However, after mature reflection, the judge ruled that even though deportation was conducive to the public good, this was not possible because of the risk that he might suffer torture at the hands of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency [ISI]. This would breach his human rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. His human rights?! What about ours?!
Not surprisingly, the new Home Secretary Theresa May was ‘disappointed’ by the ruling!
I have argued for some time that we do not need to ally ourselves to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The fact that we did had little to do with English human rights and much to do with Tony Blair’s European agenda. In 1997, after 18 years of Conservative Euroscepticism, Mr. Blair wanted to put down a marker and show solidarity with our European partners, and this was a good way to start.
I remember when the Act came into force; the judiciary to a man were appalled and wholly unpersuaded of its need. Our human rights have developed over the centuries – going right back to the Magna Carta – and by 1998, nobody but Blair was arguing that they needed a European shot in the arm. They were right, and the consequences of the Act have brought nothing but trouble and some ridiculous rulings, the most egregious of which having just been made by Mr. Justice Mitting.
In the past few weeks, immigration has been near the top of the most pressing concerns of the electorate. Some, like the Rochdale ‘bigot’, voiced them, others, in the best traditions of the Silent Majority, were not so forthcoming. The debate stuttered and faltered during the election campaign, with ‘immigration’ being the word that dare not speak its name.
The new coalition government has a serious conflict of interests to resolve if the likes of Mr. Justice Mitting are to be put back into their box. The Conservatives campaigned for the abolition of the Act, the LibDems for its retention. There has been some lofty talk of a Bill of Rights, but within the coalition there is a circle that needs to be squared. For my part, the sooner this poisoned chalice is dashed to the ground, the better for sanity and the safety of our fellow citizens.
As for the ruling itself, there are three obvious consequences. Firstly, a small fortune will now be spent by the police on keeping these terrorists under constant surveillance, and to add insult to injury, a third Pakistani from the same stable who was deported, also won his appeal in absentia and is now free to apply to return to this country.
Secondly, Pakistan has been branded a pariah State. Yet this country is at the forefront of the war against terrorism in its own back yard, and needs all the help and support it can get. Mr. Justice Mitting was told, but chose to ignore, that of the eight other detainees arrested by the police last April, all eight had returned voluntarily to Pakistan and were living unmolested by the ISI.
And finally, what of our own credentials? It was not so long ago that the press and media were full of graphic accounts of our complicity in ‘extraordinary rendition’. So when we ask for the extradition of alleged criminals and fugitives from justice, we could be met by the same absurd reasoning applied by Mr. Justice Mitting, namely that we are a pariah State with a recent track record in torture, in which case our application will be refused.
Somebody in government needs to do something quickly before we become the laughing stock of the civilised world, and an apology to Pakistan may not come amiss.
David Osborne
David was called to the English Bar in 1974 and to the Irish Bar in 1986. He is head of his own chambers based in London and Somerset. He offers specialist advice and representation in a wide variety of legal disciplines, and is accredited by the Bar Council to accept instructions direct from lay clients.
During his long and successful career, David has appeared in the highest courts in the land, including the Old Bailey, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. He is the author of the popular blog, The Barrister Bard. You can visit his website at http://www.david-osborne.com.
I remember when the Act came into force; the judiciary to a man were appalled and wholly unpersuaded of its need. Our human rights have developed over the centuries – going right back to the Magna Carta – and by 1998, nobody but Blair was arguing that they needed a European shot in the arm. They were right, and the consequences of the Act have brought nothing but trouble and some ridiculous rulings, the most egregious of which having just been made by Mr. Justice Mitting.
In the past few weeks, immigration has been near the top of the most pressing concerns of the electorate. Some, like the Rochdale ‘bigot’, voiced them, others, in the best traditions of the Silent Majority, were not so forthcoming. The debate stuttered and faltered during the election campaign, with ‘immigration’ being the word that dare not speak its name.
The new coalition government has a serious conflict of interests to resolve if the likes of Mr. Justice Mitting are to be put back into their box. The Conservatives campaigned for the abolition of the Act, the LibDems for its retention. There has been some lofty talk of a Bill of Rights, but within the coalition there is a circle that needs to be squared. For my part, the sooner this poisoned chalice is dashed to the ground, the better for sanity and the safety of our fellow citizens.
As for the ruling itself, there are three obvious consequences. Firstly, a small fortune will now be spent by the police on keeping these terrorists under constant surveillance, and to add insult to injury, a third Pakistani from the same stable who was deported, also won his appeal in absentia and is now free to apply to return to this country.
Secondly, Pakistan has been branded a pariah State. Yet this country is at the forefront of the war against terrorism in its own back yard, and needs all the help and support it can get. Mr. Justice Mitting was told, but chose to ignore, that of the eight other detainees arrested by the police last April, all eight had returned voluntarily to Pakistan and were living unmolested by the ISI.
And finally, what of our own credentials? It was not so long ago that the press and media were full of graphic accounts of our complicity in ‘extraordinary rendition’. So when we ask for the extradition of alleged criminals and fugitives from justice, we could be met by the same absurd reasoning applied by Mr. Justice Mitting, namely that we are a pariah State with a recent track record in torture, in which case our application will be refused.
Somebody in government needs to do something quickly before we become the laughing stock of the civilised world, and an apology to Pakistan may not come amiss.
David Osborne
David was called to the English Bar in 1974 and to the Irish Bar in 1986. He is head of his own chambers based in London and Somerset. He offers specialist advice and representation in a wide variety of legal disciplines, and is accredited by the Bar Council to accept instructions direct from lay clients.
During his long and successful career, David has appeared in the highest courts in the land, including the Old Bailey, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. He is the author of the popular blog, The Barrister Bard. You can visit his website at http://www.david-osborne.com.
Comments