Hi Chris, well aware of this. The HRA is the main piece of constitutional legislation in this country which guarantees the rights of individuals. It is the most vulnerable people in our society who require it's protection the most when the executive seeks to erode those rights (as it frequently does). We have seen countless decisions of the highest courts in this country based fundamentally on the HRA and I would take strong issue with what you say about it being seldom referred to. It is referred to VERY frequently. Which is why they are trying to repeal it.
Cheers Ian Sent from my iPhone On 3 May 2011, at 11:03, Chris Briggs <[email protected]> wrote: > Morning Ian, > > Damian was indeed alluding to the HRA. > > <snip> and the way the judiciary is using it to protect the individual > against the state (as it is designed to do) <snip> > > I think that is a little unfair on the judiciary as it is a broad sweeping > statement with nothing to back it up. > > The judiciary (Judges and Magistrates) are not there to protect the > individual against the state but to ensure that a case is dealt with > correctly in terms of evidence, case management and with the regard to the > law and previous case stated examples. > It is this impartiality that ensures that it is a fair decision. > > HRA was created as a watered down version of the ECHR, however many of it's > principles were already part of English law. > For example, under HRA 1998 if you are arrested you are entitled to bail, > however, the Bail Act 1976 already covered this both in terms of Police Bail > and Court Bail. > Again under HRA, you have a right to remain innocent until proven guilty, > again previously part of English law, where it is (generally) the > prosecutions obligation to provide evidence of guilt ( some traffic offences > place burden of proof on the driver). > The list goes on. > The HRA is very rarely mentioned in court where the provision of existing law > is overlapped, it is the previous act that is most commonly referred to. > > Cheers > > Chris > > ________________________ > > On 2011-05-02 21:19:37 +0000 Ian Murray <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> I think he's talking about the human rights act, and the way the judiciary >> is >> using it to protect the individual against the state (as it is designed to >> do), and how our current government is doing it's best to have it repealed >> and jumping up and down about how 'Parliament knows best'. >> >> If we had a proper written constitution, then we would be fully protected >> from the state. Alas, we'll have to wait til the European Union is a proper >> fully functioning country (sooner the better). >> >> Sent from my iPhone >> >> On 2 May 2011, at 19:35, Chris Briggs <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> <snip> ...the judiciary have powers that don't derive from >>> Parliament.....<snip> >>> >>> Damian, >>> >>> Could you expand what you mean, I'm curious. >>> >>> Cheers >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Leedslist mailing list >>> Info and options: >>> http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist >>> To unsubscribe, email [email protected] >>> >>> MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) >>> >> > > _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email [email protected] MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
