Category Archives: Courts

Liberty’s AGM debate the HRA and European arrest warrants. They should be subject to serious debate, not party politics

How much longer will Dominic Grieve be with us?

Given the increasing Eurosceptic rhetoric from his Tory colleagues, one sometimes wonders, how long the attorney general, Dominic Grieve, is going to be with us. He was at it once more on Saturday at the AGM of Liberty, the civil rights campaigning organisation.

He does everything he can, he said, to explain the “benefits” of the Human Rights Act (HRA) and ensure that it was understood.

“It is misrepresented frequently”, he added, with “sensational headlines” in the media. He gave as an example the thoroughly misleading claim that the HRA prevented prisoners from being deprived of pornography.

(The attorney was also reminded how the HRA was wrongly blamed for the fatal hit and run accident which led to the death of that 12 year-old Amy Houston. The driver of the car was an Iraqi Kurd and failed asylum seeker. Her father described in an article for the Guardian how the fact that he was still in the UK was the result of Home Office errors — it did not try to deport him).

The shadow attorney general, Emily Thornberry, told the AGM that Labour was “completely committed to the Human Rights Act”. Simon Hughes, for the Lib Dems, said there was “no more important issue” over the coming few years than to protect the act.

One other Europe-related issue was the subject of an emergency motion: extradition reform. The motion, passed nem con, noted that “those resident in the UK can be extradited to foreign jurisdictions without a basic case first being made in a UK court”, and that “British judges have been unable to bar extradition on the grounds of ‘forum’ where allegedly activity has taken place in whole, or in substantial part, in the UK”.

The motion also referred to government amendments included in the Crime and Courts Act 2013 which removed the home secretary’s obligation to bar extradition where it would breach human rights after legal appeals had been exhausted, and also to clauses in the anti-social behaviour, crime, and policing bill that would remove appeal rights in extradition cases.

To many, the controversy over extradition means the US above all. To others, it means the European arrest warrant.

That warrant is widely praised when British criminals who have escaped are arrested in Spain. It is questioned when it leads to individuals being held for long period in poor conditions in continental jails for relatively trivial offences.

But the warrant is caught up in a wholly party political dispute — with the Tory Eurosceptic right wanting to abandon it as part of the series of EU “opt outs”, and the Lib Dems eager to retain it.

The European arrest warrant — which requires a member state to transfer its citizens without trial where there are claims that a crime has been committed elsewhere in the EU — should be the subject of a serious debate, uncluttered by partisan dogma.

Dominic Grieve: I do everything to explain benefits of Human Rights Act

Haulage firm arm bids for controversial contracts to provide lawyers in criminal trials amid protests from legal profession

The legal director of Stobart Barristers says he has received emails from solicitors with the heading ‘Truck Off’.

A subsidiary of the haulage firm Eddie Stobart has emerged as a leading contender in bidding for a new generation of criminal legal aid contracts that would deprive defendants of the right to choose their own solicitor.

Lawyers are planning protests outside parliament in opposition to the Ministry of Justice’s proposals, which aim to cut fees, reduce funding of judicial reviews and save a further £220m out of the legal aid budget.

The row within the legal profession over the plans is intensifying. The head of Stobart Barristers has described traditional law firms who rely on legal aid as “‘wounded animals waiting to die” and accused rival lawyers of sending his firm messages urging it to “Truck Off”.

The MoJ’s most controversial proposal is the introduction of competitive tendering in contracts to provide lawyers for defendants in criminal trials.

In order to guarantee winning firms receive a sufficient number of cases each year, the MoJ is proposing to remove the right of defendants funded by legal aid to select their own solicitor.

The arrival of Stobart Barristers last year has reinforced fears among the wider legal profession. Stobart operates by connecting clients directly to barristers, cutting out the need for solicitors.

Trevor Howarth, its legal director, said the firm would be bidding for the new criminal defence contracts. “We can deliver the service at a cost that’s palatable for the taxpayer,” he said. “Our business model was developed with this in mind.

“We at Stobart are well known for taking out the waste and the waste here is the duplication of solicitors going to the courtroom. At the moment there are 1,600 legal aid firms; in future there will be 400. At Stobart, we wouldn’t use 10 trucks to deliver one product.”

Howarth said he had received emails from solicitors with the heading “Truck Off”. He added: “I have already taken calls from barristers [on our panels] who say they have been contacted by solicitors telling them they won’t use them again if they take instructions from us.”

On removing a defendant’s right to choose their solicitor, Howarth said: “I don’t think the lack of choice is damaging. [People are not] entitled to access justice with an open cheque. No one is stopping them paying for their own choice of solicitor.”

Barristers and solicitors held a protest meeting in Manchester last month. Another protest meeting by lawyers is being organised for 22 May outside parliament.

Under the plans, defendants on legal aid will no longer be able to choose which lawyer represents them in a police station or a magistrate’s court. They will still be able to choose which barrister represents them at crown court.

Paul Harris, president of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors’ Association, warned that the quality of legal representation would decline. “How is anyone facing serious criminal allegations going to feel being represented by a haulage company?” he asked. “The individual will have no choice. The state will prosecute you and then choose your lawyer. By removing choice, providers will have less incentive to compete on quality. We will end up with far more miscarriages of justice.”

The Bar Council, which represents barristers, has launched an online petition under the slogan “Say No to Cut Price Justice”. Maura McGowan QC, chairman of the Bar Council, said: “It is against the public interest to introduce a system where legal services are provided on cost alone, by the lowest bidder, and not on quality … where you have no choice of who represents you.”

Sadiq Khan MP, Labour’s justice spokesman, told the Law Society Gazette: “No one wants a second-rate system where you are forced to accept whatever representation you are given regardless of quality.”

An MoJ spokesperson said: “Quality-assured lawyers will still be available. Quality standards will be assessed as part of the tender process and we will ensure they are maintained by the lawyers who win contracts. We will continue to uphold everyone’s right to a fair trial, but with £1bn a year spent on criminal legal aid we have to look again at how to deliver better value for every penny of taxpayers’ money spent.”

Eddie Stobart drives into legal aid row

Why are our Gallic neighbours so much better at deporting terrorist suspects?

Abu Qatada: in France, he would have been on a plane to Amman as an act of judicially endorsed political will. The European convention would not have come into it.

One of the great mysteries of the Abu Qatada saga is why this country finds it so difficult to deport suspected foreign terrorists while France has no such problem. Here are two nations, both Western liberal democracies, both in the EU, both signatories to the European human rights convention and subject to the rulings of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Both face threats from Islamist extremists; and yet their approach to dealing with them is dramatically different. Between 2001 and 2010, the UK deported nine alleged jihadis who were deemed to pose a threat to national security. Over the same period, France removed 129.

Why the contrast? Many of those packed off by France were sent to countries such as Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, whose judicial systems are not widely thought to be paragons of compassion. Many of the deportees from France were Islamists whose only offence was to make disparaging remarks about the country rather than fanatics bent on fomenting violence.

Yet we are apparently unable to remove Abu Qatada, who arrived here under false pretences and was identified by MI5 as the most significant Islamic fundamentalist in Britain and an “inspiration” for terrorists both in this country and abroad. He chose his destination well when he came to Europe in 1993. Had he settled in Paris, he would certainly not still be there making a mockery of the French judicial system.

This disparity is the subject of a timely new book written by the counter-terrorism expert Frank Foley. He, too, had long been baffled by the varied approaches. And one thing that has become clear from his research is that the reason has little to do with the European court and much more to do with the different recent histories of the two countries and how their institutions have developed.

In the Commons last week, Theresa May became the fifth home secretary in succession forced to jump through a series of legal hoops to try to get rid of Abu Qatada. She announced that the UK had signed a treaty with Jordan aimed at persuading the Strasbourg court that if the imam were returned for trial the evidence against him would not have been extracted under torture. How that could be proven is anyone’s guess; but why do we have to go to such lengths at all? Is it to convince European judges or our own?

As Foley points out, in France “individuals only have limited means of preventing their deportation because of the relevant legal regulations and because of the swift expulsion practices of the French authorities”. Furthermore, an appeal does not suspend expulsion: the individual can still be deported to his home country and the appeal takes place in his absence. It is possible to petition the domestic courts to suspend a deportation but, says Foley, “the French authorities have pre-empted such legal moves by putting the individual on a plane home within just a few days of the order being issued”.

In Britain, by contrast, an appeal automatically halts a deportation; but that has nothing to do with Strasbourg and everything to do with the way we do things here. Since 1999, in the case of Algeria – whence most extremists come for historical reasons – “the French courts have not overturned any of the government’s deportation decisions on the basis that radical Islamists face a risk of torture or mistreatment if they are returned”.

However, in Abu Qatada’s case, neither have our courts. In fact, twice since 2001, British courts have upheld Home Office efforts to deport him. In 2007, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission said assurances from Jordan about his treatment were enough to override human rights obstacles. This was upheld in 2009 by the Law Lords, who also ruled that whether or not evidence against him might have been extracted under torture was irrelevant. It was not for the British courts “to regulate the conduct of trials in foreign countries”, and the use of such material would not amount to a “flagrant denial of justice’’.

If this country’s supreme court said he could be deported, why on earth is he still here? As soon as Qatada’s lawyers lodged an appeal, his removal was stayed; but in France, he would have been on a plane to Amman as an act of judicially endorsed political will: the European convention would not have come into it.

Here, the case went to Strasbourg, which found against the British government – and our courts have since gone along with that decision despite previously taking a completely different view.

The UK was slow to react to the jihadist threat in the Nineties (or, rather, we turned a blind eye to it). But there are aspects of the French approach to terrorism that we would not wish to adopt here (or at least I wouldn’t), such as the police making mass arrests or rounding up the usual suspects.

The judiciary in France are also much more tightly locked into the process through their investigating magistrates, who take over the case from the outset. Our tradition of free speech and civil liberties acts as a constraint on the more authoritarian instincts of the state. When it comes to removing from their territory suspected foreign jihadis who might do them harm, however, everyone in France sings from the same hymn sheet. We can’t even agree on the tune.

‘Countering Terrorism in Britain and France’ by Frank Foley (CUP) is published tomorrow.

France shows us how to deal with jihadis

Sharia courts are putting women at risk of violence from abusive husbands, the Crown Prosecution Service has warned.

The courts, which issue rulings according to Islamic law, have been found to be giving Muslim women advice which experts warned may place them in danger.

Undercover filming in some of the 85 councils operating in mosques and houses across the country has revealed that the courts, which are run by sharia councils, are ruling in favour of men meeting estranged wives or having access to children when they have found to have been abusive.

Sharia law has no formal place in any of Britain’s legal systems. However, the investigation found courts in London which follow it were making rulings on domestic and marital issues according to Islamic law which appeared at odds with English family law.

Although they are not legally binding, those who were subject to the rulings them felt they had to follow them as a matter of religious belief – or because they felt under pressure from family and community to do so.

In one case filmed by a BBC reporter for the Panorama documentary, an Islamic scholar from a sharia council ruled in a custody dispute that the children should be taken away from their mother and be placed with their reportedly violent father.

The woman, known only as Sonia, who lives in Leeds, had already been granted a civil divorce in a British court, which had given her husband only limited access to the children.

However, when she went to Leyton Islamic Sharia Council, in east London, to be granted a divorce in the eyes of her religion it was ruled the children should be given to the father.

One Islamic school of thought decrees a father can take custody of a boy at the age of seven and a girl as young as nine.

When she told the Islamic scholar of the domestic violence she and her children had suffered, his advice was to not inform the police as that would be the “very, very last resort”.

Sonia told the reporter: “I could not bear the thought of such a violent person having my children. What was even more shocking was when I explained to Leyton why he shouldn’t have access to the children their reaction was – well you can’t go against what Islam says.”

Sonia stood her ground and eventually the Leyton judges dropped their demand.

In another case in West Yorkshire, a woman who had an injunction preventing her abusive husband from contact with her and her children was told by the Sharia council sheshould meet him to try mediation to avoid divorce.

The woman had told the scholars she was too terrified to meet him and had to hire an outside family lawyer to stop the meeting going ahead.

Nazir Afzal, the head of the Crown Prosecution Service in the north-west of England, who is a Muslim who has spoken out against honour-based domestic violence, said he was “disappointed but not surprised” by what he was shown.

“Most of them are fine are absolutely fine, but there are some who are putting women at risk,” he said of the courts.

“And doing so for ridiculous reasons, namely that they are somehow responsible for the abuse they are suffering.”

Secrets of Britain’s Sharia Court will be shown tomorrow at 8.30pm on BBC1.

Sharia courts putting women at risk, CPS warns

Also read: Inside Britain’s Sharia courts

Plus: Judges lead ‘sheltered lives’, warns Britain’s most senior female judge