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:21 on 26/01/2012
lol Europe.

Have fun with your terrorist(s), UK.
02:48 on 26/01/2012
Good for Cameron. The Court is an encroachment upon the sovereignty of Britain that should not be accepted.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cornel
wuf wuf
17:11 on 25/01/2012
UK has not been taken seriously by any body since the conservatives took over. UK should be proud to have a Bush wannabe called Cameron !
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piul05
Are you looking at my ears?! (Mo-om!!!)
16:26 on 25/01/2012
What a cl0t.
cwaged1002
There is hope but not for us
15:44 on 25/01/2012
David Cameron, the conservative PM wants to go the way of America's conservations.

Human rights end with the right to be born.
23:59 on 25/01/2012
So you would welcome Abu Qatada as an illegal immigrant to your shores and pay him social security would you? A man convicted of terrorism and on a UN list of people associated with the presumed 9/11 bombers.
cwaged1002
There is hope but not for us
12:20 on 27/01/2012
Your response is ridiculous.
15:41 on 25/01/2012
Once again Labour standing in the way of drastic changes to the ECHR, denying terrorists, criminals, illegal asylem seekers, and illegal immigrants from hiding behind it skirts.
16:38 on 25/01/2012
Quote: "Once again Labour standing in the way of drastic changes to the ECHR"

Actually, any opposition or support will come from the other 46 members of the Council of Europe.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
14:49 on 25/01/2012
Human Rights as it should be: protecting normal people from the government's arbitrary decisions.

Human Rights at ECHR: protecting convicted terrorists what ever the consequences.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jackbutler5555
15:07 on 25/01/2012
How do you know the ECHR protects terrorists?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
15:21 on 25/01/2012
"In February 2009, Law lords ruled that Qatada could be deported to Jordan.In the same month, Qatada was awarded £2,500 by the European Court of Human Rights in a lawsuit he filed against the UK, after judges ruled that his detention without trial in the UK breached his human rights" Wikipedia - Abu Qatada

How do you call an organization that awards money to a convicted terrorists?
15:09 on 25/01/2012
Given what we are witnessing over the last decade, I just cannot agree with your implied view that limits the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" in "due process". (Btw, as I was reading a bit about the ECHR I came across their verdict from 1978 about the "Five Techniques" case of Ireland vs the UK; what do you think about that?)

I mean, look at some of the consequences, especially Gitmo. Yes, some probably very dangerous people are contained there, no doubt about that.
But many, many more were detained only for all US authorities figuring out that they were really innocent, that they had done nothing wrong.
But now the US administration is trapped: It cannot send innocent people back to their country where they would be harmed, they cannot grant them due process at a US Court to be at least compensated for wrongful imprisonment, they cannot even give them a fair trial so that the public may know the facts, the person and maybe be willing to integrate them.
All because a government decided that their definition of "security needs" trumped centuries worth of legal practice and philosophy of laws.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MarcEdward
likes all cats more than most people
14:47 on 25/01/2012
translation - he wants to be able to break the law.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
piul05
Are you looking at my ears?! (Mo-om!!!)
16:31 on 25/01/2012
More to the point; he wants to summarily deport people without having to bother with irritating little details such as the right to fair hearings, appeals, burden of proof, habeas corpus etc, etc, etc.
23:17 on 25/01/2012
The highest court in the UK ruled he could be deported it wasn't Cameron's decision.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SATCHMAN99
14:29 on 25/01/2012
I just wonder how many people on here are human rights activists and lawyers. No one in their right mind could want to offer protection to these Clerics unless they were being paid to do it.Or possible country folk who have never known what danger is and live in their part of heaven that is untouched and unsoiled by the criminal fraternity.Never met danger face on or had anyone they loved hurt by these mad people who we pay to protect under this stupid backward law!! Anyone out there involved in 9/11 or The london underground bombings want to protect The cleric?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
14:40 on 25/01/2012
Sure, but the question is: Are you more afraid of the cleric or the legal precedent?
The cleric will die, the legal precedent lives in the Common Law tradition forever.
This precedent, that evidence based on torture is legitimate as long as it is not done in Britain, is harmful to our legal order.
14:56 on 25/01/2012
I am certainly not a human rights activist or a lawyer and I don't live in a remote country side. And I immediately admit that I am only very, very dimly aware of the case/ cleric many claqueurs refer to here and certainly do not know the details.
Having said that though, I find it somewhat irrational to claim that just because of one or a few cases one would be willing to throw entire principles under the bus, let alone turn "due process" and "innocent until proven guilty" into an arbitrary thing decided upon by populism.

But apart from that, there is a maybe much graver consequence. As you will know, the court is not an EU institution per se since it precedes the EU/ EC by far AND it includes signatories like for example Russia or Turkey. I think you can agree that PM Putin would find it easy to construe a case against an opposition figurehead using mutatis mutandis the same language as in the British case and then also can make his case that this was "small claims"/subsidiary to national courts only. So, how many people are you willing to trade off in those countries just to have your will in this one case?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SATCHMAN99
16:08 on 25/01/2012
I don't want my will in one case. I want these people out of my country for good an dfor the safety of us all. I don't want to pay taxes to provide someone who would advocate killing me in a moment to live here. I personally don't want terrorists to have any human rights. They don't deserve them. Which terrorists thought about our human rights to live when they hit the Towers on 9/11? You people who support their rights are as bad as they are!! You just use the ECHR to hide behind!
This comment has been removed.
13:11 on 25/01/2012
Rubbish! David Cameron does not have the right to change the European Court of Human Rights. David Cameron does not understand the human rights act. David Cameron does not understand the system of the human rights court.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SATCHMAN99
14:25 on 25/01/2012
He has the support of a lot of people on this issue i would imagine and good luck to him I hope he succeeds.
19:44 on 25/01/2012
Completely not true! He has not support of a lot of people on this issue. David Cameron is wrong about human rights. David Cameron got to understand that human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world. It is important to understand that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
19:45 on 25/01/2012
To: SATCHMAN99

David Cameron got to understand that human rights are the basic rights and freedoms that belong to every person in the world. It is important to understand that all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.
This comment has been removed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
fredro
12:56 on 25/01/2012
Per DC the court 'should not go over national decisions where it does not need to'. And who determines whether it needs to or not?
12:32 on 25/01/2012
The European Court of Human Rights is too important to opt out of. It provides important protection against Governments and Authrities that are behaving badly/implementing bad policies. The European Court not only ensures that people are not sent back to countries in which they would be tortured/killed, it also protects the rights of ordinary, hard working, decent people. Despite the shortcomings of the European Court, it is too risky to get rid of it, it has blocked some very bad policies/decisons made by the Authorities in Britain. Unfortunately we can no longer trust our own politicians, we need to have this watchdog.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SATCHMAN99
12:41 on 25/01/2012
Yep keep protecting the rights of those who would advocate blowing you up and we will all sleep well tonight!! Can't be bad can it?....The law needs altering so these we don't have to put up with these terrorist promoters, and pay to keep them as well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
OPeixe
Shouldn't we move beyond the ideas?
21:06 on 25/01/2012
There are laws against advocating terrorism, violence and other hate. If you are so self assured, this person should be judged and convicted in the UK, not deport it to avoid the responsibility of a free country over every person without exceptions.
We are different from them for a reason.