Ian, Whilst I agree that the most vulnerable people in society do indeed require some form of protection, my point that most of the principles included within the ECHR and then enacted into English law via the HRA were already the subjects of various acts of parliament is still valid. All the HRA did was simplify it by putting things in the same place and added in a few other principles to make it joined up.
Could you please highlight some of the "countless decisions of the highest courts in this country based fundamentally on the HRA". Then as an aside if you find out how many cases are heard by all 35000+ members of the judiciary per annum. If the actual number of these " countless decisions of the highest courts in this country based fundamentally on the HRA" gets anywhere near double figures when calculated as a percentage against total cases I will be humbled beyond belief. It is worth remembering that the higher courts generally have the high profile appeals but do a significantly smaller portion of the work, whilst they make some very important decisions that generate a huge amount of column inches they only represent the small tip of a very large judicial iceberg. What evidence/experience do you have to show that the HRA crops up on decisions (or even in discussions) "very frequently" in court? I am not being deliberately argumentative, I am just interested in understanding it from another perspective and seeking to fill in the holes of my knowledge. Cheers Chris ________________________ On 2011-05-03 10:52:57 +0000 Ian Murray <ianjamesmur...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > 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 <c_bri...@hotmail.co.uk> 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 <ianjamesmur...@hotmail.com> 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 <c_bri...@hotmail.co.uk> 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 leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org >>>> >>>> MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it) >>>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ Leedslist mailing list Info and options: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/leedslist To unsubscribe, email leedslist-unsubscr...@gn.apc.org MARCHING ON TOGETHER (There's it)
