in
good afternoon ladies and gentlemen thank you all very much indeed
for turning up the rule is an expression
that I think most this a been familiar with as an expression
for very very many years we've heard politicians
including it among a list of desirable things usually along
with freedom and democracy things that kind we've heard judges
using it they tend to say Parliament couldn't possibly have intended
to enact this because that would violate the rule
a and we've heard the expression used
and a I'm dignified international instruments
like a preamble to Universal Declaration of Human Rights
me European Convention of Human Rights the trees European Union
dawn I'll these occasions a mile
has anybody ever polls having invoked the river or
to save the day actually mean by it a
and then I'm
2005 section 11
Constitutional Reform Act thatcher by amendment
enacted nothing in
this act shouted tracked from book
existing constitutional principle at the rule
well now her from at
we to drive that the is an existing constitutional principle
a and that the Act doesn't to attract
from it but anybody who looks
through the back of the actual details well
to find a definition doesn't find one
and I my own view is with very wise motor
try and give one because a the difficulty
a.m. on it bot I mean this
Nile is recognized by statute as a principal
with our constitution that is it the most basic
rules that govern this country
and that of course means that the time is bound to calm
and has indeed already come when people in court invoke it and they say we're
relying on this constitutional principle
and so sort of vague obfuscation
as to what it actually means account be
issue now I've attempted um the first foreigner
ascent to sum up in I'm afraid rather legalistic way
the what the clocks at this
is and I think it is really this that all individuals and organizations within
the state
with a public or private are bound by
and entitled to the benefit all quite important
laws prospectively promulgated
a and publicly administered
in the courts now that's
quite a mouthful and what this
little book really consists of is trying to spell out in
little bit more detail and indeed in the way that
is intended to be extremely accessible to anybody with a ruler
more is what this actually means and so I've suggested
8 concerns that first of these you may say well
good news me what could be more appears in that a
is that the law should so far as possible be clear
accessible a and intelligible
for all pontoon obey the law
and if where title to benefit all that we do need without undue different
to be able to find what the law is new Acer
trawlers no problem about that well there is a problem
with governments churning out
hun used two pages legislation every year
and those hose into pages of legislation
being supplemented by
um thousands more pages
a ministerial orders made under statue
it is extremely difficult to know what the law is
not least because provisions on amended and then the amendment as amended and
then
the amendment to the amendment is amended and there's a case which I
account in the book where a man was the subject to the compensation award of
sixty six thousand times
and it was only at a very late stage and by chance
did emerge that the order under which
this order been made had been revoked seven years earlier
and new you could have funded a however
pointing finger accusation at Parliament isn't good enough
because the judges themselves are given to extreme project city and lecture and
complications
and they do not do in my opinion what they might do
to make the law as simple and straightforward as a night
and this is true at the highest level where you get 5% people giving their own
take on some thats .1
point2 is that by and large
we should be governed by law and not discretion
we don't want by march to be subject to the
arbitrary whim have some autocrat
whether he be Minister or official
order judge and it occurred to me this morning
that you couldn't really get much better example than that
than the execution John the Baptist by Herod
why did he do it because something terrible the job the Baptist er dunno
because he promised his daughter that in return for wonderful toensing
he would give her anything she won't than anything
mall absolutely contradicts the ruble meh
it would be quite hard to imagine
a the third thing I and
leveraged little is a quality before the law
and again use it well that's quite obvious surely
were all equal football well
slaves want equal a number
religious believers were not equal 12 relatively
recently women were not equal
until recently and there is a tendency
not just in this country but elsewhere a to
treat non-nationals unequally
not simply in an immigration comtex doubtful
other purposes has well
fourth point I make a is that the exercise
public pars I E powers publicly conferred by statute
should be exercised by those on whom that confer reasonably
fairly on a street and importantly
for the purpose for which
that occurred I mean many of you will recall the
example when the Terrorism Act
terrorism was invoked a
to exclude a man who told the Home Secretary of the Labour Party conference
that he was talking rubbish
I whoever it was that Foreign Secretary no no
not that hard so we it's a very important principle we
elect members a parliament to give them authority to make tools
they make source laws binders
but we don't give the people who are given powers
by those rules blank check we give them power to do
what the statute says they can almost
do six-point dispute resolution
we live in a society where private pensions
is discount if you are odorata money by somebody
you don't har a lot of heavy is to go
and threatened a man until E Pacers used to happen
in Russia after
lost cell
but there is a kerer this me if
in the last resort I'm not advocating
resort to litigation litigation does not on the whole
lead to happiness
I'm not certainly discounting arbitration mediation conciliation
in other words resolving cases out of court to Taliban official
but in the last resort
if we have rights to assert or to defend
report to being to go to accord
established by the law of the land in order to get
and answer assuming that it isn't a frivolous or stupid or
possibly oprah's contention
that you may say again is completely obvious
the hot we all I think
no that the expensive litigation
whose such as to make it very very difficult on the formidable undertake
for everybody except the very rich orderly created
diminishing group to go to court
for almost any purpose this isn't a new problem
in the 16 fifties
someone said you know the law is beyond remedy it costs 10 times
to recover 5 well
it's a problem that some centuries later is still with us
as is the problem today it's not as bad as
Italy for example but it does take much too long
full cases to reach
cool I should have mentioned human rights
there are those who say human rights have had nothing to do with adjustable
was absolutely clear that the world should be
observed in it doesn't matter how appalling
things are that the law prescribes well I
am passionately disagree with that few no doubt Charmi
disagrees with it even more passionately
and maybe we will talkback she
but my own contention is the while
human rights are not universal nobody is going to say that women have equal
rights
in Saudi Arabia to
west european countries but within
any given society I think
there is a high degree of consensus as to what the most
important rights all
my next principal is
the state should provide affair trial
getting completely obvious and you may set a course
criminal trials prefer civil trial should be for
I also address what I call hi brutal soda mixed
trials which are not criminal Andaman
strictly civil either but for example it's a case
where prisoners seeking release
on perot and there's a hearing pool before
the perot all this assay
somebody is the subject to an application for controlled
by Hampshire now these are situations
in which have be
and all on the statute book departures
from what has hitherto been regarded
as almost the most
fundamental ingredient a fair trial which
is the requirement that a person who is the subject of an adverse order
like being refused parole be made the subject of a control order
should know what the case is against him
and have a complete opportunity to argue it
in a forum well the judge will decision-maker
has received no material which he
had some and that's been departed from
because for grounds national security
provision has been made that there are situations in which the decision maker
combi given material which is not ship to
the defendant recalling that not change was laws
about shown to a special advocate
who shown material but cannot communicate
with the defendant after he she'd
and so he can take instructions and say well but a while ask this witness to
Darien
is your reliable manner for you dealings with sorry
can't do any and and
the lost a my 8
principles is that
the state should comply with its huge in international
as it should with its duties in national
now international law covers significant areas
international life the Lord see the movie the
russian space nor and talk to treat
track and things closer to
home the ministerial code which binds all ministers in this country
says that they should comply with
international as well as national and of course
international governs use
all falls Anders
Michael would without at that stage betraying any
view it or because of a gritar hughes et about the wars in Iraq
in Iraq it really raises no significant question principal
I that was authorized or reports and by the security council
at the United Nations to that is the crux
a at this debate the the government in its
immediate advisers suggests was authorized
large body of opinion and
including my own says whose
not fries set in conclusion
at this stage a we live in a world
which is riven by differences a brace
religion nationality
wealth Setra sir
Andhra hosts a problems that no setup legal principles
is ever going to overcome
but the principles that i've been talking about
comprised under the general heading up the brutal
are very widely accepted among the nation's
the world I suggested and I
suggest again that it's the nearest
well likely to come to universal
secular religion
and I've also suggested and suggest again
that observance have these principles
is the best recipe that the world is yet devised
not only for good government at home
but also for peace order
and cooperation Amman the nation's
at the world thank you very very much
well thanks talk to break 50 tutorial
I've got my a point and intend to
use them up looking at your eight points
up it seems to me that probably the most contentious
would be up the human rights component
for some for some critics if you're your theory and possibly the International
I think that under just preempting what some
up critics might say they might say that that's where you're pushing at the
boundaries are you not
a what we traditionally would with think of this
the rule of law that might more minimalistic me just be
well equality before the law a
may be fair trial independent judges and so on but
but in both the human rights principal
that you've introduced and the International your principal
you're looking at the content or rather than just
having a process and having equality of access to
to that person what do what would you say to for example the issue
currently want to scrap the Human Rights Act or
all dilute it in some way and on the only
basis that it somehow impacts upon parliamentary sovereignty
which you've also spoken in favor of I think many times yes
but I am ashamed
um support for the principle a parliamentary sovereignty which means
a course that Parliament savon matters
a in which its lent its authority to somebody else
a is social does professor Bob to know
said what the Queen in Eq in Parliament
intact is law well
so it is but so far as the Human Rights Act
is concerned Parliament has passed
an actor Paul that says
public authorities in United Kingdom including court Shaw
act in a manner consistently with the rights
set out in the shade to the Act which make rights
in the convention and there's no option
doesn't say may apply these things work and if it likes to
need whatever it says must
now Parliament could revoke that
effective revocation would be extremely
limited because we're still
bar by the convention we signed it in 1951
we drafted with the first country to sign it and the first country to ratify
so we've been bond bite since 1951
all we did 1998 was to say
instead up having to wait for years
and spent a lot of money going to Strasbourg to try a search rights
that without the benefit for the European judges have any
judgment this country you can assert your rights
here and the courts must give effect
the results of that
about speed a that our record in Strasbourg about not
immaculate has been much better we have
had about 150 cases in which
United Kingdom was held violated the convention and although I don't know how
many
have been since our courts reply react
it would only be hand and to those who say
these are spurious write some why they said I would say French armies had
say this before which at these rights exact
would you wish to do without we do not push
protect the right to life with or wish to prohibit torture and cruel and
inhuman
treatment or punishment would you know Paul to eliminate
slavery would you not want to give pope guarantee a personal liberty do not want
if people fair trial and so long
every I suggest nothing
that any of us would gladly forgo a
although of course it is true that the further you from a very very decent
call someone's rights the more days
pictures they may become turning to
chemise second I mean it is very important
to understand that international
is lolol it's not
national a but it is low
which the nation's themselves have met and nothing could be clear
than the fact that with to world behind them
the nations of the world 1945
result to adopt the United Nations Charter
which pro he beats use a fox
except in self-defense
all with the authority at the security guards
if not to chapter 7 after all other means of resolving problems
now there is one gray area
as to whether the use of force is legitimate to prevent
immigrant humanitarian a test
that isn't spelled out in the Charter school for
that supports it other nations
that don't support United Nations those states
does not support that but when ok
recent context certainly not mean rock
involved nope he suggested that was
imminent humanitarian catastrophe
in rock and nobody's suggested we were entitled
to invade in self-defence
so it is said earlier question
but I i do think the importance of international
as a means all
governing the conduct nations hugely important
I'm I think I've said was intended to be a witty
efforts the lord of the jungle is no more acceptable
simply because it's a big chunk
well just to piss you just a little step further Tom
she I suspect like I noticed all the notes approval in this room that
to get back to your rhetorical question on human rights which
which these rights which you liked this girl torture protection
talk to free speech Petra I'm thinking of some former home secretaries on both
sides of the aisle actually that I've had the pleasure
discussing his with and what they would
probably say if pushed in response to your question which
they would say no for for
all citizens and people like up
the problem let's face it the the woolly mammoth
in this great we're is what we will be able to do it deport foreign nationals
to places
not the link with the international ok as well
it's about Helbig the jungle is an or how big the
the society in which you say we have a legal system is and who gets protect
Shami view points out absolutely correct
as you'd expect um the
decision of the European Court of Justice given
before Human Rights Act so
it's not anywhere product is a decision which lawyers now
as CHA Hall against United
to haul was seek terrorist
we wanted to support deported to India
a he said that if he was deported to India he was a grave risk
all torch severe
I'll treatment that was accepted as a
real risk his case and the European Court
you rights said you may not
deport anyone to a country where
serious risk copy torch
now that is a decision that has been huge pop
with the cup they went to Strasbourg again in another case
to trial upset it European Court of Human Rights
stuck to its guns refused but
are you take two views to could say well
sent to India let him get on with it or you could say is they have
torture is something so repulse
and soak 'em leaked
that one simply camp
cunt its exercise public
which may result in some
there's room for two views I support the European Court
it is I think without doctor most unpopular
decision that the European Court of Human Rights
from the point of view the government fortunes
officially pizza and sure if it's OK to deport someone took place
talk to you can jump up and down about rendition
it would it would be really don't see on the head of a pin a we know if we say
that
weekend court someone to replace it to that if we
do it rather deliberately it specifically it gets very vital
intelligence
back that's an abomination I think
on the way in this country have every reason to be extremely proud
afar record in relation to torture
as those of us who read the history books I did as a child
will remember it used to be medieval times practice
to make somebody held boiling
motor lead hand went septic than they were
guilty dude sorter effect
didn't go septic they probably lost news hand but they were
regard as innocent Metro 15
that was declared to be a cruel and unacceptable procedure
by afrikaans and there was a choice
for the nation's Europe to make as to what they're gonna do
we said we would stick to our jury would allow people to give evidence
a and we would trust
guilt or innocence to decision majorie and one witness
for the prosecution was enough the country's a continental Europe
adopted a diff who which walls
about you should I the have
two witnesses to the crime or a confession
now lotsa crimes you can't get to witnesses
and so they need a confession and how best to get a confession
talk to somebody to contest
and this was an accepted practice the country's account
amazing liked was eighteenth-century text books
a really good job man how to quit hose
silk stockings putting people to rack
from school this sort of thing so
we lead the way in setting up face against torture
now almost every country in the world party to
torture convention which is better swinging and very uncompromising
its terms so
as as I say I'm
tocqueville opponent all tortured shape
for I don't think we should landed any
conscience