Human Rights Act- 10th April 2011

The ruling by the court of appeal last week has filled my email inbox with letters of outrage and indignation. I wrote about Ibrahim Mohammed last year (10 Dec) when the original case was decided in court, let me briefly recap: a decision was made not to deport an asylum seeker, Ibrahim Mohammed, who killed a 12 year old girl in a hit and run accident when driving without a licence. The offender had since had a child of his own, so the court ruled that his human rights -in particular his right to a family life- would be breached if he were deported to Iraq. The Government took the case to appeal, and the judges have now announced their ruling, upholding the original decision in favour of Ibrahim’s human rights. The father of the little girl that was killed shouted from the gallery in the courtroom demanding to know what protection there was for his own right to a family life. I doubt that there is a single constituent in New Forest West that does not share his sentiment.

There is at the very heart of our constitution a fundamental separation of powers between the judges and Parliament. It is generally agreed that politicians should not decide guilt, or the punishments to be meted out in individual cases. We may despair at the perversity of some judge made decisions but I think we would all agree that it is best left to them than to politicians. Whilst I am critical of what I consider to be the leniency of so many of our judges, Parliament cannot be absolved from its own role in delivering the current state of affairs. It cannot be healthy for a majority of our citizens to be outraged at the failure of our judicial system and for there to be such a glaring perception of injustice.

The fact is however, that the judges were interpreting the law as introduced by Parliament: The Human Rights Act 1998. They decided that the proper penalty of deportation following release from prison should be set aside because of rights set out in the Act. This perverse judgement, this injustice, would not have arisen had the judges never been presented with the opportunity afforded by the Act. The simple answer is to repeal it. I just do not believe that the quality of British justice lacked a proper understanding of our rights before 1998, and I certainly believe that the Act lies behind so much of the dissatisfaction, if not contempt, that many people now have for the way that judicial decisions fly in the face of common sense and common values.

My election address, which was distributed to every household at the general election a year ago, promised the repeal of the Human Rights Act. Although I secured a handsome majority, my party did not, and we have simply been unable to deliver that pledge. We came into government as a coalition with the Liberal Democrats with the overriding objective of giving Britain 5 years of stability in which to address the disastrous state of the public finances. The Coalition Agreement does however, state that the operation of the Human Rights Act will be reviewed in the lifetime of this current government. This process has already begun with the setting up of a commission of experts to examine the issue and make recommendations for reform. I am not optimistic. I just do not see how the circle can be squared: I am so completely against the principle of the Act that only repeal will satisfy me, but Nick Clegg has said that he is passionate in his support for the Act. I think, rather than come up with a compromise that satisfies nobody, it is better to agree to disagree and to take that disagreement to the voters for a decision at the next election. I would add a warning however: only decisive government on the basis of a clear parliamentary majority can deliver repeal of the Human Rights Act. Voters might consider this before they cast their vote in the forthcoming referendum on the voting system, because changing the system will make that sort of parliamentary majority, and the decisive government that goes with it, rather less likely.