UK Supreme Court - deportation of prisoners

By Katherine Tsang

A Jamaican drug dealer called Keno Forbes also known as‘Blood’ was convicted of selling Class A drugs on a housing estate in North London. He was jailed for three years at Blackfriars Court. The home office wanted to deport Forbes however, the office failed to do so because human rights laws. Any criminal jailed for more than 3 months is eligible for automatic deportation. Under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, one has the right to have a private and family life. Forbes’s lawyer appealed using such reason saying that deporting Forbes will damage his marriage. Forbes is now allowed to stay in the country but is banned from the London borough. 

Picture Credit - The Telegraph

The Home Office is very disappointed about  the judgment. ‘We firmly believe foreign nationals who break the law should be deported.’ said the Home office spokesman. Mr Justice McCloskey described the case as a ‘borderline case’.  

From this case, we can see than European laws are superior then UK law and it is out of the hands of Parliament. The Humans Rights Act will also thwart government policies in areas such as order measures. The number of foreign criminals deportation has been increasing each year and the judgment of this case has certainly affected the immigration bill.

UK Supreme Court - Prisoners' Right to Vote

Hurst v The UK (2005)

Picture Credit - The Guardian

By Vincent Chow

No prisoners serving a sentence in the UK are allowed to vote. The on-going debate in the UK concerning the question of whether prisoners should be allowed to vote in elections can largely be attributed to the European Court of Human Rights ruling in 2005, that the UK’s disenfranchisement of all prisoners contravenes the European Convention of Human Rights.

Ever since that fateful day in 2005, the issue of prisoners’ right to vote has become a mainstay of the UK political scene. The issue has traversed various debates, capable of evoking a wide array of discussions ranging from voting rights and the treatment of criminals, to Parliament’s sovereignty and the relationship between British European law.

Why then haven’t any prisoners been given the right to vote since the European Court’s ruling?

It is because the Human Rights Act only instructs Parliament to pass legislation that is compatible with the ECHR (European Convention of Human Rights). The HRA does not entrench these rights into British law, therefore preserving Parliament’s sovereignty.

This fact is reflected by the Supreme Court’s dismissals of the appeals of Chester and McGeoch in October 2013. The two convicted murderers argued that they should be allowed to vote in European elections, because the ECHR allows them to do so.

In his calls for the Supreme Court to dismiss the two appeals, Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, argued that the Court is not bound to apply the ECHR to UK law, only take them into account when ruling on the legality of any UK legislation.

In its ruling, the court ultimately agreed with Grieve’s arguments, maintaining that the issue of prisoners’ right to vote still remains a matter for national Parliaments: “Eligibility to vote in member states is basically a matter for national legislatures."

However, the government has conceded that they must introduce reforms, largely because of political reasons. They are reluctant to set a precedent where they outright defy an international convention of which the UK is a signatory of.

This is why there is currently a draft bill being passed through Parliament, and is being scrutinized by a cross-party committee. It represents a compromise between MPs who completely oppose any prisoners being given the vote, and Parliament’s international obligations to comply with the ECHR.

The Supreme Court’s involvement in this issue is significant because it illustrates the awkward position the judiciary is often put into in legal matters where European law directly conflicts with UK law. The Supreme Court’s ruling on the two prisoners’ appeals had little to no impact on Parliament. Even though the Supreme Court ruled that Parliament’s existing ban on prisoner’s voting is legal under UK law, Parliament is still expected to introduce reforms to allow some prisoners the vote in order to fulfill European obligations. 

UK Supreme Court Cases - Protesters

Richardson vs. DPP – 2014 – Protesters trespassed illegally

By Jessica Tsao

Two men (Richardson and Wilkinson) entered a shop in Covent Garden with the intention of stopping shop trading. They did this by locking their arms inside of a concrete tube, which they placed on the floor. They believed that trading methods of the shop (Ahava) was unlawful, since the brand claims that its products are made in Israel when in fact, the shop is run by the subsidiary of an Israeli company operating in the West Bank (which is not considered to be part of Israel). Hence, Richardson and Wilkinson accused Ahava of breaching consumer protection legislation, and the Hague Convention on the Law and Customs of War on Land (prohibiting exploitation of resources in the area) and cheating the revenue.

The Magistrates’ court had announced that the shop could not be charged for their actions of unlawful trading since the company had not been prosecuted and its defense arguments are not tested. However, the two men were arrested for aggravated trespass and conducting unlawful activity under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.

Finally, the Supreme Court had dismissed the appeal. Overall, the manufacturing company’s actions were not seen as an offence and on top of that, the district judge found that a consumer who was willing to buy Israeli products would care less if they were to be produced in the Occupied Territory.

The Court of Appeal’s decision is likely to limit the future availability of the defense that the activity interrupted was unlawful. This would have a substantial impact on the course of future prosecutions of activists. Furthermore, judges would have to consider the ECHR when undergoing the dealings of this case.

A good example for students when contemplating the impact of protesters on companies; they are less able to claim as a defense that the company is operating illegally.

UK Supreme Court and Human Rights - Full Life Sentence

David Oakes and others v the Crown

By Sophie Nixon

Whole life sentence upheld by Appeal Court, overturning European decision.

What were the cases about?

In their ruling the Court of Appeal judges upheld the sentence of whole life imprisonment given to one killer, David Oakes. He tortured and shot his partner and their daughter inEssex, before attempting to turn the gun on himself.

But the court replaced the whole life tariff for three other serious offenders:

Danilo Restivo, who mutilated his neighbour in Bournemouth and was found guilty of another murder in Italy, was told he would receive a 40-year minimum term.

Two other rapists were given minimum terms to replace their whole life tariffs.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, said it was highly unlikely any of the men could ever be released because of the danger they posed to society.

What was the judgement?

Lord Judge said that Parliament had clearly legislated to allow judges to hand down whole life sentences without the possibility of release - and that the European Court had already accepted it could not intervene.

The Lord Chief Justice and four judges said jail without the possibility of release should be "reserved for the few exceptionally serious offences". He said judges must be convinced those sentenced to whole life need to be held forever for punishment and retribution. The judgement effectively sends a signal to the Strasbourg judges that the courts in England and Wales are content that whole life tariffs are justified and that the power to jail someone forever should not be overturned.

What was the impact (if any)?

The Court of Appeal has upheld the principle of whole life sentences for the most dangerous of offenders, saying it does not breach human rights.

The power to imprison someone forever is reserved for offenders judged to be the most dangerous to society and currently applies to 46 people in jail. Other life term prisoners can be released on licence if they can prove they are no longer a risk to society.

One of the strongest arguments for the whole-life tariff is that even the serial killer at the centre of a landmark ruling, argued that he should die in jail for his crimes. Ian McLoughlin, who has killed on three separate occasions, told the court the family of his latest victim “deserves to know I will never be released”.

One of the strongest arguments against the whole-life tariff came in a disturbing letter a prisoner wrote a few months after he was sentenced to life.

"I am sitting in the segregation unit and have been for a number of weeks. I was involved in a stabbing (not fatal) on the wing. You see how I can admit in a letter to an offence as serious as that. It's because the judge when he sentenced me to natural life gave me an invisible licence that said that I can breach any laws I want, no matter how serious, and the law can't touch me. I'm above the law. I said to the governor, don't waste any money on investigations, just give me another life sentence for my collection. They don't mean anything any more."

Why is it important for a politics student to know?

There are two differing opinions as to whether the introduction a whole-life tariff goes against the European convention on Human Rights.

Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, heading a panel of five appeal judges, said whole-life tariffs were “entirely compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights”. He added: “Judges should therefore continue as they have done to impose whole-life orders on the rare and exceptional cases which fall within the statutory scheme.”

However, British appeal judges have directly contradicted the European human rights court and backed “life means life” sentences for the most heinous murderers.

Also lawyers argue that it is an infringement of article three of the European convention on human rights, which gives protection against "inhuman and degrading treatment". That case was heard at the first chamber of the European court. After it was rejected, lawyers applied to the grand chamber, which granted a rare appeal. If the appeal succeeds, ministers would have to create a system of examining whole-life criminals at regular intervals to see if they are safe to let out. At the moment, the assumption is they will simply die in prison.

UK Supreme Court Cases - Hicks and Ors

By Ben Jenkins

Anti-royal protestors, 2011. Picture Credit: The Guardian

Hicks and Ors v The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Polics

Before the Royal Wedding in April, 2011, many, peaceful, royalist protestors and even a zombieflash mob were arrested by the police under the pre-emptive suspicion of committinga crime during the Royal Wedding. The police were under the impression that a “known anarchist” was in the London vicinity, which probably enhanced the tension and fear of suspected terrorist attacks. It is obviously questionable that the police acted in this way as a method of "suppressing anti-monarchist sentiment" that was probably obstructing the momentous event that was the Royal Wedding, a source of renewal for national pride and the day where the media from all across the globe would be entirely focused on Britain. This case is a clear example of how someone’s Human Rights were breached, in this case, by the police. Those arrested by the police were stunned by such brutal action and sought a judicial review to look into and to shed light upon why they, peaceful protestors, were arrested without a crime taking place.

As stated in the title, the arrests were deemed to be legal by the high court, however Article 5 states that there must be an intention to bring those arrested to court, which the police admit to not having such an intention, further giving weight to the breach of their Human Rights. The impact of this entailed huge repercussions for any future national events, the Olympics later in 2012 for example, creating far more stringent regulations on the policing and the methods of arresting alleged criminals. The arrestees intend to take the case to the Supreme Court after their appeals were dismissed by the court, and many critics have observed with a more…clinical eye of the arrests and how they were in direct opposition to democracy itself due to the police heavily influencing their right to freedom of speech and freedom to protest peacefully. 

This case is beneficial to politics students as it highlights an example of how someone’s Human Rights can be violated and perhaps it also touches on police brutality to some extent and possibly using the Royal Wedding to enhance the severity of police power, but maybe not. Additionally it demonstrates how judicial reviews are used in real-life circumstances and gives an example of the need for a far more concise and detailed Human Rights Act or Bill of Rights? 

An essential topic for any politics student.