tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post1862668085082163702..comments2024-03-28T09:08:50.733+00:00Comments on Law and Lawyers: Prisoners votes: Superior Courts: Bradley Manning: European Arrest Warrants: Draft Defamation BillObiterJhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-69330149396041449162011-03-16T21:25:00.455+00:002011-03-16T21:25:00.455+00:00"I suspect that the government will throw som..."I suspect that the government will throw some heavyweight legal talent at this".<br /><br />I'm the king of the jungle, the jungle VIP (Very Important Prisoner), and already I note from the UK's submission to the Committee of Ministers and Grand Chamber that I have caught something in my trap.<br /><br />For example, I did warn the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee that the motion as it stood was unlawful. It claimed that the Court held that there had been no debate. A reading of Hirst v UK (No2) proves that this was not held by the Court. Therefore, those responsible for drafting the motion are guilty of contempt of Parliament by misleading Parliament. It also means that the thinking ‘If we go through the sham of conducting a debate and reject the motion then that’s the end of the matter” is flawed.<br /><br />I wonder what are the legal consequences of altering the text of the motion and presenting a different version to the Committee of Ministers and Grand Chamber? Someone has realised that my legal advice was legally right and is now belatedly trying to correct the issue. There is a saying ‘When in a hole, stop digging’. To present one version in the House of Commons and another version in Strasbourg may have escaped some people’s attention, but one of my strengths is paying attention to detail and this one leapt straight out at me. It is one thing to mislead Parliament and quite another to attempt to mislead Strasbourg.jailhouselawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795278184797990706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-17577992717642702042011-03-16T17:53:30.399+00:002011-03-16T17:53:30.399+00:00... Art. 43 states:
1. Within a period of three m...... Art. 43 states:<br /><br />1. Within a period of three months from the date of the judgment of the Chamber, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber.<br /><br />2. A panel of five judges of the Grand Chamber shall accept the request if the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or the Protocols thereto, or a European Convention on Human Rights serious issue of general importance.<br /><br />3. If the panel accepts the request, the Grand Chamber shall decide the case by means of a judgment."<br /><br />43(1) refers to exceptional cases not to exceptional circumstances. I am not entirely sure how "exceptional cases" is interpreted and the panel of 5 may not view Greens and MT as such a case. However, my feeling (no more) is that they will.<br /><br />43(2) uses the word "shall" and it seems likely that the criteria will be met.<br /><br />However, we shall see ! I suspect that the government will throw some heavyweight legal talent at this.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-15732913081980833782011-03-16T11:52:35.011+00:002011-03-16T11:52:35.011+00:00An appeal to the Grand Chamber should only be gran...An appeal to the Grand Chamber should only be granted in exceptional circumstances. In Frodl the Grand Chamber rejected an appeal. Interestingly, the UK largely ignores this ruling and yet it refers to the Hirst test. I have seen the UK grounds of appeal, and there is not one point of law or reason for the UK's appeal to succeed. The grounds simply rehash the arguments already lost in Hirst No2.jailhouselawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795278184797990706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-2220125853537693412011-03-16T10:15:48.490+00:002011-03-16T10:15:48.490+00:00... but don't forget there is Article 43 which...... but don't forget there is Article 43 which enables the government to request that the Grand Chamber considers the Greens and MT case. [Their request must pass a panel of 5 judges but I would be surprised if it was turned down]. There is more discussion of all this on the <a href="http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2011/03/16/all-bets-are-off-for-prisoner-votes/#more-7482" rel="nofollow">UK Human Rights blog</a> to which I have commented this morning.ObiterJhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04544226917595022902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6110794854146484721.post-2393581709628021192011-03-16T09:22:17.848+00:002011-03-16T09:22:17.848+00:00I find it hard to believe that the UK, after over ...I find it hard to believe that the UK, after over 5 years of failing to fully comply with Hirst v UK (No2), is seeking to overturn the ruling by way of Greens and MT v UK. The UK lost the case in 2004 before the Chamber, and lost its appeal in 2005 before the Grand Chamber. According to the Article 44 (1) of the European Convention on Human Rights "The judgment of the Grand Chamber shall be final". So, not only is the UK seeking to overturn Hirst v UK (No2) but the UK is also rewriting the Convention to suit itself!jailhouselawyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03795278184797990706noreply@blogger.com