DOCSLIB.ORG

Law Commission Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Law Commission Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty 0 Law Com No 372 (Law Com No 372) Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Presented to Parliament pursuant to section 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 13 March 2017 HC 1079 i © Crown copyright 2017 This publication is licensed under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- government-licence/version/3 or write to the Information Policy Team, The National Archives, Kew, London TW9 4DU, or email: [email protected]. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. This publication is available at www.gov.uk/government/publications. Print ISBN 9781474141635 Web ISBN 9781474141642 ID 03031711 03/17 Printed on paper containing 75% recycled fibre content minimum Printed in the UK by the Williams Lea Group on behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office ii The Law Commission The Law Commission was set up by the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Right Honourable Lord Justice Bean, Chairman Professor Nick Hopkins Stephen Lewis Professor David Ormerod QC Nicholas Paines QC The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Phil Golding. The Law Commission is located at 1st Floor, Tower, 52 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW1H 9AG. The terms of this report were agreed on 02 March 2017. The text of this report is available on the Law Commission's website at http://www.lawcom.gov.uk. iii Contents Paragraph Page GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT 1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 6 The remit of our project 1.8 7 Structure of the project 1.14 8 An overview of our recommendations 1.21 10 Structure of the report 1.38 14 CHAPTER 2: INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS, THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT AND THE CONCEPT OF DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY 17 The European Convention on Human Rights 2.2 17 UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2.5 17 Human Rights Act 2.8 18 The concept of deprivation of liberty 2.9 18 The objective element 2.12 19 The subjective element 2.27 24 Imputability to the state 2.31 24 CHAPTER 3: THE MENTAL CAPACITY ACT AND RELEVANT HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE LEGISLATION 26 Mental Capacity Act 3.1 26 Social care legislation 3.13 28 Health care legislation 3.18 29 Section 117 after-care 3.22 30 CHAPTER 4: THE DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY SAFEGUARDS AND THE CASE FOR REFORM 31 The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards 4.2 31 Criticisms of the DoLS 4.13 33 Our consultation paper 4.13 33 Consultation responses 4.16 35 Discussion 4.23 37 iv CHAPTER 5: OUR PROVISIONAL PROPOSALS AND REVISED APPROACH – THE LIBERTY PROTECTION SAFEGUARDS 40 Consultation responses 5.18 42 Discussion 5.27 44 CHAPTER 6: OVERVIEW OF THE LIBERTY PROTECTION SAFEGUARDS 49 CHAPTER 7: THE SCOPE OF THE LIBERTY PROTECTION SAFEGUARDS 52 The arrangements that can be authorised 7.2 52 Consultation responses 7.8 53 Discussion 7.11 54 16 and 17 year olds 7.20 57 Consultation responses 7.25 58 Discussion 7.28 59 CHAPTER 8: THE RESPONSIBLE BODY 63 Consultation responses 8.7 64 Discussion 8.11 65 CHAPTER 9: THE ASSESSMENTS 69 The capacity assessment 9.2 69 Consultation responses 9.5 70 Discussion 9.6 70 The medical assessment 9.11 71 Consultation responses 9.14 72 Discussion 9.15 72 Whether the arrangements are necessary and proportionate 9.20 73 Consultation 9.23 74 Discussion 9.26 75 Further provision about the assessments 9.38 78 Fluctuating capacity 9.38 78 Objective medical expertise 9.59 83 The number and independence of assessors 9.70 85 Equivalent assessments 9.78 87 CHAPTER 10: THE PROCEDURAL CONDITIONS 90 The required consultation 10.2 90 Consultation 10.5 90 Discussion 10.6 91 Conflicting decision of a donee or deputy 10.8 92 Consultation responses 10.10 92 Discussion 10.11 92 v Independent review 10.19 95 Consultation responses 10.21 95 Discussion 10.22 96 Approval by an Approved Mental Capacity Professional 10.27 97 Consultation responses 10.29 98 Discussion 10.31 98 The Approved Mental Capacity Professional role 10.53 104 Authorising arrangements 10.71 110 CHAPTER 11: AUTHORISATIONS 111 Authorisation record 11.2 111 Consultation responses 11.4 111 Discussion 11.5 111 Effect of authorisations 11.11 113 Consultation responses 11.17 114 Discussion 11.18 114 Duration, cessation and renewal 11.22 115 Consultation responses 11.30 117 Discussion 11.32 118 CHAPTER 12: SAFEGUARDS 122 Reviews 12.3 122 Consultation responses 12.9 123 Discussion 12.11 124 Independent advocacy 12.20 126 Consultation responses 12.31 129 Discussion 12.36 130 Rights of legal challenge 12.54 136 Consultation responses 12.60 137 Discussion 12.63 137 Monitoring and reporting 12.82 143 Consultation responses 12.86 144 Discussion 12.91 145 CHAPTER 13: THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT INTERFACE 147 Consultation responses 13.10 149 Discussion 13.17 150 CHAPTER 14: PLACING THE PERSON AT THE HEART OF DECISION- MAKING 156 The place of wishes and feelings in best interests decisions 14.2 156 Consultation responses 14.7 157 Discussion 14.10 158 vi Section 5 acts: additional limitations 14.22 161 Consultation responses 14.24 162 Discussion 14.27 162 Supported decision-making 14.43 167 Consultation responses 14.48 169 Discussion 14.51 169 CHAPTER 15: OTHER MATTERS 171 Advance consent 15.2 171 Consultation responses 15.5 171 Discussion 15.7 172 Interim and emergency deprivation of liberty 15.25 176 Consultation responses 15.28 177 Discussion 15.30 177 Unlawful deprivation of liberty 15.39 180 Consultation responses 15.40 180 Discussion 15.41 181 Amendment of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 15.51 183 Consultation responses 15.60 185 Discussion 15.63 186 APPENDIX A: DRAFT MENTAL CAPACITY (AMENDMENT) BILL AND EXPLANATORY NOTES 188 APPENDIX B: ECHR AND CRPD COMPATIBILITY 243 APPENDIX C: RECOMMENDATIONS 248 vii Glossary of terms used in this report Acid test The test set out by Lady Hale in the Cheshire West case to determine if a person who lacks the requisite capacity is being objectively deprived of their liberty, namely that the person is not free to leave and is under continuous supervision and control. ADASS Association of Directors of Adult Social Services. Advance decision A decision to refuse specified medical treatment made in advance by a person who has capacity to do so. This decision will then apply at a future time when that person lacks capacity to consent to, or refuse, the specified treatment. This is set out in section 24 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Appropriate A family member or other private individual able and willing to person support and represent an adult (instead of an advocate) for certain decisions under the Care Act 2014 and the Social Services and Well- being (Wales) Act 2014. Bournewood gap The failure to provide Article 5 ECHR safeguards to compliant incapacitated persons being admitted “informally” to hospital rather than under the Mental Health Act 1983. This gap was identified by the Strasbourg court in the case of HL v United Kingdom (2005) 40 EHRR 32 (App No 45508/99) and was named after Bournewood Hospital, where HL had been detained. Care Act Care Act 2014. Cared-for person The term used in our draft Bill to describe the person who is or may be subject to arrangements authorised under the Liberty Protection Safeguards. It is a drafting term and not used in this report. Instead the report refers to the “person”. Cheshire West P v Cheshire West and Chester Council and P and Q v Surrey County Council [2014] UKSC 19. Community The legal authority under section 17A of the Mental Health Act 1983 treatment order for the discharge of certain patients from detention in hospital, subject to the possibility of recall to hospital for further medical treatment if necessary. Patients are expected to comply with the conditions specified in the community treatment order. Conditional The discharge from hospital by the Secretary of State for Justice or discharge a mental health tribunal of a restricted patient under the Mental Health Act 1983 subject to conditions. The patient remains subject to recall to hospital by the Secretary of State. 1 Consultation Law Commission, Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty: analysis Consultation Analysis (2017). Consultation Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty (2015) Law Commission paper Consultation Paper No 222. Deputy A person authorised by the Court of Protection to make decisions on behalf of a person who lacks capacity. Deputies can be appointed to make decisions relating to property and financial affairs, and/or personal welfare. Deeming rules These provide that a person’s ordinary residence remains with the local authority in which they were ordinarily resident immediately before moving into accommodation. So if, for example, a person has been placed by local authority A, into a care home in the area of local authority B, their ordinary residence remains with local authority A. DoLS Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, contained in Schedule A1 to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. DoLS Code of Ministry of Justice, Mental Capacity Act 2005: Deprivation of Liberty Practice Safeguards: Code of Practice to Supplement the Main Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice (2008). Donee Someone appointed under a lasting power of attorney who has the legal authority to make decisions on behalf of the person (the donor) who made the lasting power of attorney.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Background, Brexit, and Relations with the United States
    The United Kingdom: Background, Brexit, and Relations with the United States Updated April 16, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov RL33105 SUMMARY RL33105 The United Kingdom: Background, Brexit, and April 16, 2021 Relations with the United States Derek E. Mix Many U.S. officials and Members of Congress view the United Kingdom (UK) as the United Specialist in European States’ closest and most reliable ally. This perception stems from a combination of factors, Affairs including a sense of shared history, values, and culture; a large and mutually beneficial economic relationship; and extensive cooperation on foreign policy and security issues. The UK’s January 2020 withdrawal from the European Union (EU), often referred to as Brexit, is likely to change its international role and outlook in ways that affect U.S.-UK relations. Conservative Party Leads UK Government The government of the UK is led by Prime Minister Boris Johnson of the Conservative Party. Brexit has dominated UK domestic politics since the 2016 referendum on whether to leave the EU. In an early election held in December 2019—called in order to break a political deadlock over how and when the UK would exit the EU—the Conservative Party secured a sizeable parliamentary majority, winning 365 seats in the 650-seat House of Commons. The election results paved the way for Parliament’s approval of a withdrawal agreement negotiated between Johnson’s government and the EU. UK Is Out of the EU, Concludes Trade and Cooperation Agreement On January 31, 2020, the UK’s 47-year EU membership came to an end.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    Universal Declaration of Human Rights Preamble Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in cooperation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge, Now, therefore, The General Assembly, Proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • The Future Relationship Between the United Kingdom and the European Union
    THE FUTURE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION Cm 9593 THE FUTURE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE EUROPEAN UNION Presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister by Command of Her Majesty July 2018 Cm 9593 © Crown copyright 2018 Any enquiries regarding this publication This publication is licensed under the terms should be sent to us at of the Open Government Licence v3.0 except [email protected] where otherwise stated. To view this licence, visit nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open- ISBN 978-1-5286-0701-8 government-licence/version/3 CCS0718050590-001 07/18 Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain Printed on paper containing 75% recycled permission from the copyright holders fibre content minimum. concerned. Printed in the UK by the APS Group on This publication is available at behalf of the Controller of Her Majesty’s www.gov.uk/government/publications Stationery Office The future relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union 1 Foreword by the Prime Minister In the referendum on 23 June 2016 – the largest ever democratic exercise in the United Kingdom – the British people voted to leave the European Union. And that is what we will do – leaving the Single Market and the Customs Union, ending free movement and the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice in this country, leaving the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, and ending the days of sending vast sums of money to the EU every year. We will take back control of our money, laws, and borders, and begin a new exciting chapter in our nation’s history.
    [Show full text]
  • Suicide Killing of Human Life As a Human Right
    Liberty University Law Review Volume 6 Issue 1 Article 3 August 2011 Suicide Killing of Human Life as a Human Right William Wagner John Kane Stephen Kallman Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review Recommended Citation Wagner, William; Kane, John; and Kallman, Stephen (2011) "Suicide Killing of Human Life as a Human Right," Liberty University Law Review: Vol. 6 : Iss. 1 , Article 3. Available at: https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lu_law_review/vol6/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Liberty University School of Law at Scholars Crossing. It has been accepted for inclusion in Liberty University Law Review by an authorized editor of Scholars Crossing. For more information, please contact [email protected]. SUICIDE KILLING OF HUMAN LIFE AS A HUMAN RIGHT The Continuing Devolution of Assisted Suicide Law in the United Kingdom Prof. William Wagner, Prof. John Kane, and Stephen P. Kallman† INTRODUCTION Throughout its remarkable history, Great Britain’s culture and law safeguarded the dignity of human life by refusing to recognize a “right” to suicide. Indeed, contemporary British statutes make it a serious crime even to assist in the commission of a suicide killing.1 Recent parliamentary proposals2 and a court decision,3 however, deliberately abandoned these deeply-rooted cultural, historical, and legal traditions. Most recently, in an † Before joining academia, Professor William Wagner served as a Federal Judge in the United States Courts, as an American Diplomat in the United States government, and as a Legal Counsel in the United States Senate. Professor Wagner currently holds a permanent appointment on the tenured faculty at the Thomas M.
    [Show full text]
  • Harman-V-SSHD-1983-1-AC-280.Pdf
    280 [1983] A [HOUSE OF LORDS] HARMAN APPELLANT AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT RESPONDENT B [On appeal from HOME OFFICE V. HARMAN] 1981 Nov. 16, 17, 18; Lord Diplock, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, 1982 Feb. 11 Lord Keith of Kinkel, Lord Scarman and Lord Roskill C Contempt of Court—Solicitor—Disclosure of documents—Solici• tor's implied undertaking not to use documents disclosed on discovery except for purposes of litigation—Confidential docu• ments disclosed and read in court at trial—Solicitor allowing journalist access to documents after trial for purposes of writing feature article—Whether breach of implied undertaking A solicitor, who was legal officer of the National Council p for Civil Liberties (" N.C.C.L."), was acting as solicitor for the plaintiff in an action against the Home Office arising out of his treatment in prison in an experimental "control unit." During the course of the action the Home Office disclosed a large number of documents. The Home Office, in a letter dated October 17, 1979, stated that the Home Office did not wish the documents to be used for the general purposes of the N.C.C.L. outside the solicitor's function as solicitor g for the plaintiff in the action. The solicitor replied to that letter on the same day, saying that she was well aware of the rule that documents obtained on discovery should not be used for any purposes other than for the case in hand. The Home Office was later ordered to disclose six confidential documents that they had objected to producing on the ground of public interest immunity.
    [Show full text]
  • Protecting Human Rights in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill Overview Liberty
    JOINT BRIEFING FOR SECOND READING Leaving without losing: protecting human rights in the EU (Withdrawal) Bill Overview Liberty and Amnesty International UK believe that in its current (imprecise) form this Bill poses a significant risk to the rule of law and to fundamental rights. As drafted, its extraordinary handover of law- making power from Parliament to Ministers reorders the UK’s historic constitutional balance and puts domestic rights and equality protections at risk. We urge Members to question that blank cheque and insert clear safeguards against misuse of new powers into the Bill. Further, we recommend Members press for amendments to ensure existing rights and equality standards are maintained. Leaving the EU must not result in ordinary people losing their rights. Suggested Questions/Issues to Raise for Second Reading Non-regression: Brexit must not result in roll-back of our rights and equalities standards at home. Will the government confirm it does not intend for Brexit to reduce human rights and equality standards in the UK, and commit to enshrining that promise in the Bill itself? Proper parliamentary scrutiny: Currently, the Bill gives Ministers the power to make sweeping changes to our laws, including equality and human rights law, without effective parliamentary scrutiny. Will the government commit to restricting the use of ‘Henry VIII’ powers in the Bill so that they cannot be used to dilute or diminish equality and human rights laws? Retaining and accessing protections: The Bill as drafted not only leaves important protections in the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights out of its retained EU law ‘snapshot’, but removes the power from ordinary people to enforce what rights they are left with.
    [Show full text]
  • High Court Judgment Template
    [2015] UKIPTrib 13_77-H_2 Case Nos: IPT/13/77/H, IPT/13/92/CH, IPT/13/168-173/H, IPT/13/194/CH, IPT/13/204/CH IN THE INVESTIGATORY POWERS TRIBUNAL P.O. Box 33220 London SW1H 9ZQ Date: 22 June 2015 Before : MR JUSTICE BURTON (PRESIDENT) MR ROBERT SEABROOK QC MRS JUSTICE CARR THE HON CHRISTOPHER GARDNER QC HIS HONOUR GEOFFREY RIVLIN QC - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Between : IPT/13/77/H Liberty First Claimant - and - (1) The Government Communications Headquarters Respondents (2) The Secret Intelligence Service (3) The Security Service - and - IPT/13/92/CH Privacy International Second Claimant - and - (1) The Secretary of State for Foreign and Respondents Commonwealth Affairs (2) The Secretary of State for the Home Department (3) The Secret Intelligence Service (4) The Security Service (5) The Government Communications Headquarters (6) The Attorney General - and - IPT/13/168-173/H (1) American Civil Liberties Union Third (2) Canadian Civil Liberties Association Claimants (3) Egyptian Initiative for Personal Rights (4) Hungarian Civil Liberties Union (5) Irish Council for Civil Liberties (6) Legal Resources Centre - and - (1) The Government Communications Headquarters Respondents (2) The Secret Intelligence Service (3) The Security Service - and - IPT/13/194/CH Amnesty International Limited Fourth Claimant - and - (1) The Security Service Respondents (2) The Secret Intelligence Service (3) The Government Communications Headquarters (4) The Secretary of State for the Home Department (5) The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth
    [Show full text]
  • Harriet Harman
    Harriet Harman The Labour politician and veteran campaigner for women’s rights interviewed by Roy McCloughry at Portcullis House 6 February 2017 2 Harriet Harman | High Profiles | 6 February 2017 The Fair Agenda Harriet Harman has spent 35 years fighting for justice for women in the House of Commons – mostly on its front benches. ‘Like her or loathe her,’ the Daily Telegraph observed recently, ‘she’s tough as old boots.’ Roy McCloughry took a shine to her in her office in Portcullis House. PHOTOGRAPHY: GEOFF CRAWFORD You were the third of four girls in quite a posh family. What values were instilled in you in your childhood that are still important to you? If I’d have thought that my parents were trying to instil anything in me, I would have been like: OK, that is exactly what I’m going to do the opposite of! We weren’t obedient young girls wanting to do what our parents told us, we were going to kick over the traces and do everything different. But I can’t help noticing, as I look back, that, despite my youthful rebelliousness, some of the things that clearly they were very concerned about have absolutely stuck – particularly being self-reliant and not depending on other people. For young women, that was a revolutionary message, really, because the aspiration at that time was to get yourself a husband so that you could rely on him. 3 Harriet Harman | High Profiles | 6 February 2017 Your mother had been a lawyer but gave it up when she got married, didn’t she? Yes, because in those days if your husband could support you it was inconceivable that you would go out to work, because your job would be to be the housewife and look after the children.
    [Show full text]
  • Spring 20 Spring 20 Contents Director’S Letter
    SPRING 20 SPRING 20 CONTENTS DIRECTOR’S LETTER 3 DIRECTOR’S LETTER 4-5 MARTHA SPURRIER Director of Liberty NEWS IN BRIEF 6-8 We’re living through an freedom during a national extensive powers of detention COVER FEATURE: unprecedented global health emergency, Liberty is keeping and surveillance that are likely THE CRIMINALISATION OF TRESPASS crisis and the world is watch to make sure the to outlive the pandemic will changing before our eyes. Government doesn’t seize get us nowhere. Now is the 9 unnecessary power or resist time for a nurturing state, not PARLIAMENT WATCH I’m writing this from my vital scrutiny. Governments all an authoritarian one. kitchen table having shut down over the world are resorting 10-11 Liberty’s offices on 16 March. to intrusive surveillance and And we all have our part to FEATURE: But although we’re scattered punitive criminalisation to play – no doubt each and NEW CASE LAUNCHED AGAINST MI5 across the country, we’re beat the pandemic. This is not every Liberty member is working harder than ever the answer. finding creative and kind ways 12-13 to demand a human rights to support friends, family, FOI REQUESTS: A USER’S GUIDE response to the pandemic. We are demanding the UK neighbours and communities. Government uses its power As Eleanor Roosevelt once 14 Liberty was founded in 1934 to build resilience, protect said, human rights begin in MOD APOLOGISES AND RETURNS MEDALS TO and our work has continued communities and make sure small places, close to home. BISEXUAL NAVY VETERAN through peace, war, recession the most vulnerable people and upheaval.
    [Show full text]
  • Liberty Brief Issue 11 October 2017
    04 12 16 24 30 Years for CCJS Fracking: what is a Shape your own Upcoming Events The Centre for legitimate decision? experience A Workshop on Criminal Justice Studies Dr Joanne Hawkins Recent graduate Professionalism and Celebrates 30 years of explores public concern Caitlin Healey reflects Vulnerability excellence on her time at the 27–28 October 2017 School of Law Issue 11 October 2017 School of Law Liberty Newsletter Brief School News It is your School. We want to know how we can improve things. Let us know what is good and As well as the NSS result, the latest Times / Sunday what we could do better. Times Good University Guide has been published. The University is, for the first time in the top 10 Talk to us. We cannot which is excellent. We are again in the top 10, this improve things without you. time 8th. League tables are not everything and we should not fixate on precise positions. There is by way of example only 0.4% difference between us and UCL which is fifth. However, they do say something about relative performance and the general health of the School. In all we do there are not many genuinely better law schools at the moment and we can afford to be very proud of what FROM we have achieved. You should feel proud too. As you will now know, your School has had a good All that said, there is no room for complacency. summer. The results of the National Student Survey We need to press on and continue to improve.
    [Show full text]
  • A. the International Bill of Human Rights
    A. THE INTERNATIONAL BILL OF HUMAN RIGHTS 1. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Adopted and proclaimed by General Assembly resolution 217 A (III) of 10 December 1948 PREAMBLE Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world, Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people, Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be pro- tected by the rule of law, Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations, Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the great- est importance for the full realization
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Authorities Supporting the Activities of the National Security Agency Described by the President
    Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C. January 19, 2006 The Honorable William H. Frist Majority Leader United States Senate Washington. D.C. 205 10 Dear Mr. Leader: As the President recently described, in response to the attacks of Septcmber I I"', he has authorized the National Security Agency (NSA) to intcrcept international comn~unicationsinto or out of the United States of persons linked to al Qaeda or an affiliated terrorist organization. The attached paper has becn prepared by the Department of Justice to provide a detailed analysis of the legal basis for those NSA activities dcscribcd by the President. As J have previously explained, these NSA activities al-e lawful in all respects. They represent a vital effort by the President to ensurc that we havc in place an early warning system to detect and prevent another catastrophic terrorist attack 011America. In the o~lgoingarmed conflict with al Qaeda and its allies, the President has the primary duty under the Constitution to protect the Anlerican people. The Constitution gives the President thc full authority necessary to carry out that solemn duty, and he has made clear that he will LIS~all authority available to him. consistent with the law, to protect the Nation. The President's authority to approve these NSA activities is confirmed and supplemented by Congress in the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), enacted on Septembcr 18, 2001. As discussed in depth in the attached paper, the President's use of his constitutional authority, as supplemented by statute in the AUMF, is consistent with the Foreign Intelligcnce Surveillance Act and is also fiilly protective of the civil liberties guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment.
    [Show full text]