Human Rights Gone Mad
The BBC reports on another crazy legal challenge in which two convicted murderers seek to exploit the UK's human rights legislation.
Needless to say, I hope their case gets thrown out on its ear and what a waste of public money into the bargain.
Murderer paedophiles sue ministers over hurt feelings
O'Neill and Lauchlan murdered Alison McGarrigle and dumped her body at sea
Two paedophiles who murdered a woman are suing Scottish ministers over lack of contact in jail and for £35,000 compensation each over "hurt feelings".
William Lauchlan and Charles O'Neill killed Allison McGarrigle after she planned to reveal their sex abuse.
The pair say they were previously in a long-standing relationship.
They claim the Scottish government has breached their human rights in relation to inter-prison visits and contact by telephone and letters.
O'Neill, 51, and 37-year-old Lauchlan are serving life sentences in different prisons in Scotland. The authorities have not granted permission for them to see each other in visits.
They argue the Scottish government has failed to respect their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides protection for private and family life. They also claim they have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.
They say they were in "a long-standing intimate and sexual relationship" before being imprisoned after their trial in 2010.
Both are seeking damages of £35,000, claiming they are entitled to an award for "hurt feelings" among other things.
'Callous and depraved'
It is said: "Their relationship has suffered as a consequence of the treatment they have suffered. They have both felt frustration and distress at being unable to communicate with each other to a greater extent or to have face-to-face contact."
"This is particularly so when heterosexual couples have apparently been afforded greater contact with each other," it is maintained.
The judicial review brought by the prisoners stated that Scottish ministers failed to provide them with "suitable and sufficient contact" with each other.
Two paedophiles who murdered a woman are suing Scottish ministers over lack of contact in jail and for £35,000 compensation each over "hurt feelings".
William Lauchlan and Charles O'Neill killed Allison McGarrigle after she planned to reveal their sex abuse.
The pair say they were previously in a long-standing relationship.
They claim the Scottish government has breached their human rights in relation to inter-prison visits and contact by telephone and letters.
O'Neill, 51, and 37-year-old Lauchlan are serving life sentences in different prisons in Scotland. The authorities have not granted permission for them to see each other in visits.
They argue the Scottish government has failed to respect their rights under Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which provides protection for private and family life. They also claim they have been discriminated against on the basis of their sexual orientation.
They say they were in "a long-standing intimate and sexual relationship" before being imprisoned after their trial in 2010.
Both are seeking damages of £35,000, claiming they are entitled to an award for "hurt feelings" among other things.
'Callous and depraved'
It is said: "Their relationship has suffered as a consequence of the treatment they have suffered. They have both felt frustration and distress at being unable to communicate with each other to a greater extent or to have face-to-face contact."
"This is particularly so when heterosexual couples have apparently been afforded greater contact with each other," it is maintained.
The judicial review brought by the prisoners stated that Scottish ministers failed to provide them with "suitable and sufficient contact" with each other.
The men murdered Allison McGarrigle, who intended to report them for abuse
O'Neill was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison, while accomplice Lachlan was sentenced to a minimum of 26 years after they were found guilty of murdering 39-year-old Mrs McGarrigle in Largs, Ayrshire in 1997. Her body, which they disposed of at sea, was not found.
They were also sentenced for sex abuse offences following two trials.
The sentencing judge, Lord Pentland, told them that they were relentless and murderous paedophiles who represented a high risk to the safety of the public.
The judge said that when they became aware that Mrs McGarrigle was intending to report them to the authorities for sexually abusing a boy they "conceived a callous and depraved plan to murder her and to dispose of her body".
He added: "You then put this plan into effect with chilling composure."
He told them: "The consistent theme which permeated the evidence in both trials was your calculating and devious manipulation of vulnerable individuals in order to further your appetites for sexually abusing young men and boys."
'Fundamental rights'
David Leighton, counsel for the men in the judicial review, told the Court of Session in Edinburgh: "This is a court of law and not a court of morals."
He said the men were seeking to relying on "fundamental protections and fundamental rights which the law affords to all persons."
O'Neill is detained in Edinburgh's Saughton prison and Laughlan is held in Glenochil jail, in Clackmannanshire.
Mr Leighton said the men were aware of heterosexual couples, each of whom was in prison, being allowed face-to-face contact, but were not aware of homosexual couples with the same opportunity.
He argued that the state was obliged to assist prisoners to maintain effective contact with close family members.
In the action for judicial review the prisoners are seeking a declaration that the Scottish ministers have failed to respect their rights and that their treatment has been unlawful.
It is also argued that prison rules that require "exceptional circumstances" for inter-prison visits should be set aside. The action maintains that the murderers are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
Scottish ministers are contesting the action and maintain that none of the orders sought from the court is justified.
The hearing continues.
O'Neill was sentenced to at least 30 years in prison, while accomplice Lachlan was sentenced to a minimum of 26 years after they were found guilty of murdering 39-year-old Mrs McGarrigle in Largs, Ayrshire in 1997. Her body, which they disposed of at sea, was not found.
They were also sentenced for sex abuse offences following two trials.
The sentencing judge, Lord Pentland, told them that they were relentless and murderous paedophiles who represented a high risk to the safety of the public.
The judge said that when they became aware that Mrs McGarrigle was intending to report them to the authorities for sexually abusing a boy they "conceived a callous and depraved plan to murder her and to dispose of her body".
He added: "You then put this plan into effect with chilling composure."
He told them: "The consistent theme which permeated the evidence in both trials was your calculating and devious manipulation of vulnerable individuals in order to further your appetites for sexually abusing young men and boys."
'Fundamental rights'
David Leighton, counsel for the men in the judicial review, told the Court of Session in Edinburgh: "This is a court of law and not a court of morals."
He said the men were seeking to relying on "fundamental protections and fundamental rights which the law affords to all persons."
O'Neill is detained in Edinburgh's Saughton prison and Laughlan is held in Glenochil jail, in Clackmannanshire.
Mr Leighton said the men were aware of heterosexual couples, each of whom was in prison, being allowed face-to-face contact, but were not aware of homosexual couples with the same opportunity.
He argued that the state was obliged to assist prisoners to maintain effective contact with close family members.
In the action for judicial review the prisoners are seeking a declaration that the Scottish ministers have failed to respect their rights and that their treatment has been unlawful.
It is also argued that prison rules that require "exceptional circumstances" for inter-prison visits should be set aside. The action maintains that the murderers are discriminated against because of their sexual orientation.
Scottish ministers are contesting the action and maintain that none of the orders sought from the court is justified.
The hearing continues.
Human Rights Gone Mad (24 April 2014)
I read this comment piece by Dominic Rabb, MP which appeared in The Times a week or two ago.
Despite the fact that I don't share his general poltical outlook - I think Dominic Rabb makes a fair point about the European Court of Human Rights.
The Strasbourg court decided that Abu Qatada faces a potential risk - of evidence previously obtained by torture being used against him if he is sent back to Jordan - where he faces trial on charges of being a terrorist.
But the risk is a potential one, perhaps negligible, since the UK Government seems to have done all it reasonably can - or so it would seem - in obtaining assurances from the Jordanian Government that such a situation will not arise if Qatada is sent back to Jordan to stand trial.
Now quite how the court has assessed and quantified the risk to Qatada is unclear - because Jordan has agreed not to use any torture-based evidence in a future trial - yet this was still not enough and no one seems to know what would be enough - to satisfy the judges in Strasbourg.
To my mind the whole business is making a mockery of the Human Rights Act - which I strongly support, by the way.
Because the potential risk that Abu Qatada presents by remaining in this country is simply ignored - despite being characterised as a truly dangerous individual - while another potential risk associated with his deportation to Jordan is elevated into an all-powerful trump card.
Now if you ask me - this is human rights gone mad.
Abu Qatada is still here because our leaders rolled over
By Dominic Raab
We’re stuck with Abu Qatada because the Government let Strasbourg’s whims trump our law
Yesterday the Court of Appeal upheld Abu Qatada’s appeal against deportation. A cacophony of blame will be directed at judges and at Europe. The truth is that since 2005 successive governments have lacked the will to get rid of this odious man.
The extremist Islamist preacher is wanted in Jordan, where he was convicted in absentia on terrorism charges in 1998. I don’t like trial in absentia, but many democratic countries — such as France — conduct them and we deport suspects there without blinking. Abu Qatada was branded “a truly dangerous individual” by the UK courts, which found he “was at the centre in the United Kingdom of terrorist activities associated with al-Qaeda”. Add in Abu Qatada’s religious ruling that it is legitimate to kill the wives and children of apostates and the case for deportation is manifestly in the public interest.
If Abu Qatada risked torture I would not call for his being returned to Jordan. Britain should uphold its prohibition on torture; it is the hallmark of a civilised society. But the claim that he faced torture was rejected by both the UK courts and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. So what is this case really about?
Abu Qatada claimed he would not get a fair retrial in Jordan because witness testimony against him might be tainted by torture. In 2009 the UK law lords definitively rejected the claim that he would not face a fair trial. But the Strasbourg court allowed it on appeal. It had never before, since its foundation in 1959, wielded the “right to a fair trial” as grounds to block deportation. With that novel ruling the judges were unabashedly stretching, not applying, human rights law. If allowed to stand it would create enormous scope for foreign criminals and terrorist suspects to frustrate deportation by arguing that the justice systems at home don’t meet European standards.
Faced with a constitutional clash between the UK and Strasbourg courts, what options did we have? Under the Human Rights Act our courts and Government have a duty to “take into account” Strasbourg rulings. But, as the President of the Supreme Court and the Lord Chief Justice have stated, ultimately Britain’s elected lawmakers retain the last word. So the Home Office should have revived its deportation order and made a virtue of rejecting the Strasbourg ruling as a usurpation of British democratic authority. Our courts would have been unlikely to halt the deportation.
Instead the Government rolled over. Theresa May, the Home Secretary, disclosed last December that “a decision was taken to adopt the test laid down ... by the Strasbourg court” because otherwise “it would be open to Abu Qatada to go back to Strasbourg”. That’s why his deportation was lost in the Court of Appeal yesterday.
Home Office officials bewitched ministers with a dazzling array of bureaucratic and legal excuses, shrouding the real political choice. Sure, Abu Qatada could have tried his luck with another appeal to Strasbourg. Yet Strasbourg’s rulings aren’t directly enforceable in the UK courts. Nor is there any risk of Britain being kicked out of the Council of Europe, which recently declared that in immigration cases Strasbourg should “avoid intervening except in the most exceptional circumstances”.
Officials then convinced ministers that they must follow any “Rule 39” indications from Strasbourg: requests that the Government suspend its actions while the European judges consider a case. Such “indications” were merely advisory until 2005 when — in another capricious power grab — Strasbourg simply asserted that they are binding. That has no basis in the European Convention on Human Rights either and contradicted Strasbourg’s own case law. Fortunately it also has no basis in UK law — so the UK courts would not enforce a Rule 39 indication.
The last gasp of the human rights fanatics is to claim that deporting Abu Qatada breaches the ministerial code of conduct, which requires respect for international law. Yet, the code was never intended to trump the constitutional safeguards that protect Britain’s democratic authority from Strasbourg’s meddling. As the ultimate arbiter of the code, the Prime Minister could rebuff such nonsense anyway.
There are respectable arguments against cocking a snook at Strasbourg. It would create a tension with our treaty obligation to implement its rulings. Yet Strasbourg has itself ridden roughshod over the convention and its own mandate. Human rights activists argue that snubbing Strasbourg might weaken our ability to take the high ground with the likes of Vladimir Putin. But why should we sacrifice democracy at home to promote human rights abroad, not least when Mr Putin just sees UK kowtowing to Strasbourg as a sign of weakness? In any event these are policy arguments to be weighed, not strict bars to deportation.
Once you strip away the legal and bureaucratic fig leaves, Abu Qatada is staying in Britain because of a choice. We have allowed the whims of Strasbourg to trump our own moral, judicial and political judgments.
Dominic Raab is MP for Esher & Walton, and a former Foreign Office lawyer
