Should UK quit the European Court of Human Rights and introduce own Bill

Watch
Poll: Should UK introduce its own bill of rights
Yes- we need our own the ECHR is unsuitable (18)
47.37%
No- the ECHR is adequate (20)
52.63%
Ace123
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 6 years ago
#1
Given the recent controversies of unelected ECHR judges imposing rulings on the UK against the will of Parliament such as prisoner votes and ruling that life sentences are illegal which has delayed the sentencing of Rigby killers is it time to quit the ECHR and introduce our own bill of rights for Britain
0
reply
Hopple
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#2
Report 6 years ago
#2
Of course we should be making our own laws. The ECHR can recommend stuff all they like, but it should be up to us whether or not to adopt their proposals.
2
reply
PopaPork
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#3
Report 6 years ago
#3
I've said yes

I'd like to see more of a 'rights and responsibilities' type of document rather than just rights.
0
reply
OMGWTFBBQ
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#4
Report 6 years ago
#4
We already have a Bill of Rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689
1
reply
Psyk
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 6 years ago
#5
I'm not sure my opinion fits either of those. Maybe the ECHR is inadequate (I'd need to look at the details to form a proper opinion on that), but that doesn't necessarily mean we need our own equivalent instead. Instead we could work with other countries to improve the ECHR or come up with something new. The point of human rights is that they're meant to be universal. So ideally every country would follow the same basic human rights legislation.
0
reply
vindiboy3
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#6
Report 6 years ago
#6
I've not always agreed with the verdicts of the ECHR but if our politicians are against it.That's a good reason to keep it.
0
reply
Jefferson Disk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 6 years ago
#7
(Original post by Ace123)
Given the recent controversies of unelected ECHR judges imposing rulings on the UK against the will of Parliament such as prisoner votes and ruling that life sentences are illegal which has delayed the sentencing of Rigby killers is it time to quit the ECHR and introduce our own bill of rights for Britain
Our own bill of rights?! The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was largely written by British law makers.
4
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#8
Report 6 years ago
#8
Yeah I don't see why the EU needs a human rights directive, it should stick to what it does best: open borders and free trade. Countries can deal with human rights in their own way (within reason of course; I'm perfectly happy with the North Koreas of this world being disregarded as sovereign nations).
0
reply
Le Nombre
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#9
Report 6 years ago
#9
That would involve jacking the Council Of Europe, which would be pretty stupid as it's the main European talking shop, even the Swiss are in it.

There are already plans afoot to do the same as France and Germany and declare our own highest court superior on certain matters, seems a lot simpler solution than quitting the whole affair, particularly given the ECtHR is still regarded as the world's leading human rights court, being able to get its judgments and tap into all that brain power is no bad thing.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/...hts-legitimacy

(Original post by felamaslen)
Yeah I don't see why the EU needs a human rights directive, it should stick to what it does best: open borders and free trade. Countries can deal with human rights in their own way (within reason of course; I'm perfectly happy with the North Koreas of this world being disregarded as sovereign nations).
The ECtHR isn't really EU, which has the ECJ to handle its legal matters, it's separate and more closely linked to the Council of Europe (the wider 47 member organisation).
0
reply
Kiss
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#10
Report 6 years ago
#10
Really depends upon what the laws would advocate.
0
reply
ThatPerson
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#11
Report 6 years ago
#11
(Original post by Jefferson Disk)
Our own bill of rights?! The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) was largely written by British law makers.
The Judges aren't British, and some of the rulings (Give prisoners the vote), go against our values/tradition.
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#12
Report 6 years ago
#12
One article on the BBC talks about 'Life means life' related policies. I don't know how things are done now, are judges sending people to prison for 'life' with the intention of them actually staying there forever? Or is life meaning 30 years or so? Are the judges intending them to be shortened? All I want is correct terminology, if you're sending them to prison with a set amount of years and intend it to be shortened then make that clear. I don't particularly needs to be an extension of prison sentences to an entire lifetime/rest of their life but I wish the wording was more accurate.

Don't see why we can't have our own bill, if it upholds rights while not taking the piss out of the victims of crime, then it should be fine. It would be great if the next human rights bill wasn't a Human Rights of Serious Criminals bill because that's what human rights get associated with.
0
reply
scrotgrot
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#13
Report 6 years ago
#13
Who trusts our government to draft a human rights bill? I certainly don't.

At least the European norms are contributed to by 27(??) different protectorates with their own enclosed media systems and historical awareness.

And no element of the British constitution, nor of the French and American bills of rights which underpin Western freedoms, was drafted by the native establishment powers. I don't see any reason to start now.

In any case, UK law is not bound by the ECHR. You will note that we have refused to give prisoners the vote regardless of what they say.
0
reply
Le Nombre
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 6 years ago
#14
(Original post by ThatPerson)
The Judges aren't British, and some of the rulings (Give prisoners the vote), go against our values/tradition.
Paul Mahoney is, everyone just gets one each.

There are no guarantees the SC wouldn't do the same, I reckon I could definitely pick a 5 member Bench which would allow that from the current SC Justices.

Even SC judges aren't always British by birth, look at Lord Steyn.
0
reply
Le Nombre
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#15
Report 6 years ago
#15
(Original post by Snagprophet)
One article on the BBC talks about 'Life means life' related policies. I don't know how things are done now, are judges sending people to prison for 'life' with the intention of them actually staying there forever? Or is life meaning 30 years or so? Are the judges intending them to be shortened? All I want is correct terminology, if you're sending them to prison with a set amount of years and intend it to be shortened then make that clear. I don't particularly needs to be an extension of prison sentences to an entire lifetime/rest of their life but I wish the wording was more accurate.

Don't see why we can't have our own bill, if it upholds rights while not taking the piss out of the victims of crime, then it should be fine. It would be great if the next human rights bill wasn't a Human Rights of Serious Criminals bill because that's what human rights get associated with.
Life is so called because you are forever on parole, an thus can be returned to prison without a retrial at any time. The sentence you hear for any offence is both the custodial sentence and the period on parole, so 15 years would normally be 7 and half inside with good behaviour and then 7 and a half on parole for example, until the parole ends you are not truly at liberty as you can be returned to prison at any time.

(Original post by scrotgrot)
At least the European norms are contributed to by 27(??) different protectorates with their own enclosed media systems and historical awareness.
Currently 47, though the original was drafted by a lot fewer.
0
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 6 years ago
#16
No and there's a few simple reasons why..

1) In 2012 the ECHR ruled against the UK on just 8 cases. In 97% of cases it agreed with the UK or threw the case out.

2) Its legal power extends to fines, it can't physically do anything other than say x or y may be illegal under the current terms of the human rights treaty.

The coalition could have deported Qatada at any time and accepted a small fine. They did not because in British tradition we honor our agreements and abide by international law.

3) The British constitutions strength comes from its flexibility. This could well be weakened by the imposition of a codified bill of rights.
0
reply
Snagprophet
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 6 years ago
#17
(Original post by Le Nombre)
Life is so called because you are forever on parole, an thus can be returned to prison without a retrial at any time. The sentence you hear for any offence is both the custodial sentence and the period on parole, so 15 years would normally be 7 and half inside with good behaviour and then 7 and a half on parole for example, until the parole ends you are not truly at liberty as you can be returned to prison at any time.
Oh right, so life does mean life then. I wonder why this is being represented as life inside the prison itself.
0
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#18
Report 6 years ago
#18
(Original post by Le Nombre)
The ECtHR isn't really EU, which has the ECJ to handle its legal matters, it's separate and more closely linked to the Council of Europe (the wider 47 member organisation).
Hmm, I don't really see the point in having multiple layers of federalisation (or any federalisation for that matter).
0
reply
Le Nombre
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#19
Report 6 years ago
#19
(Original post by Snagprophet)
Oh right, so life does mean life then. I wonder why this is being represented as life inside the prison itself.
I suppose just because when people think of a sentence they think of prison automatically and journalists are not lawyers, they may not know the official terminology.

The basic is 15 years imprisonment (the 'term'), and you cannot have that reduced for good behaviour or anything like that. Many murders will fall into the minimum of 25 years imprisonment category (brings a weapon to the scene with the intention of committing an offence, not necessarily murder just any crime) and there are also minimums of 30 and actual life imprisonment for cases with serious aggravating circumstances.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/murder/
0
reply
Jefferson Disk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#20
Report 6 years ago
#20
(Original post by Le Nombre)
That would involve jacking the Council Of Europe, which would be pretty stupid as it's the main European talking shop, even the Swiss are in it.

There are already plans afoot to do the same as France and Germany and declare our own highest court superior on certain matters, seems a lot simpler solution than quitting the whole affair, particularly given the ECtHR is still regarded as the world's leading human rights court, being able to get its judgments and tap into all that brain power is no bad thing.

http://www.theguardian.com/law/2013/...hts-legitimacy



The ECtHR isn't really EU, which has the ECJ to handle its legal matters, it's separate and more closely linked to the Council of Europe (the wider 47 member organisation).
At last, someone who has factual knowledge on the matter!
The ECHR was drafted by the Council of Europe after WWII, having Sir David Maxwell-Fyfe (a British lawyer and MP) as the leading law maker.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (620)
33.68%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (775)
42.1%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (364)
19.77%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (82)
4.45%

Watched Threads

View All