United Kingdom IHF FOCUS: Rule of law; elections; free- chaired by Professor Brice Dickson, was dom of expression and access to informa- set up under section 68 of the Northern tion; peaceful assembly; fair trial and de- Ireland Act 1998 in compliance with the tainees’ rights; torture, ill-treatment and Good Friday Agreement. The NIHRC is re- misconduct by law enforcement officials; quired by statute to advise the secretary of rights of homosexuals; protection of asy- state on the scope for defining, in a Bill of lum seekers and immigrants; accountabil- Rights for Northern Ireland to be enacted ity for crimes against humanity; rights of by Westminister legislation, rights supple- the child; human rights defenders. mentary to those in the European Conven- tion on Human Rights. A bill to create a Human Rights Commission in the Repub- Most human rights violations in the UK lic of Ireland, with which the Northern Ire- were reported in connection with police land Human Rights Commission is to set abuse and intimidation. The recent deci- up a joint committee, was published in sions of the Director of Public Prosecu- summer 1999.1 tions (DPP) not to prosecute officers in the Royal Ulster Constabulory (RUC) in a On 19 January 2000, Northern Ireland number of cases involving harassment and Secretary Peter Mandelson confirmed the intimidation undermined faith in the effort RUC would have its named changed as to bring perpetrators of violence to justice part of the wide-ranging reforms recom- and damaged RUC credibility as an inves- mended in a review of policing carried out tigative mechanism. Fresh allegations of as part of the Good Friday peace agree- collusion in the murder of Belfast solicitor ment. The RUC will lose its royal title and Pat Finucane, and the murder of Rosemary be known as the Police Service of North- Nelson, further emphasized the need for ern Ireland from autumn 2001. The deci- independent and impartial inquiries into sion was welcomed by the Taoiseach (Irish the harassment of defense lawyers in Prime Minister) Bertie Ahern, and British Northern Ireland. Prime Minister Tony Blair. Many, howev- er, were critical of the new move, claiming A landmark decision by the European it dishonored the RUC and did not do jus- Court of Human Rights concerning homo- tice to all those who lost their lives to sec- sexuals’ right to respect for private life tarian strife in the past thirty years.2 forced changes in the military code, putting an end to overt discrimination on The inquiry into the 1993 racist murder of the grounds of sexuality. Other concerns Stephen Lawrence was published on 24 included accountability for misconduct by February. The Financial Times reported law enforcement officers, refugees’ rights, that senior UK legal figures said the power and accountability for crimes against hu- to re-try suspects for the same crime, a re- manity in the case of General Augusto form suggested by the inquiry, could lead Pinochet. to further abuse of the criminal justice sys- tem. Sir William Macpherson, the inquiry Rule of Law chairman, suggested that the Court of Ap- peal might be given the power to allow In March 1999, the Northern Ireland further prosecution in acquittal in cases Human Rights Commission (NIHRC), where “fresh and viable” evidence was 1 Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Background Information, http://www.nihrc.org 2 BBC News, 19 January 2000, http://www.news.bbc.co.uk 396 United Kingdom presented. His recommendation was identifying positive features as regards the backed by Home Secretary Jack Straw Information Commissioner’s powers, ap- who said he had asked the Law Commis- peals and scope, was concerned by a sion to consider the suggestion. Geoffrey number of provisions in the draft law. Robertson QC, the defense barrister, Foremost in this regard was the extremely warned that “double jeopardy is enshrined broad nature of the exemptions and exclu- in almost every human rights treaty de- sions, many of which go far beyond what vised” and that “it is a principle to protect has been considered necessary in other ju- people from oppression. John Wadham, risdictions. This serious shortcoming was director of the human rights group Liberty, compounded by the weak test for engag- agreed: “This is wrong in principle [it will ing exemptions, which is at best a require- also] be used more often against black ment that disclosure of the information people than white.” The Bar Council re- would prejudice the relevant interest. The stated that it had no fundamental objec- public interest test suffered from several tion to a review of the removal of double flaws, including the fact that public inter- jeopardy, once proper safeguards were est is simply one factor amongst many, the provided.3 complete exclusion from its ambit of secu- rity information, and its essentially discre- Elections tionary nature. Article 19 also had a num- ber of serious concerns regarding process.5 On 18 February the European Court of Human Rights ordered the UK to pay legal Fair Trial and Detainees’ Rights costs in the amount of £ 47,780 (U.S.$ 75,500) to Denise Matthews, a Gibraltar In two judgments delivered at Strasbourg citizen who sued Britain for denying citi- on 16 December in the cases of T. v. the zens of its Gibraltar colony the right to vote United Kingdom and V. v. the United in European Parliament elections. The rul- Kingdom, the European Court of Human ing effectively orders Britain to extend vot- Rights ruled that there had been a viola- ing rights to Gibraltarians. The Foreign Of- tion of article 6(1) as regards the trial. fice said that “It is not in our power unilat- erally to extend the franchise ... [but] the The applicants were convicted in Novem- judgment greatly strengthens the basis on ber 1993 of the abduction and murder of a which to approach other member states.”4 two-year-old boy. They were ten years old at the time of the offence, and eleven at Freedom of Expression and the time of their trial, which took place in Access to Information public in the Crown Court and attracted high levels of press and public interest. In July, Article 19 published a submission Following their conviction, the applicants to the UK government on the Freedom of were sentenced to be detained indefinite- Information Bill. The submission, while ly, “during her Majesty’s pleasure.”6 The 3 Human Rights Daily, Thursday 25 February 1999. 4 Human Rights Daily, Friday 19 February 1999. 5 Article 19, Submission to the UK Government on the Freedom of Information Bill, issue 53, July 1999. 6 According to English law and practice, children and young persons sentenced to be detained during “her Majesty’s pleasure” must first serve a tariff period, set by the home secretary, to satisfy the requirements of retribution and deterrence. Following the expiry of the tariff, detainees must be released unless, in the view of the Parole Board, they represent a danger to the public. 397 United Kingdom home secretary then set a tariff of fifteen trial in view of the defendants’ young age. years in respect of each applicant. The de- Moreover, although there was psychiatric cision was quashed by the House of Lords evidence that such proceedings could be in judicial review proceedings on 12 June expected to have a harmful effect on 1997. No new tariff has been set since that eleven-year-old children, any inquiry into date. the killing of the two-year-old would have provoked in the applicants feelings of The applicants complained to the Euro- guilt, distress, anguish and fear. The court pean Court of Human Rights that, in view ruled that the public nature of the pro- of their young age, their trial in public in ceedings did not exacerbate these feelings an adult Crown Court and the punitive na- to the extent that it constituted a violation ture of their sentence constituted viola- of article 3. tions of their rights not to be subjected to inhuman or degrading treatment or pun- The court further ruled that article 6(1), ishment as guaranteed under article 3 of which guarantees the right of an accused the European Convention. They further to participate effectively in a criminal trial, complained that they were denied a fair had been violated because although the trial in breach of article 6 of the conven- applicants were represented by skilled and tion. In addition, they contended that the experienced lawyers, it was highly unlike- sentence imposed on them of detention ly that they would have felt sufficiently un- “at Her Majesty’s pleasure” amounted to a inhibited, in the tense court room and breach of their right to liberty under article under public scrutiny, to have consulted 5, and the fact that a government minister, their lawyers during the trial. Moreover, rather than a judge, was responsible for given their immaturity and disturbed emo- setting the tariff violated their rights under tional state, they would not have been article 6. Finally, they complained under able to cooperate with their lawyers and article 5(4) of the convention that, to date, give them information for the purposes of they had not had the opportunity to have their defense. The court awarded legal the continuing lawfulness of their deten- costs in the amount of £ 18,000 (U.S.$ tion examined by a judicial body, such as 29,736) and £ 32,000 (U.S.$ 52,864) to T. the Parole Board. and V. respectively.7 The European Court held that the age of The home secretary referred the cases to ten, although low, could not be said to be the Lord Chief Justice on 13 March 2000 so young as to differ disproportionately to for a decision on a release date.