Britain’s bid to rein in the Euro judges
Our courts must have priority, say ministers
BRITAIN has drawn up long-overdue plans to curtail the meddling of the controversial European Court of Human Rights.
Under the leaked proposals, judges in Strasbourg – who recently blocked the deportation of hate preacher Abu Qatada – would not normally be allowed to interfere in cases which have already gone through the UK courts.
The plans were welcomed by Tory MPS sick of the court overturning UK judgments.
But ministers face a huge battle to get the proposals past the 46 other nations who are members of the Council of Europe, which oversees the court – and the Liberal Democrats.
Changing the rules requires unanimous approval of the Council – which is notoriously difficult to achieve.
Ministers have thrown in a concession to supporters of the court in a bid to make the proposals seem more attractive.
It would, for the first time, allow the Council of Europe to levy fines on member states which ignore Strasbourg’s judgments. This could mean, for example, that Britain could be clobbered with a fine if Parliament refuses the Strasbourg court’s current demand for prisoners to be granted the vote.
The proposals – named the ‘Draft Brighton Convention’ – are to be debated at a meeting in England on April 19 and 20.
Britain currently has presidency of the Council and the Tories are determined to use the opportunity to rein in some of the worst excesses of the court, which is criticised for being unaccountable.
Under the plans, Strasbourg would not normally be able to examine cases that are ‘identical in substance to a claim that has been considered by a national court’.
The court would only be able to take on a case when national courts have made a glaring error, or in major issues of interpretation of human rights.
The changes would also reduce the time period in which claims must be lodged with Strasbourg following a ruling by a domestic court, from the current six months to two or four months.
In the case of Qatada, who is wanted for trial in Jordan on charges of plotting terrorist
‘Arbitrary rulings’
atrocities, the UK’S Law Lords (now the Supreme Court) ruled he could safely be deported.
But the European judges overturned the decision, saying there was a risk that some of the evidence used against Qatada – an Al Qaeda hate preacher – may have been obtained by torture. Qatada has since been released on bail and Home Secretary Theresa May is now seeking reassurances from Jordan that she hopes will allow the fanatic to be kicked out.
Tory MP Dominic Raab, who has led the calls for urgent reform of the Strasbourg court, welcomed the draft proposals.
He said: ‘ These are sensible and moderate proposals to reduce the Strasbourg Court’s scope to interfere with decisions of the UK Supreme Court and law-making by our elected representatives.
‘Strasbourg should re-focus on the worst violations of the most fundamental rights.’
But he added: ‘Any suggestion that we give the Council of Europe the power to issue fines is out of the question at a time when the court is handing down arbitrary rulings on Abu Qatada and prisoner voting.’
Shami Chakrabarti, of campaign group Liberty, said Britain should be setting an example on human rights to younger democracies, such as Russia.
Mr Raab responded: ‘There’s no point in kidding ourselves that Putin is going to care two hoots about whether we deport Abu Qatada, or prisoner voting.’
Labour’s Sadiq Khan said: ‘We risk opening a Pandora’s Box across Europe as other countries ignore the Convention. Our moral authority could simply evaporate for the sake of satisfying Cameron’s awkward backbenchers.’
j.slack@dailymail.co.uk Comment – Page 14