DOCSLIB.ORG

The UK and the European Court of Human Rights

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The UK and the European Court of Human Rights Equality and Human Rights Commission Research report 83 The UK and the European Court of Human Rights Alice Donald, Jane Gordon and Philip Leach Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute London Metropolitan University The UK and the European Court of Human Rights Alice Donald, Jane Gordon and Philip Leach Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute London Metropolitan University © Equality and Human Rights Commission 2012 First published Spring 2012 ISBN 978 1 84206 434 4 Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series The Equality and Human Rights Commission Research Report Series publishes research carried out for the Commission by commissioned researchers. The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Commission. The Commission is publishing the report as a contribution to discussion and debate. Please contact the Research Team for further information about other Commission research reports, or visit our website: Research Team Equality and Human Rights Commission Arndale House The Arndale Centre Manchester M4 3AQ Email: [email protected] Telephone: 0161 829 8500 Website: www.equalityhumanrights.com You can download a copy of this report as a PDF from our website: http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/ If you require this publication in an alternative format, please contact the Communications Team to discuss your needs at: [email protected] Contents Page Tables i Acknowledgments ii Abbreviations iii Executive summary v 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Aims of the report 1 1.2 Context of the report 1 1.3 Methodology 3 1.4 Scope of the report 4 1.5 Guide to the report 5 2. Origins and machinery of the European human rights system 6 2.1 Introduction 6 2.2 The European Convention on Human Rights 6 2.3 The Council of Europe 11 2.4 How the Convention system works 12 2.5 Conclusion 20 3. The protection of human rights in the UK 21 3.1 Introduction 21 3.2 Giving effect to Convention rights in the UK 21 3.3 Debate about human rights protection in the UK 25 3.4 The context of devolution 27 3.5 Conclusion 28 4. Statistical overview of UK cases in Strasbourg 30 4.1 Introduction 30 4.2 Overview of UK cases over time 30 4.3 Overview of UK cases in comparison with other states 36 4.4 The nature of violations in Strasbourg cases 38 4.5 Conclusion 42 5. The impact of European Court of Human Rights judgments on the UK 44 5.1 Introduction 44 5.2 Identifying the impact of legal cases 44 5.3 Protection of life and investigations into deaths 45 5.4 Anti-terrorism and the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment 52 5.5 Anti-terrorism and other human rights violations 58 5.6 Protection from violence and coercion 61 Page 5.7 The protection of individual liberties 66 5.8 Freedom of expression of the media 75 5.9 Immigration 80 5.10 Impact of cases brought under the Human Rights Act 83 5.11 Conclusion 85 6. The evolution of the Convention and Strasbourg case law 87 6.1 Introduction 87 6.2 Principles of interpretation of the Convention 87 6.3 Criticisms of the Strasbourg Court 91 6.4 Responses to the criticisms 98 6.5 Case studies on developing interpretation of the law 102 6.6 The limits to an evolutive approach 106 6.7 The clarity and consistency of Strasbourg judgments 107 6.8 The value of a dynamic approach: protection of the vulnerable 110 6.9 Conclusion 113 7. The relationship between the UK courts and Strasbourg 115 7.1 Introduction 115 7.2 The approach of the UK Courts to Strasbourg case law 116 7.3 Cases where Strasbourg has deferred to national authorities 120 7.4 Cases where Strasbourg has adopted the reasoning of the UK courts 123 7.5 Cases where Strasbourg and the UK courts have disagreed 125 7.6 Cases where the UK courts have consciously leapt ahead of Strasbourg 134 7.7 Judicial dialogue between Strasbourg and the UK 138 7.8 Conclusion 140 8. The implementation of Strasbourg judgments in the UK 143 8.1 Introduction 143 8.2 The United Kingdom’s record 143 8.3 The consequences of the non-implementation of Strasbourg judgments by the UK 145 8.4 Parliament and the implementation of Strasbourg judgments 148 8.5 Conclusion 152 9. The value for the UK of the European human rights framework 154 9.1 Introduction 154 9.2 The relationship between the domestic and regional human rights systems 154 9.3 The status of Convention rights in UK law 156 9.4 The supervisory role of the European Court of Human Rights 159 Page 9.5 Challenges to the legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights 162 9.6 The value of the European human rights system 164 9.7 The value of a supranational court 167 9.8 The position of the UK within the European human rights system 171 9.9 Conclusion 177 10. Conclusions 180 10.1 The UK and the European system of human rights protection 180 10.2 Debate about human rights protection in the UK 183 10.3 Debate about the European system of human rights protection 184 Appendices Appendix 1 Interviewees 188 Appendix 2 Questionnaire 189 Appendix 3 Sections of the Human Rights Act 1998 192 References 196 List of cases 208 Tables Page 4.1 Applications to the ECtHR against the UK, 1999-2010 31 4.2 Judgments of the ECtHR in UK cases, 1999-2010 32 4.3 Applications and judgments relating to the UK, 1966-2010 33 4.4 Applications and judgments relating to the UK, 2011 34 4.5 Cases relating to the UK and selected comparator countries, 1998-2010 37 4.6 Violations in ECtHR judgments against the UK by Article, 1966-2010 41 i Acknowledgments We would like to thank all those who gave interviews and were so generous with their time and insights. Our thanks also go to Aruna Dudhia for administrative support and Shanta Bhavnani, Tarik Elhadidi and Wessen Jazrawi for research assistance. We acknowledge with gratitude the detailed work completed for this research project by Professor Francesca Klug, Helen Wildbore and Matthew Hunt of the Human Rights Futures Project at the London School of Economics. Thanks are also due to Jessica Gavron and Francesca Klug for helpful comments on a draft of this report. We are especially grateful to David Perfect of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, whose patience and professionalism helped guide the report to completion within a short timescale. Thanks also to John Wadham and Mary Cunneen at the EHRC. Alice Donald Philip Leach Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute London Metropolitan University Jane Gordon Visiting Fellow London School of Economics ii Abbreviations ATCSA Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 DPA Data Protection Act 1998 ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EHRC Equality and Human Rights Commission EU European Union GC Grand Chamber HET Historical Enquiries Team HRA Human Rights Act 1998 ICCPR International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights IPCC Independent Police Complaints Commission IVF In-vitro fertilisation JCHR Joint Committee on Human Rights LGBT Lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender NCCL National Council for Civil Liberties NIHRC Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission RIPA Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 SAS Special Air Service SHRC Scottish Human Rights Commission SIAC Special Immigration Appeals Commission TPIM Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measure UCL University College London UNCAT United Nations Convention against Torture iii iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Executive summary Aims of the research In November 2011, the Equality and Human Rights Commission contracted the Human Rights and Social Justice Research Institute at London Metropolitan University and Jane Gordon, human rights lawyer and Visiting Fellow at the London School of Economics, to examine the relationship between the UK and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg. The aim was to provide better information to key decision-makers about the impact of the ECtHR and its judgments on the UK. The principal objectives were to: • analyse ECtHR cases in relation to the UK to assess the circumstances in which the Court has made judgments, including both judgments which were contrary to those made by domestic courts and judgments where the Court agreed with the domestic court/UK Government position (or where applications against the UK have been found inadmissible); • assess how ECtHR judgments relating to the UK have been received and responded to by key decision-makers in the UK; and • evaluate the implementation of ECtHR judgments and the impact that they have had on domestic legislation and policy, as well as on domestic courts. Methodology The research comprised: • a literature review and review of a selection of ECtHR judgments; and • 17 interviews with (i) individuals in the UK, including parliamentarians; judicial figures; (former) heads of the human rights commissions in Scotland and Northern Ireland; and (ii) key figures within the Strasbourg system. Origins and machinery of the European human rights system The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty drawn up within the Council of Europe, which was established in Strasbourg in 1949 in the course of the first post-war attempt to unify Europe. The United Kingdom was among the first states to ratify the ECHR and played a pivotal role in its creation. The UK accepted the right of individuals to take a case to Strasbourg and the jurisdiction of v THE UK AND THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS the ECtHR in 1966.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • HOUSE of COMMONS Exiting the European Union Committee
    HOUSE OF COMMONS Exiting the European Union Committee Oral evidence: The progress of the UK’s negotiations on EU withdrawal, HC 372 Monday 3 September 2018, Brussels Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 4 September 2018. Members present: Hilary Benn (Chair); Sir Christopher Chope; Stephen Crabb; Richard Graham; Peter Grant; Andrea Jenkyns; Stephen Kinnock; Jeremy Lefroy; Mr Pat McFadden; Seema Malhotra; Mr Jacob Rees-Mogg; Emma Reynolds; Stephen Timms; Mr John Whittingdale. Questions 2537 - 2563 Witnesses I: Michel Barnier, Chief Negotiator, European Commission, and Sabine Weyand, Deputy Chief Negotiator, European Commission. Examination of witnesses Witnesses: Michel Barnier and Sabine Weyand. Michel Barnier: Welcome once again. You are always welcome. Q2537 Chair: Michel, can I reciprocate on behalf of the Committee? It is very good to see you again. Can I begin by apologising that we had to let you down on the previous date when we were due to meet? We had certain important votes in Parliament that necessitated our attendance. Secondly, can I thank you very much for honouring the commitment you made to us the first time we met, that you would give evidence to the Committee on the record? Because as you are aware, today’s session is being recorded and will be published as an evidence session, so it is a slightly different format from our previous discussions. I understand entirely that you will want to check the English translation of what you said before the minutes are published and we realise that will take— Michel Barnier: Just to check that nothing is lost in translation.
    [Show full text]
  • The Meritocrat's Manifesto
    THE MERITOCRAT’S MANIFESTO Dominic Raab MP THE MERITOCRAT’S MANIFESTO Dominic Raab MP FIRST PUBLISHED BY The Social Market Foundation, June 2014 ISBN: 978-1-904899-91-4 11 Tufton Street, London SW1P 3QB Copyright © The Social Market Foundation, 2014 The moral right of the authors has been asserted. All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the publisher of this book. THE SOCIAL MARKET FOUNDATION The Foundation’s main activity is to commission and publish original papers by independent academic and other experts on key topics in the economic and social fields, with a view to stimulating public discussion on the performance of markets and the social framework within which they operate. The Foundation is a registered charity and a company limited by guarantee. It is independent of any political party or group and is funded predominantly through sponsorship of research and public policy debates. The views expressed in this publication are those of the author, and these do not necessarily reflect the views of the sponsors or the Social Market Foundation. CHAIRMAN DESIGN AND PRODUCTION Mary Ann Sieghart Pistachio Design www.pistachiodesign.com MEMBERS OF THE BOARD Daniel Franklin PRINTED BY Graham Mather Diversified Global Graphics Group
    [Show full text]
  • Women Readers of Middle Temple Celebrating 100 Years of Women at Middle Temple the Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales
    The Honourable Society of the Middle Temple Middle Society Honourable the The of 2019 Issue 59 Michaelmas 2019 Issue 59 Women Readers of Middle Temple Celebrating 100 Years of Women at Middle Temple The Incorporated Council of Law Reporting for England and Wales Practice Note (Relevance of Law Reporting) [2019] ICLR 1 Catchwords — Indexing of case law — Structured taxonomy of subject matter — Identification of legal issues raised in particular cases — Legal and factual context — “Words and phrases” con- strued — Relevant legislation — European and International instruments The common law, whose origins were said to date from the reign of King Henry II, was based on the notion of a single set of laws consistently applied across the whole of England and Wales. A key element in its consistency was the principle of stare decisis, according to which decisions of the senior courts created binding precedents to be followed by courts of equal or lower status in later cases. In order to follow a precedent, the courts first needed to be aware of its existence, which in turn meant that it had to be recorded and published in some way. Reporting of cases began in the form of the Year Books, which in the 16th century gave way to the publication of cases by individual reporters, known collectively as the Nominate Reports. However, by the middle of the 19th century, the variety of reports and the variability of their quality were such as to provoke increasing criticism from senior practitioners and the judiciary. The solution proposed was the establishment of a body, backed by the Inns of Court and the Law Society, which would be responsible for the publication of accurate coverage of the decisions of senior courts in England and Wales.
    [Show full text]
  • A Year in Review, the Year Ahead
    2018: A YEAR IN REVIEW, 2019: THE YEAR AHEAD Foreword from Rt Hon Patricia Hewitt, Senior Adviser, FTI Consulting 2018 was the most unpredictable and tumultuous year in politics … since 2017. Which was the most unpredictable and tumultuous year in politics … since 2016. And there’s no sign of let-up as we move into 2019. The unresolved questions of Brexit - how? when? whether at all? - will inevitably dominate the coming year. Even if Theresa May brings back from Brussels a new political declaration sufficiently compelling to command a majority in Parliament - a highly unlikely prospect at the time of writing - the end of March will mean the start of a fresh, complex round of negotiations on a future trade deal, conducted under the shadow of the Irish backstop. For most people, that would be preferable to the collapse of Mrs May’s deal and, almost inevitably, the collapse of her government and a subsequent constitutional crisis. Faced with the choice between revoking Article 50 or leaving the European Union (EU) without a deal, the Commons could well produce a majority for a new referendum. Under the pressure of a leadership contest, the personal and political rancour in the Conservative Party could finally break apart Europe’s hitherto most successful party of government. A no-confidence vote that would be defeated today could command enough votes from the Brexiteers’ kamikaze tendency to force another General Election. And Labour - with most of its moderates MPs replaced by Corbynistas in last-minute candidate selections - could win on a ‘cake and eat it’ manifesto of a Brexit that would end free movement but provide frictionless trade (Irish backstop, anyone?).
    [Show full text]
  • Making a Hasty Brexit? Ministerial Turnover and Its Implications
    Making a Hasty Brexit? Ministerial Turnover and Its Implications Jessica R. Adolino, Ph. D. Professor of Political Science James Madison University Draft prepared for presentation at the European Studies Association Annual Meeting May 9-12, 2019, Denver, Colorado Please do not cite or distribute without author’s permission. By almost any measure, since the immediate aftermath of the June 16, 2016 Brexit referendum, the British government has been in a state of chaos. The turmoil began with then- Prime Minister David Cameron’s resignation on June 17 and succession by Theresa May within days of the vote. Subsequently, May’s decision to call a snap election in 2017 and the resulting loss of the Conservatives’ parliamentary majority cast doubt on her leadership and further stirred up dissension in her party’s ranks. Perhaps more telling, and the subject of this paper, is the unprecedented number of ministers1—from both senior and junior ranks—that quit the May government over Brexit-related policy disagreements2. Between June 12, 2017 and April 3, 2019, the government witnessed 45 resignations, with high-profile secretaries of state and departmental ministers stepping down to return to the backbenches. Of these, 34 members of her government, including 9 serving in the Cabinet, departed over issues with some aspect of Brexit, ranging from dissatisfaction with the Prime Minister’s Withdrawal Agreement, to disagreements about the proper role of Parliament, to questions about the legitimacy of the entire Brexit process. All told, Theresa May lost more ministers, and at a more rapid pace, than any other prime minister in modern times.
    [Show full text]
  • Gill Morgan, Is Dealing with Whitehall Arrogance
    plus… Jeff Jones Labour’s leadership election Nicola Porter Journalism must fight back Barry Morgan Religion and politics Dafydd Wigley Options for the referendum Andrew Shearer Garlic’s secret weapon Gill David Culshaw Decline of the honeybee Gordon James Coal in a warm climate Morgan Katija Dew Beating the crunch Gear change for our civil service Andrew Davies The Kafka Brigade Peter Finch Capturing the soul www.iwa.org.uk Winter 2009 No. 39 | £5 clickonwales ! Coming soon, our new website www. iwa.or g.u k, containing much more up-to-date news and information and with a freshly designed new look. Featuring clickonwales – the IWA’s new online service providing news and analysis about current affairs as it affects our small country. Expert contributors from across the political spectrum will be commissioned daily to provide insights into the unfolding drama of the new 21 st Century Wales – whether it be Labour’s leadership election, constitutional change, the climate change debate, arguments about education, or the ongoing problems, successes and shortcomings of the Welsh economy. There will be more scope, too, for interactive debate, and a special section for IWA members. Plus: Information about the IWA’s branches, events, and publications. This will be the must see and must use Welsh website. clickonwales and see where it takes you. clickonwales and see how far you go. The Institute of Welsh Affairs gratefully acknowledges core funding from the Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust , the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation and the Waterloo Foundation . The following organisations are corporate members: Private Sector • Principality Building Society • The Electoral Commission Certified Accountants • Abaca Ltd • Royal Hotel Cardiff • Embassy of Ireland • Autism Cymru • Beaufort Research • Royal Mail Group Wales • Fforwm • Cartrefi Cymunedol / • Biffa Waste Services Ltd • RWE NPower Renewables • The Forestry Commission Community Housing Cymru • British Gas • S.
    [Show full text]
  • 2017 Magdalen College Record
    Magdalen College Record Magdalen College Record 2017 2017 Conference Facilities at Magdalen¢ We are delighted that many members come back to Magdalen for their wedding (exclusive to members), celebration dinner or to hold a conference. We play host to associations and organizations as well as commercial conferences, whilst also accommodating summer schools. The Grove Auditorium seats 160 and has full (HD) projection fa- cilities, and events are supported by our audio-visual technician. We also cater for a similar number in Hall for meals and special banquets. The New Room is available throughout the year for private dining for The cover photograph a minimum of 20, and maximum of 44. was taken by Marcin Sliwa Catherine Hughes or Penny Johnson would be pleased to discuss your requirements, available dates and charges. Please contact the Conference and Accommodation Office at [email protected] Further information is also available at www.magd.ox.ac.uk/conferences For general enquiries on Alumni Events, please contact the Devel- opment Office at [email protected] Magdalen College Record 2017 he Magdalen College Record is published annually, and is circu- Tlated to all members of the College, past and present. If your contact details have changed, please let us know either by writ- ing to the Development Office, Magdalen College, Oxford, OX1 4AU, or by emailing [email protected] General correspondence concerning the Record should be sent to the Editor, Magdalen College Record, Magdalen College, Ox- ford, OX1 4AU, or, preferably, by email to [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Conseil De L'europe Council of Europe Cour Européenne Des Droits De L
    CONSEIL COUNCIL DE L’EUROPE OF EUROPE COUR EUROPÉENNE DES DROITS DE L’HOMME EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS GRAND CHAMBER CASE OF O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM (Applications nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) JUDGMENT STRASBOURG 29 June 2007 2 O’HALLORAN AND FRANCIS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM JUDGMENT In the case of O’Halloran and Francis v. the United Kingdom, The European Court of Human Rights, sitting as a Grand Chamber composed of: Jean-Paul Costa, President, Luzius Wildhaber, Christos Rozakis, Nicolas Bratza, Boštjan M. Zupančič, Rıza Türmen, Volodymyr Butkevych, Josep Casadevall, Matti Pellonpää, Snejana Botoucharova, Stanislav Pavlovschi, Lech Garlicki, Javier Borrego Borrego, Alvina Gyulumyan, Ljiljana Mijović, Egbert Myjer, Ján Šikuta, judges, and Vincent Berger, Jurisconsult, Having deliberated in private on 27 September 2006 and on 23 May 2007, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last- mentioned date: PROCEDURE 1. The case originated in two applications (nos. 15809/02 and 25624/02) against the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by two British nationals, Mr Gerard O’Halloran and Mr Idris Richard Francis (“the applicants”), on 3 April 2002 and 15 November 2001 respectively. 2. The applicants, one of whom had been granted legal aid, were represented by Mr J. Welch of Liberty, London. The United Kingdom Government (“the Government”) were represented by their Agent, Mr D. Walton of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. 3. Mr O’Halloran alleged that he had been convicted solely or mainly on account of the statement he had been compelled to provide under threat of a penalty similar to the offence itself.
    [Show full text]
  • THE 422 Mps WHO BACKED the MOTION Conservative 1. Bim
    THE 422 MPs WHO BACKED THE MOTION Conservative 1. Bim Afolami 2. Peter Aldous 3. Edward Argar 4. Victoria Atkins 5. Harriett Baldwin 6. Steve Barclay 7. Henry Bellingham 8. Guto Bebb 9. Richard Benyon 10. Paul Beresford 11. Peter Bottomley 12. Andrew Bowie 13. Karen Bradley 14. Steve Brine 15. James Brokenshire 16. Robert Buckland 17. Alex Burghart 18. Alistair Burt 19. Alun Cairns 20. James Cartlidge 21. Alex Chalk 22. Jo Churchill 23. Greg Clark 24. Colin Clark 25. Ken Clarke 26. James Cleverly 27. Thérèse Coffey 28. Alberto Costa 29. Glyn Davies 30. Jonathan Djanogly 31. Leo Docherty 32. Oliver Dowden 33. David Duguid 34. Alan Duncan 35. Philip Dunne 36. Michael Ellis 37. Tobias Ellwood 38. Mark Field 39. Vicky Ford 40. Kevin Foster 41. Lucy Frazer 42. George Freeman 43. Mike Freer 44. Mark Garnier 45. David Gauke 46. Nick Gibb 47. John Glen 48. Robert Goodwill 49. Michael Gove 50. Luke Graham 51. Richard Graham 52. Bill Grant 53. Helen Grant 54. Damian Green 55. Justine Greening 56. Dominic Grieve 57. Sam Gyimah 58. Kirstene Hair 59. Luke Hall 60. Philip Hammond 61. Stephen Hammond 62. Matt Hancock 63. Richard Harrington 64. Simon Hart 65. Oliver Heald 66. Peter Heaton-Jones 67. Damian Hinds 68. Simon Hoare 69. George Hollingbery 70. Kevin Hollinrake 71. Nigel Huddleston 72. Jeremy Hunt 73. Nick Hurd 74. Alister Jack (Teller) 75. Margot James 76. Sajid Javid 77. Robert Jenrick 78. Jo Johnson 79. Andrew Jones 80. Gillian Keegan 81. Seema Kennedy 82. Stephen Kerr 83. Mark Lancaster 84.
    [Show full text]
  • The Conservative Agenda for Constitutional Reform
    UCL DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE The Constitution Unit Department of Political Science UniversityThe Constitution College London Unit 29–30 Tavistock Square London WC1H 9QU phone: 020 7679 4977 fax: 020 7679 4978 The Conservative email: [email protected] www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit A genda for Constitutional The Constitution Unit at UCL is the UK’s foremost independent research body on constitutional change. It is part of the UCL School of Public Policy. THE CONSERVATIVE Robert Hazell founded the Constitution Unit in 1995 to do detailed research and planning on constitutional reform in the UK. The Unit has done work on every aspect AGENDA of the UK’s constitutional reform programme: devolution in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and the English regions, reform of the House of Lords, electoral reform, R parliamentary reform, the new Supreme Court, the conduct of referendums, freedom eform Prof FOR CONSTITUTIONAL of information, the Human Rights Act. The Unit is the only body in the UK to cover the whole of the constitutional reform agenda. REFORM The Unit conducts academic research on current or future policy issues, often in collaboration with other universities and partners from overseas. We organise regular R programmes of seminars and conferences. We do consultancy work for government obert and other public bodies. We act as special advisers to government departments and H parliamentary committees. We work closely with government, parliament and the azell judiciary. All our work has a sharply practical focus, is concise and clearly written, timely and relevant to policy makers and practitioners. The Unit has always been multi disciplinary, with academic researchers drawn mainly from politics and law.
    [Show full text]
  • Individual Responsibility of Ministers: an Outline of the Issues
    The Individual Responsibility of Ministers: An Outline of the Issues Research Paper 96/27 21 February 1996 The individual responsibility of ministers is a vital aspect of accountable and democratic Parliamentary government, yet it is a 'convention' which is difficult to define with certainty and which, to a large degree, depends on the circumstances of each individual case. This Paper seeks to explore, in general terms, the subject as a whole and several interesting examples from the era of Crichel Down in 1954 onwards to illustrate the issue. It does not seek to provide a comprehensive analysis of ministerial responsibility (including collective responsibility) or Parliamentary accountability. Barry K Winetrobe Janet Seaton Home Affairs Section Reference and Reader Services Section House of Commons Library Summary Individual ministerial responsibility is an important if complex constitutional issue. It is often described as a constitutional convention, and this Paper examines its nature in that context, and in relation to collective responsibility and in the light of developments such as the growth of select committees, the development of Next Steps agencies and quangos, and the publication in 1992 of Questions of procedure for Ministers. The nature of individual responsibility in action is described briefly, including aspects short of a ministerial resignation or dismissal. The interesting, if short, debate on ministerial responsibility on 12 February 1996 is considered. A number of modern examples of situations where individual responsibility could be said to have arisen are examined, purely to illustrate various aspects of the 'convention'. It is not intended to be a comprehensive list. It covers significant episodes such as Crichel Down in 1954 (in which Sir David Maxwell Fyfe set out what is often regarded as the classic statement of the traditional doctrine), the Falklands (1982) and Westland (1986), and includes instances where resignation demands were successfully restricted such as Court Line (1975) and the Maze Prison escape (1983).
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED Kingdompolitical Killings in Northern Ireland EUR 45/001/94 TABLE of CONTENTS
    UNITED KINGDOMPolitical Killings in Northern Ireland EUR 45/001/94 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................... 1 Killings by members of the security forces ........................................................... 3 Investigative Procedures: practice and standards ...................................... 8 The Use of Lethal Force: Laws and Regulations/International Standards ..................................................................................... 12 Collusion between security forces and armed groups ........................................ 14 The Stevens Inquiry 1989-90 ..................................................................... 14 The Case of Brian Nelson .......................................................................... 16 The Killing of Patrick Finucane .................................................................. 20 The Stevens Inquiry 1993 .......................................................................... 23 Other Allegations of Collusion .................................................................... 25 Amnesty International's Concerns about Allegations of Collusion ............ 29 Killings by Armed Political Groups ...................................................................... 34 Introduction ................................................................................................. 34 Human Rights Abuses by Republican Armed Groups .............................. 35 IRA Bombings
    [Show full text]