HLE blogger Simon Hetherington examines the latest controversial decision of the ECtHR in light of plans to reform the court
In the news last week: the publication of interim advice to the government by the independent Commission on a Bill of Rights, on the reform of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Also in the news, the ruling in AA v UK, by that same court, that the UK cannot deport a young Nigerian who was convicted of rape in 2002. Moves for his deportation began in 2003; the long fight against it has now ended.
Reform of the court is a widely recognised need. In practical terms it is an overburdened beast. Some would maintain that in jurisprudential terms it is anomalous. Politically, it is regarded by many as meddlesome. AA v UK very effectively stokes the fire of objection to the role and rule of the court, and to the UK’s subordination to it.
Returning briefly to the case: the ECtHR’s ruling is based on Art 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights—the right to a private and family life. The life, it seems, that the young man is protecting has largely been developed since the deportation proceedings began. This irritates critics still further, because, presumably, if the legal process were more efficient he wouldn’t have had that human right to protect.
The time it takes for such proceedings to reach a conclusion is indeed objectionable. But the reason for that is the inherent unfairness to both or all parties in extended legal process, not because it happens to afford an unpalatable advantage to a person who is considered undesirable. So reform to the supra-national enforcement of the human rights convention is necessary. The interim advice makes a number of recommendations, in anticipation of the UK government’s taking over the chair of the Council of Europe..."
Continue reading atwww.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
