Justice Secretary Rules Out Cutting Ties with Strasbourg Court

Critics say they demonstrate how the human rights court in Strasbourg has gained power beyond its original remit, able to trump even the will of the British Parliament.

But although rulings like the prisoners’ right to vote might be making the headlines at present, they are simply old cases, dredged up with little attention to the details or scope of the rulings, says civil liberties watchdog Liberty.

The Justice Secretary Ken Clarke on Sunday ruled out Britain cutting ties with the European Convention on Human Rights, as some have suggested, but said that the coalition government was considering a British Bill of Rights and would press for changes to the way the Strasbourg court is run.

Liberty director Shami Chakrabarti said the coalition's plans for a Bill of Rights would put the Human Rights Act “in jeopardy”.

Two weeks ago, Parliament voted in favour of a motion that in essence said the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) is overstepping the mark, and that the UK should not bend to its ruling on prisoners' rights. The Strasbourg ruling is five years old.

Last week, another ruling by the ECHR which said that those on the sex offender list should have the right to review, was brought to the fore and criticised by the government, keeping up momentum on the topic of the power of the Strasbourg court. This ruling was one year old.

Mrs Chakrabarti in her blog on Monday said that British politicians were “railing against the values and institutions that have long protected liberty and the rule of law at home”.

She dismissed the notion that the court ruling on sex offenders act carried any notion of a threat to sovereignty or the will of Parliament, describing the government's criticism as a “two-fingered salute” to the Supreme Court.

 “Did you know that the Supreme Court decision has only moral and persuasive force? Yes, last week’s manufactured controversy about 'pervs and paedos' and 'unelected judges' dictating to our sainted mother of parliaments involves a 'declaration of incompatibility' under the Human Rights Act that both the Government and Parliament are completely free to ignore.”

She said that most worrying was the criticism of the European Court of Human Rights. 

Continued on next page  It was labelled a kangaroo court