HUMAN RIGHTS COMMITTEE CONSIDERS REPORT OF THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND

Human Rights Committee
8 July 2008



The Human Rights Committee has considered the sixth periodic report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on how that State party is fulfilling its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Rowena Collins-Rice, Director General for Democracy and Constitutional Law of the United Kingdom, introducing the report, said that the Human Rights Act was a vital means of transforming the United Kingdom’s culture and legislative reforms. While the Human Rights Act had been subjected to hostility since its inception, in 2006 a survey had been conducted and 87 percent had been in favour of an act to protect citizens. Misleading or incorrect news stories in the media and others sectors had also been addressed with the implementation of the new Act, to reduce the number of misleading or inaccurate reporting on cases where violations of human rights had been identified. The United Kingdom did not have a bill of rights that existed as a single document. However, the possession of constitutional rights and freedoms was an inherent part of being a member of society in the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom was currently considering whether codification of constitutional rights would have a beneficial effect on their social and political rights.

In preliminary concluding remarks, Rafael Rivas Posada, Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, said it was hoped that the United Kingdom would incorporate all the provisions of the Covenant into domestic legislation. The United Kingdom had a singular situation on a number of reservations and the justifications given had not been clearly explained. The arguments made on detention were not convincing with regard to preventive detention specifically. The boundary between theoretical literal expression of terrorism and real incitement of acts of terrorism was also not clear, and might lend itself to a dangerous situation within the field of human rights.

Questions raised by Committee Experts included treatment of migrants, asylum-seekers and detainees; the integration of the Covenant into domestic law; the review and exclusion of existing reservations; human rights protections in the context of anti-terrorism legislation, in particular with regard to the provision of a 48-hour detention without a lawyer; the use of Anti-Social Behaviour Orders against children; the use of legislation to allow for non-jury trials (Diplock legislation); and prison conditions, among others.

The Committee reviewed the report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland over three meetings and will issue its concluding observations and recommendations at the end of the session on 25 July.

The United Kingdom is one of the 161 States parties to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and is obligated to submit periodic reports on implementation of the provisions of the Covenant. It is also one of the 66 States parties to the Second Optional Protocol to the Covenant, which aims at the abolition of the death penalty.

The United Kingdom’s delegation, which presented the report, also included representatives from the Ministry of Justice; the Home Office; the Northern Ireland Office; the Ministry of Defence; the United Kingdom Border Authority; the National Offender Management Service; the Department for Communities and the Local Government and Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

When the Committee next reconvenes in public, at 3 p.m. on Wednesday, 9 July, it is scheduled to begin its consideration of the fourth periodic report of France (CCPR/C/FRA/4).

Report of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The sixth periodic report of the United Kingdom (CCPR/C/GBR/6) notes the British Government’s says the international and domestic context in which the country has promoted human rights has significantly changed as a result of the rising number of terrorist attacks in the world, such as in the United States of America on 11 September 2001, Bali on 12 October 2002, Istanbul on 20 November 2003, Madrid on 11 March 2004 and London on 7 July 2005. The United Kingdom continues to respond to the rising terrorist threat based on the principle that acts of terrorism are crimes and, as such, must be vigorously prosecuted by law. The country’s domestic legislation is being adapted to respond to this changing threat but will also be balanced with the respect for human rights. The United Kingdom’s long experience in counter-terrorism also teaches that respect for human rights is vital for long-term success in the fight against terrorism. It says that the country is keeping within boundaries of article 4 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights; however, in maintaining human rights standards, States also have the flexibility to restrict some rights in specific circumstances if such restrictions are lawful and proportionate.

In July 2006, the Government published the “Review of the Implementation of the Human Rights Act”. The review concluded that: the Government remains fully committed to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and to the way in which it is given effect in British law by the Human Rights Act; the Government is conducting a thorough review of how police, probation, parole and prison services balance public protection and individual rights and, if necessary, will legislate to ensure that public protection is given priority; there will be a major push for the provision of better and more consistent guidance and training on human rights within Government, with specific reference to areas in which such guidance is currently lacking; the Government will revise and strengthen generic guidance on human rights for public sector managers, placing particular emphasis upon safety arguments; the Government must take a proactive, strategic and co-ordinated approach to human rights litigation, so that it has the maximum possible impact on future case law under the Human Rights Act; and the Government will lead a drive to ensure that the public as well as the wider public sector are better informed about the benefits which the Act has given ordinary people, and to debunk many of the myths which have grown up around the Convention rights.

Presentation of Report

ROWENA COLLINS-RICE, Director General for Democracy and Constitutional Law of the United Kingdom, introducing the report, said that the Government had undergone a number of consultations with civil society in preparing the report. The Government took its obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights very seriously. One of the greatest challenges of any Government was integrating public safety and security with civil rights. The Government had a profound responsibility to reduce harm to the public. The United Kingdom’s commitment to the protection and promotion of human rights in the country and abroad remained firm.

The Human Rights Act was a vital means of transforming the United Kingdom’s culture and legislative reforms, Ms. Collins-Rice said. Some officials working in the public sector lacked the necessary confidence to apply the Act in a balanced way in their day-to-day work. As a result, over 100,000 copies of a handbook called “Human Rights, Human Lives” had been created and distributed to the wider public sector. Feedback had been positive, and many who were surveyed said it had been informative and helpful to them in performing their duties.

Ms. Collins-Rice noted that the Human Rights Act had been subjected to hostility since its inception. However, in 2006 a survey was conducted and 87 percent were in favour of an act to protect citizens. Misleading or incorrect news stories in the media and others sectors had also been addressed with the implementation of the new Act, to reduce the number of misleading or inaccurate reporting on cases where violations of human rights had been identified.

The Government firmly believed that giving young people the opportunity to learn about human rights would provide an important foundation to the building of a human rights culture in the country. It had therefore established a standing Equalities and Human Rights Commission, bringing together three previous commissions, which had the power to enforce human rights legislation. Its remit was to champion human rights and equality for all, reduce inequality, protect human rights and build respect within the community, Ms. Collins-Rice explained.

Legislation for a Scottish human rights commission was currently being set-up with the intent to commence at the end of 2008, Ms. Collins-Rice added. The commission would be able to review and recommend changes to Scottish law and have legal powers to make changes and enter places of detention.

The United Kingdom did not have a bill of rights that existed as a single document, Ms. Collins-Rice pointed out. However, the possession of constitutional rights and freedoms was an inherent part of being a member of society in the United Kingdom. The unwritten constitution provided a basis for fundamental rights and responsibilities that had been a model for many other democracies. The United Kingdom was currently considering whether codification of constitutional rights would have a beneficial effect on their social and political rights. An articulation of the rights to education and health care – which were not covered specifically by the human rights acts – were also being considered for inclusion in the new bill.

Replies of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Incorporation of the Covenant in Domestic Law

Turning to replies to written questions by Experts submitted in advance, the delegation said that incorporation of the Covenant into national law was deemed unnecessary, but the Government continued to keep that issue under review.

The Government had also ratified the Covenant on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women. That was accepted and used as an example review mechanism process, on which the Government hoped to publish the outcomes by the end of the summer. With regard to the Overseas Territories, they had separate constitutions and had been granting substantial responsibility for law making.

Reservations to the Covenant

The reservation to article 11 was currently being withdrawn, the delegation said, and the reservation to article 10, on the separate detention of minors, was currently being reviewed. The reservation needed to be retained for Scotland, however, because youth aged 16 and over could be detained in young offenders’ institutions alongside people up to the age of 21, although wherever possible those under 18 are held in separate living accommodation within young offenders’ institutions. The United Kingdom considers the general reservation on armed forces and service had to remain as, if removed, it would have a negative effect on the armed forces activities.

Situation in Northern Ireland

The 1998 Belfast Agreement included specific rights and protections. There was an active presence of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, established under the Agreement in 1999, to hold Government accountable for promotion and protection of human rights. The Belfast Agreement also tasked the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission with advising the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on the scope for defining rights supplementary to those in the European Convention on Human Rights, to reflect the particular circumstances of Northern Ireland. In 2006, a Bill of Rights Forum, made up of representatives of all the main political parties and civic society had been established to assist that process.

Violence against women was not unique to Northern Ireland, but this issue had been addressed with due importance, the delegation said, noting that the Government had set aside 4 million pounds to address strategies to tackle this issue. A number of support services have also been set-up.

Sexual Discrimination

Appendix one to the United Kingdom’s replies showed a significant increase in the number of women in Parliament, the delegation said. Since the passage of the Sex Discrimination (Elections Candidates) Act in 2002, the trend had gone upwards. On 3 July 2008, the Justice Secretary had committed the Government to the act beyond 2015.

Women holding judicial posts had also increased, the delegation noted, and judicial strategies were under way to ensure a more balanced judiciary. The number of women in courts has increased from 14 per cent to 19 per cent.

Counter-terrorism Law

Section 44 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 gave the police the right to stop and search, which had been intelligence-led. The powers within counter-terrorism legislation, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and the Crime and Police Act of 1994 were not aimed any religion or group, they were aimed at criminals. Stop and searches were likely to be more effective when used with accurate and up-to-date intelligence. With specific reference to the Terrorism Act powers, when used within reason it was found to be a useful deterrent against terrorism. Such searches had to be authorized by senior police officers and only when he/she deemed it expedient for the prevention of acts of terrorism. It was important that that Stop and Search remained a deterrent power to make it more difficult for terrorists to commit crimes.

There were some concerns about such powers, such as those from members of the Muslim communities, the delegation acknowledged. To address that, the Government was committed to improving and developing a close partnership with Muslim communities to combat terrorism. The Home Affairs of the House of Commons continued to report on this issue.

Racial Discrimination

An action plan had been agreed in 2003 and brought into being a number of recommendations, identifying a number of areas for development with respect to race equality, the delegation said. The action plan aimed to reform prison services. The plan was scheduled to end in 2008. It also allowed for a complaint mechanism, to be used once all the internal systems had been exhausted. All the prisons had a race equality officer.

Scotland had launched an equality scheme in 2005, the delegation said, and the many improvements to general policies and functions had enabled them to have equality across their general policies. Northern Ireland also worked on this issue, keeping records the number of complaints on the grounds of racial inequality.

Public Inquiries in Northern Ireland

The Inquiries Act had been established in 2004. Government departments and agencies were cooperating fully and hoped to complete reports in 2010. Prosecutions have already been brought in the Wright and Hamel cases. The Government had always been clear that any inquiry be followed under the Inquiry Act. National Security and the person’s right to life were taken into account during the process of any inquiry.

Use of AEPs by Police and Armed Forces in Northern Ireland

The use of “Attenuating Energy Projectiles” had caused controversy in the United Kingdom, the delegation said. The Government believed that they have developed an integrated approach and best practices. The United Kingdom steering group had been established to develop alternative measures for policing. The Attenuating Energy Projectiles operated differently and were less violent than its predecessor. Introduced in 2005 to all police forces and army in the United Kingdom, the Attenuating Energy Projectiles did not pose a serious risk to injury and life. Since then, four incidents have been recorded in Northern Ireland and 28 in Great Britain. In Northern Ireland all discharges had to be reported. However, only in 2005 had they received two reports. Attenuating Energy Projectiles were only used after other methods, such as water canons, had been exhausted. Children were of great priority and use of Attenuating Energy Projectiles was prohibited if children were present. The Government remained committed; they were not complacent and were looking to other less violent methods to contain crowd violence.

Evidence Obtained Under Torture

The Government condemned the use of torture and evidence obtained through such acts was deemed inadmissible in court cases, the delegation stressed. That had been a priority since 1998. In relation to the deportation of terrorist suspects, an individual’s removal from the country should be done in a manner consistent with the United Kingdom’s international obligations and that the rights of individuals being returned were protected in accordance with internationally accepted standards.

Military Detention Overseas

The delegation noted that United Kingdom troops received regular and thorough training on their obligations to detainees. United Kingdom Criminal Law applied to United Kingdom forces wherever they were in the world. There was no scope given to senior officers where they could interfere with such investigations. The prosecuting authority was independent of the military command. Reparations were made to individuals’ families for cases where laws had been broken regarding detainees.

Maximum Period for Pre-Charge Detention

Anyone arrested for terrorism would appear in front of a judge within 48 hours and necessary information had to be presented to further detain that person beyond that time frame. If there were reasonable grounds to further detain someone to acquire relevant evidence, the court could grant that extension. There had not been a case where the detention under the existing pre-charge detention had been unlawful.

Control Orders

In situations where the Government could neither deport nor prosecute someone, control orders were used to control the risk those individuals posed to society. As of 10 June 2008 only 15 control orders were in force and a total of 37 individuals had been subjected to such an order in the three years since Act had been passed. Every order was subject to mandatory review by the High Court. The Government noted with pleasure that the highest court in the country had upheld the Control Order and no other instruments could be weakened as such. The Government was disappointed that the 18-hour curfews were rejected by the court. The Government had been left in a stronger position when the House of Lords agreed that 12- or 14-hour curfews were not infringing on human rights.

Detention of Asylum Seekers

Immigration detention was only used while the identity of person was being established, the delegation said. It was imposed on a case-by-case basis. Such detention had to keep to the minimum period necessary for the purpose for which it was authorized and appropriate, and was subject to judicial oversight. All individuals at the point of detention were given the reasons for their detention. Information on how to seek legal advice was provided at the time of detention and opportunities to apply for release on bail were also provided.

Cases of Misconduct in the Prisons

It was noted that the figures averaged a small sampling of members of staff. The Home Office has included a full range of cases from misconduct. To combat misconduct in the prison service the standard unit had put into place systems to eradicate misconduct from all prison systems; such as a hotline service providing individuals privacy to make anonymous calls to reporting such conduct. The Government would continue to work on fully eradicating misconduct in the prisons, the delegation said.

Oral Questions by Committee Experts

Experts then made a number of comments and posed oral questions to the delegation. Several Experts said that it was still not clear from the report how the situation of the protection of human rights in Northern Ireland differed from that in the rest of the United Kingdom. The figure for the percentage of Black or ethnic minorities in the Northern Irish police force cited in the delegation’s written replies – 0.31 per cent – was surprising, and clarification was requested. Regarding the cases of deaths at the hands of military police officials, why had the Government taken so long to proceed on those cases? Further, if the law protecting the information of facts on incidents such as in the Firkan case prevented the families from finding out more about the underlying facts, what would be the sort of security situations that would arise from this case if information were published? Also on justice procedures, how were judges and magistrates kept informed on custodial processes in prisons, what methods were used to reduce overcrowding in prisons and were there any provisions for visits in prisons?

Experts noted the United Kingdom’s anti-terrorist law with regret, as well as the fact that the United Kingdom did not envisage the incorporation of the Covenant in domestic law.

With respect to the British Territories, it was asked what the situation was today and what solutions if any had been found, specifically with regard to the right of those peoples to return to their home, and if those persons had the right to a passport?

An Expert was particularly concerned about the case of someone who had expelled from the United Kingdom to Algeria. That person had been held for a period of two years without charges and then was sent home. There was no evidence of reproach or charges, nor any evidence of habeas corpus being conducted. Moreover, the Government of Algeria had submitted a claim to the Committee that that person had been a victim of torture. The delegation was asked for further details on this case.

On reservations, Experts recommended that the whole of the reservation to article 10 be withdrawn. With regard to the free movement within the territory, it was found to be puzzling that people protected by the Crown did not have the right to move freely within the territory. A number of reservations were urged to be withdrawn on the basis that they were created long ago and had no significant relevance any longer. The general reservation on discipline of members of the armed forces and prisoners carved-out an enormous lacuna. Those reservations deserved a thorough scrub and a withdrawal in part if not in whole of those reservations would be welcome, as it sets a bad example for other countries.

On justice issues, with regard to evidence found to be obtained by methods of torture, one needed to be more clear on what “found” included, and what the definition of “practicability” included, an Expert said. Had any citizens been the subject of a Control Order yet? Was it civil, criminal or quasi terrorism? It was asked how the United Kingdom justified the fact that there was no requirement for reason of suspicion to use stop and search powers.

On the deportation of migrants and asylum-seekers, the delegation was asked for clarification on the information in the written replies that arrangements for assurances in destination countries be made. What were those arrangements and how did monitoring bodies verify assurances once the person had left the country? Also, what were the views of the Government of applicability of human rights conventions, in particular in the case of Iraq, an Expert asked? Also, did detainees have easy access to the handbook on detention rules?

With regard to pre-charge detention, Experts noted a pattern a creeping extension of the length of detention without charge. The United Kingdom had possibly the longest possible pre-charge detention in Europe.

The Civil Partnership Act 2004, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, the Equality Act 2006 and the Sex Discrimination Regulations 2008 were all warmly welcomed. An Expert said those were all examples extending the protection of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In that regard, to what extent the Government was considering extending those provisions to Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies?

Responses of the Delegation to Oral Questions

The delegation noted that the United Kingdom Government viewed its international obligations under international law seriously. The Government fully supported the Covenant and promoted its global ratification. Given the Government’s long respect for human rights, it was not always necessary to pass new laws, given existing international instruments. In addition, the Government had kept its reservations to the Covenant under review.

On justice issues, the delegation said that control orders under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 could be applied to British citizens (as well as foreign nationals). Of the 15 control orders issued so far, 3 had been with respect to British citizens. Control Orders were not criminal, but rather civil orders. The orders had to be propionate to the threat posed by the individual. Regarding stop and search, the power was intended to be a deterrent as well as to catch criminals. Cases of deportation with assurances were verified by through independent monitoring bodies, provided for by the memorandums of understanding under which they were affected. What constituted adequate assurances depended on the case.

The delegation noted in the case of Saadi v. Italy in the European Court of Human Rights the Government had argued for a balancing test. They had argued that it was not right that only the human rights of the deportee were considered and that the rights of his victims would not be.

The delegate said the United Kingdom did not have the longest term of pre-charge detention in Europe. Under the supervision of a magistrate, in France, Spain or Italy there could be much longer detention terms. Various supposed alternatives, such as the threshold test, had already been used.

On Northern Ireland, the delegation noted that the Government continued to press towards the devolution of rights there. It was true that the number of police from who were from a black or ethnic minority background was 0.39 per cent. That was owing to the fact that less than 0.5 percent of the population were from a black or ethnic minority background in Northern Ireland.

On the use of Attenuating Energy Projectiles, the delegation said that there had been no officially reported injuries since their introduction in 2005. They were aware of the reports that alleged injuries were caused by these projectiles. However, it remained critical that the Government follow those cases closely as they were not officially recorded cases. Each inquiry had been the subject of multiple legal challenges, which had added to the time taken to process such cases. In the case of Firkan, a final report had been sent out at the end of the investigation, and as much of it as possible has been made public. However, some pieces of information relating to the case which were too sensitive had not been made public.

Regarding citizenship, the British Nationality Act determined who was entitled to citizenship. Those with other forms of British nationalities, such as British overseas nationals, had to qualify under British immigration rules, as did all applicants. Under the 1981 British Nationality Act, children who might become stateless had been allowed to acquire British citizenship. The British Nationality Act 1981 was limited for only those born after 1961. The Government hoped to extend the provision, to apply to all children born to a commonwealth mother, who qualify the registration process regardless of the year in which they were born.

A delegate noted that individuals detained in Northern Ireland were held with the intention to be transferred within 24 hours to Britain. The Government’s general principle was that removal of detainees had to be made within reasonable time.

The delegation said that support was provided to unsuccessful asylum applicants unable to leave the United Kingdom, who for medical reasons could request an extension, under section 4 of the Asylum Act 1999. The most vulnerable people, such as young children and pregnant women, had been brought under the Act most recently.

Concerning the outcomes of the race equality action plans in the prison system, the delegation observed that the Government had deployed outreach teams to support governors in implementing the programmes locally. Regarding overcrowding, the recommendations of an independent report had been accepted by the Government and 1.2 billion pounds had been allocated to prisons to create 10,500 additional places. All visits to prison were in open rooms. Only in security cases might there be a partition. Family contact was viewed as extremely important.

The delegation said that human rights law applied to missions overseas. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, however, applied within a State’s territory. It could only have affect outside that territory in some cases. It could in principle apply in cases where someone had been taken into custody by the military outside the country. The Government invited monitoring bodies to enter spaces of detention to rule out any human rights abuses.

The primary responsibility for ensuring human rights protections fell on the Territorial governments, although the United Kingdom was responsible for its international obligations, the delegation continued. Corporal punishment, for example, still took place in some schools in the Territories, specifically in the Caribbean territories. The United Kingdom had not insisted on the abolition of that practice to date.

Further Questions by the Committee

In a second round of questions, Experts raised a number of issues and asked questions on a variety of subjects, including on the difficulty in comparing procedures for pre-charged detentions with the civil code of procedure; whether the use of threshold tests would be more widely used; when were medical examinations performed upon detention; and at what point was the detainee able to contact their family.

An Expert noted that reasonable suspicion was not much of a predicate and to say Control Orders were a civil law was not comforting. There was a big difference between a stop and search taking place when one was walking home from work and when one was entering the airport. That should have been carefully considered.

With regard to genetics, what legislation was available regarding assurances that genetic information gathered in police investigations would be protected? In a number of criminal investigations complaints based on genetic searches had been made. How long were genetic databases kept after an offence was committed?

Responses by the Delegation to Oral Questions

Responding on the issue of pre-charge detention, the delegation said the United Kingdom had a different legal system to other countries in Europe and it was difficult to make comparisons between civil and common law. The threshold tests were conducted as often as possible, given the case and the circumstance surrounding it. There was an extension code of practice governing detention, including rules ensuring that detainees held for four days were visited by a healthcare professional. Control orders were civil law orders. The operation of stop and search practices were left to the discretion of the senior police officer.

As for the laws in the Overseas Territories, the Government had to respect the constitutional sovereignty of the Overseas Territories. The Government had not insisted to date on the abolition of corporal punishment, but that did not mean it would never do so. The delegation further noted that a written notice had been sent on the outstanding matters.

Further Responses of the Delegation to Written Questions Submitted in Advance

Deportation from the Cayman Islands

It was the responsibility of the Governor of the Cayman Islands to decide on deportation from that territory, the delegation said. No person had been deported from the Cayman Islands based on being destitute or undesirable. In the cases of the 46 people deported between 2005 and 2007, those deportations had been based on a serious criminal basis.

Terrorism Act 2000

The delegation said that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Code H did provide police with the ability to delay access to legal advice from a solicitor nominated by the detainee. However, the detainee would still be able to choose another solicitor. Such a delay could only be authorized by an officer of Superintendent rank and could only be given if the office had reasonable grounds to do so.

Antisocial Behaviour Orders

The Anti Social Behaviour Order was a civil order imposed before the defendant committed an offence, and it became a criminal offence if the order was breached. A study concluded that these orders were not bringing a whole new group of youth into custody, the delegation underscored. These offenders were prolific, and further research by the Youth Justice Board had confirmed that finding.

Incitement to Racial or Religious Hatred / Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008

The Government deplored all religious or religious-motivated attacks, the delegation said. British Muslims had to be free from fear of attack and hatred. Those people were afforded the same freedoms and rights as all British citizens had. The Government was fully committed to engage with faith and non-faith communities to build tolerance and cooperation. The Government had recently strengthened its race legislation, in particular with regard to racially or religious motivated aggravated assault.

The Government also believed that persons who glorified terrorism created an environment where terrorism was more likely to take place, the delegation added. To be considered prosecutable on grounds of glorification, statements had to be understood to encourage members of the public to commit such acts. That was compatible with the Covenant’s article 19 obligations. Such measures had not shown any evidence of curbing freedom of speech.

The delegation noted that the criminal justice system reviewed all cases on the law of incitement of hatred equally. All five recent cases had been prosecuted through the courts and tried by a jury in the same manner. The Government recognized that hate crime could be motivated by many means and such the need for local and international data was necessary.

State employees who made damaging comments without the lawful authority to do so could be prosecuted under the Act.

Prisoners Rights

The delegation noted that the Government was considering what the best approach to prison enfranchisement. The Government had taken into account the wide range of views within the country, the court orders and traditions and context of the United Kingdom. A consultation paper had been published in 2006 and the consultation completed in 2007. A more detailed consultation was under way.

Further Oral Questions by Committee Experts

In a third round of questions, Experts asked about a number of justice issues, among others, whether the rule permitting detention for 48 hours without legal representation by the individual’s chosen lawyer could be abolished; what was the precise meaning and guideline for use of the term anti social behaviour, and how were the best interests of children met and ensured in court cases involving Anti Social Behaviour Orders; what had been the outcomes in the 25 non-jury (Diplock) cases adjudicated; and what were the circumstances or reasons which guide the process for selecting a non-jury.

An Expert felt that the United Kingdom’s anti-terrorism laws affecting freedom of speech were extremely worrying, saying those laws infringed on the state of a viable democracy. The very broad definition of publication was also troublesome, broad and had extraterritorial effects.

Further Responses by the Delegation to Oral Questions

Regarding the practical arrangements for legal advice available for terrorist detainees, the delegation said that detainees had the option to be represented by his own solicitor, or to select a duty solicitor from a list provided as legal representation. As such it was noted that there was no need for an extension of the duty solicitor scheme.

The Government was aware that there had been two arrests for the new offence of ‘encouragement of terrorism’ under the Terrorism Act 2006, and was working with the police to further refine Government statistics on this.

On the Anti Social Behaviour Orders, there were rights of the accused and a process of protection, including advocacy assistance, available to all such cases. Children were protected based on the needs assessed once the young person concerned had been arrested. Substantial detail on guidance had been provided to all police and courts. The Government had no policy for naming or shaming young individuals and the human rights of those individuals had always been taken into account. The Government had introduced legislation which had widened the range of such orders.

Regarding non-jury versus jury-based trials, cases that had been under way or previously held under the Diplock legislation were subject to review with a jury. Only 25 certificates had been received for non-jury trials of the cases brought since the new legislation had been introduced. Cases were given certificates based on fear and insecurity of the jurors given the trial specifics.

Concerning efforts to tackle racism and intolerance, the delegation agreed that legislation was not enough on its own and it was noted that the strategy within the country had been underpinned by an 18-million-pound project fund. The Government had put a duty on primary schools to promote community cohesion and in secondary schools to teach national, cultural and religious identity within the country. The Government had focused on prevention through grassroots community programmes as well. There had always been a longstanding principle of freedom of religious expression in the country. The Lord Chief Justice and faith leaders have encouraged informed public debate on the space within the law for one to practice freedom of expression of religion.

Concluding Remarks

RAFAEL RIVAS POSADA, Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee, in concluding remarks, said he hoped that the United Kingdom would incorporate all the provisions of the Covenant into domestic legislation. The United Kingdom had a singular situation on a number of reservations and the justifications given had not been clearly explained. The Committee continued to promote the withdrawal of these reservations with States Parties. The arguments made on detention were not convincing with regard to preventative detention specifically. The boundary between theoretical literal expression of terrorism and real incitement of acts of terrorism was also not clear, and might lend itself to a dangerous situation within the field of human rights.

Mr. Rivas Posada noted the right of asylum guaranteed the safeguard of individuals. The Committee remained inflexible on that and the United Kingdom had to establish clear border lines on what was and what was not admissible. The Committee believed that it was extremely important that States approve legislation to protect human rights and that they were applied in practice. The report lacked information on the results, reality and statistical information on what the policies and legislation really meant. It was hoped that on future occasions, after all consultations and draft legislation in progress had been completed, that a better picture of the reality of human rights in country would be provided.

The Committee’s interpretation remained firm that State parties’ responsibilities remained to protect human rights in their territory and in the territories under their jurisdiction, Mr. Rivas Posada said. The fundamental principle of the Covenant was to protect the rights of individuals and therefore the international commitment made by States parties should be realized.
_______

For use of the information media; not an official record