Human Rights Act Is 'Getting Justice' For The Parents Of Soliders Who Died At Deepcut Barracks
How The Human Rights Act Is 'Getting Justice' For The Parents Of Four Dead Soldiers
Jack Sommers— The Huffington Post UK
|
The Human Rights Act has been essential in the battle to uncover what happened to four soldiers who died at the same barracks, according to a father who attacked the Conservative government's plans to scrap it.
Des James said that securing a fresh inquest into the death of his daughter, Private Cheryl James, would have been impossible without the act, which the Tories have repeatedly condemned and plan to replace with a "British Bill of Rights".
Open Image Modal
(Top Left to right) James Collinson, Cheryl James, Sean Benton, Geoff Gray all died at Deepcut army barracks in Surrey
Pte James, 18, was undergoing initial training when she was found dead with a bullet wound between her right eye and the bridge of her nose in November 1995.
She was one of four soldiers who died at the Deepcut barracks in Surrey between 1995 and 2002 amid claims of bullying and abuse.
Privates Sean Benton, James Collinson and Geoff Gray also died there from gunshot wounds.
Last year, High Court judges ordered a new inquest into Pte James's death, after they quashed a previous one that recorded an open verdict in December 1995.
Today there will be a pre-inquest review at Woking Coroner's Court in Surrey.
Mr James said the Human Rights Act had helped lawyers for the family access documents held by authorities about the death of his daughter.
Open Image Modal
Des James (pictured in 2003) said the Tories' desire to scrap the Human Rights Act was "a sad irony" given how it had helped him and other families get to the bottom of what happened
He said: "Each of the young people who died at Deepcut deserves the dignity of their death being individually investigated.
"After a two-decade battle, we're finally close to gaining justice for Cheryl - but it's a sad irony that our new government is now intent on axing the Human Rights Act, without which we could never have got this far."
The government has not yet outlined specific details of its plans to repeal the legislation since the general election.
In their manifesto, the Tories said they intend to scrap the Act and introduce a British Bill of Rights to break the link between British courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.
He told Sky News: "Is it merely a cosmetic change or is it a desire to do something radically different?
He added: "It's not at all clear as to what we are trying to achieve. At the end of the day, what are the benefits going to be compared to the costs of change?"
At the 2011 Conservative Party Conference, Home Secretary Theresa May attacked the act, claiming it had prevented a man being deported because he had a pet cat.
"We all know the stories about the Human Rights Act," she said. "The violent drug dealer who cannot be sent home because his daughter – for whom he pays no maintenance – lives here.
"The robber who cannot be removed because he has a girlfriend. The illegal immigrant who cannot be deported because – and I am not making this up – he had pet a cat."
Emma Norton, a lawyer for civil rights campaigners Liberty, which is representing the James family, said: "Cheryl's family have had to fight every step of the way for answers about their daughter's death - and thanks to the Human Rights Act, justice is finally within reach.
"Twenty years on from her death, her parents deserve answers - not the cruelty of further delays."
The lawyer also paid tribute to Pte Benton's mother Linda, who died on Friday.
"Linda remained determined to the end," she said. "She refused to accept that Sean had simply committed suicide. The rumours of bullying, abuse and the fundamental unanswered questions were too strong and too real to ignore."
A Ministry of Justice spokesman said ministers would "be discussing their plans" on scrapping the act and "making announcements in due course".
10 Worrying Things About The Tories' Human Rights Proposals
By Jessica Elgot
10 Worry Things About The Tories Human Rights Proposals
The proposals says that the ECHR banned whole-life tariffs for prisoners, but they didn't(01 of10)
Open Image Modal
Dominic Grieve, the former attorney general, called it a "howler" based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the Strasbourg ruling, and that UK sentencing laws had been found to be "totally compatible". Adam Wagner, human rights barrister from 1 Crown Office Row, called it a "major factual error". (credit:Fiona Hanson/PA Archive)
It's very unlikely the UK could be granted special status to have the Strasbourg court as a mere 'advisory' body(02 of10)
Open Image Modal
In practice, these proposals pretty much mean leaving the European Convention of Human Rights, lawyers say, leaving us in the company of Belarus and Kazakhstan. Russia, Azerbaijahn and Ukraine are just some of the countries that would have more watertight human rights protection than the UK. (credit:Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
If we want special treatment from the ECHR, then won't other countries want it too?(03 of10)
Open Image Modal
Legal commentator Joshua Rozenberg points out that "if Westminster has a veto on Strasbourg’s decisions, the parliaments of Russia, Ukraine and other countries will want one too, making compliance with court rulings voluntary would undermine the entire convention system." (credit:ASSOCIATED PRESS)
The proposals "limit the use of human rights laws to the most serious cases...ensuring UK courts strike out trivial cases."(04 of10)
One of the proposals actually means we are more tightly legally bound to the Strasbourg court than we are already(05 of10)
Open Image Modal
The document says "every judgement that UK law is incompatible with the Convention will be treated as advisory and we will introduce a new Parliamentary procedure to formally consider the judgement. It will only be binding in UK law if Parliament agrees that it should be enacted as such." Carl Gardner points out in his Head of Legal blog that "this proposal puts more human rights obligations on Parliament than it has under the Human Rights Act. There is currently no legal duty on Parliament to consider any Strasbourg judgment. The Conservatives plan would oblige it to for the very first time." (credit:Anadolu Agency via Getty Images)
Grayling has forgotten to mention how this would work under the Good Friday agreement with Northern Ireland or with Scottish devolution(06 of10)
Open Image Modal
It is a requirement under the Good Friday agreement that ultimately people in NI can take cases to the ECHR. Chris Grayling has just written a paper which makes no reference to this issue or how it can be solved, except saying 'We will work with the devolved administrations and legislatures as necessary to make sure there is an effective new settlement across the UK'. Westminster could change the law for both countries, but there's been no consultation and no reference to it in this paper, and it's likely Scotland would seek to devolve it. If Scotland or NI want to stay linked to the ECHR, then we could end up with a "patchwork" of different human rights laws across the United Kingdom. (credit:Dorling Kindersley via Getty Images)
British judges are now likely to find more UK legislation is incompatible with human rights, not fewer(07 of10)
Open Image Modal
The new proposals say the Tories will "prevent our laws from being effectively re-written through ‘interpretation’ of Strasborg case law." "I don’t think this has been thought through," Gardner writes on Head of Legal. "If judges think old housing legislation discriminates against a gay tenant, they can rule that it is no longer to be read as permitting the discrimination. "But if that option is barred, they will in case like that have no option but to declare the legislation incompatible with human rights in principle. The result, surely, will be more headlines about judges condemning Parliament for breaching human rights, not fewer." (credit:Lewis Whyld/PA Archive)
The proposals mean we don't have to worry as much about sending people off to be tortured(08 of10)
Open Image Modal
The “real risk” test used to determine whether someone is at risk of torture on deportation will be "revised..in line with our commitment to prevent torture and in keeping with the approach taken by other developed nations”. "If there is evidence that an individual faces a real risk of torture on return, should the UK seriously be seeking shortcuts?" asks Angela Patrick is the Director of Human Rights Policy at JUSTICE. (credit:Cristian Baitg via Getty Images)
It would take an enormous amount of time, effort and consultation to end up with basically the same thing we have already(09 of10)
Open Image Modal
No one thinks we should scrap laws against, say, slavery, or free speech, or the right to protest. So the new "Bill of Rights" would be 99% a carbon copy of what we already have, only enforced by British judges, several legal commentators have pointed out. Unless we scrap human rights altogether. (credit:Peter Macdiarmid via Getty Images)
The proposal doesn't even spell "judgment" in the correct legal way(10 of10)
Open Image Modal
Gardner points out that this means the proposal probably wasn't drafted by lawyers, at least in parts.
A good point from @carlgardner - the (non-legal) spelling of "judgement" for "judgment" is a tell - Tory document not drafted by a lawyer.