New rights will make for bad law, say Tories By Martin Bentham Sunday Telegraph: Legal pile-up THE legal system will be plunged into chaos costing millions of pounds by Labour's Human Rights Act, Ann Widdecombe, the shadow home secretary, claimed last night. Miss Widdecombe said a ruling on Friday, in which two drivers had their speeding fines overturned because their human rights had been "infringed", was the first of many "nonsense" cases. Her attack followed the acquittal at Birmingham Crown Court of Amesh Chauhan, 22, and Dean Hollingsworth, 23, whose vehicles were photographed speeding by roadside cameras. The court said a police request for information about who was driving their vehicles breached the European Convention on Human Rights, which gives a suspect the right not to incriminate himself. The ruling could allow thousands of other motorists to appeal and effectively make it impossible to launch prosecutions from speed camera evidence. Miss Widdecombe warned that Labour's Human Rights Act, which comes into effect on October 2 and which enshrines the European convention into British law, would be a disaster. She said: "Clever lawyers are going to be crawling through this legislation to find cases to bring. Common sense seems to have taken a back seat." Anticipating the flood of cases predicted by both opponents and supporters, the Government has set aside L65 million to cover the cost of challenges during the first year of the Act. Nearly ú40 million has been budgeted for extra legal aid bills, L21 million for longer court sittings and a further L4.5 million on training for judges and magistrates. Cherie Blair, the Prime Minister's wife, has even set up a new chambers, Matrix, specifically to deal with human rights cases. It is expected to make millions. The Human Rights Act will give the public a wide range of abstract rights, including the right to life, to found a family, to education, to freedom of expression, to a fair trial and to liberty. In each case, however, the courts will decide what these vague concepts mean in real terms. Many challenges are expected in relation to the criminal law, policing and prison life. In one of the first, Gavin Mellor, a murderer serving a life sentence in Nottingham jail, went to judicial review in an attempt to overturn a ban on him donating sperm to his wife to enable her to conceive by artificial insemination. Mr Mellor claimed that the prison service was contravening human rights laws in restricting his right to found a family. A decision is awaited. Challenges over prison food, clothes and conjugal visits are also expected and, in the courts, decisions on bail applications, sentencing and the disclosure and admissibility of evidence are all expected to be challenged. Police undercover surveillances will be governed by strict rules which will mean, for example, that a plainclothes detective who sees a criminal on the street will have to obtain permission from a superior before calling colleagues to monitor the suspect. Legislation allowing MI5 to intercept e-mails and the Government's new restrictions on football hooligans travelling abroad are also thought to be vulnerable to challenge. The Government is also anticipating soldiers challenging the orders of commanding officers. Laws on adoption and sexuality are also thought to be vulnerable. "Postcode prescribing" in the NHS, where expensive drugs are available in one area but not another, is also likely to be challenged because it could be said to contravene the right to life. The refusal to give drugs or operations on the grounds of cost and attempts to prioritise patients for treatment also face challenges. In schools, head teachers have been warned that pupils who are excluded for bad behaviour could sue for damages because their right to an education is being denied. Rules on uniforms could fall foul of the right to freedom of expression. A Home Office spokesman said: "We do accept that at first there may be some spurious cases, but judges and magistrates are well prepared to deal with them and will not entertain claims which have no merit." -- The potential implications of this are huge (and it provides another superb reason not to vote for the tories). The Government themselves have already said that the appeals process in the Firearms (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 is likely prohibited by Article 6 of the convention, the same article that saw this ruling on the speed cameras. Our property rights that were seriously impacted by the handgun ban can also be another avenue for legal action. Steve. Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
