Human Rights
U.K. tax payers over a million pounds. 5 This case highlights the propensity of the European Court to cause significant delays to British legal proceedings as, not only was this case very costly to the U.K. public, but it also did not change the decision of the British courts, therefore further showing a potential lack of need for the British courts to be regulated in this way. This is not to say that the merits of court should be dismissed on the basis that the cases it examines may be particularly complicated or time- consuming, but that in this particular scenario, in which this external court demanded to re-examine an issue that had already undergone rigorous examination by the United Kingdom’s own domestic courts, the costs inflicted may not be worth this additional oversight. However, it is important to note that this case is an exceptional one, and that, although in this particular case the European Court’s intervention may be seen as unnecessary for the reasons given above, this is not a scenario that always holds true. Occasionally the British legal system proves that this additional oversight is necessary to maintain properly some of the more crucial aspects of human rights. An example of the UK’s failure to uphold human rights can be found in Chahal v. United Kingdom. Mr. Chahal was suspected of terrorism in his native country of India, and if he were to be deported, he stood a very real chance of being of being tortured by Punjabi forces. 6 This case was decided, in the U.K., by an advisory panel that reported to the Home Secretary, that ultimately decided in favour of deporting Mr. Chahal. 7 The case was then brought before the European Court, who decided that, unlike the previous Babar Ahmed case, this deportation would very likely result in torture and that, therefore, this deportation must not occur or else it would breach Article 3 of the Convention. 8 The European Court also condemned the way in which the United Kingdom reached this decision, saying that, owing to the fact theMr. Chahal was denied legal representation, and the fact that the panel he was tried before could not adequately be considered a ‘ court ’ , there had been a breach of Article 5 (4) of the Convention (the right for the lawfulness of anyone’s detention to be decided ‘speedily’ by a court). Although it may be argued by those who resent the control of the European Court that this intervention is problematic in that it compromised national security and too stringently protected aspects of human rights, as Mr. Chahal's presence in the country may have presented some very real security concerns, in reality this interventionwas, for themost part, a valid one. Torture is a practice that, if we claim to bemorally above those who engage in terrorist acts, can never be justified, and, therefore, even the indirect association with it that would have been present had this deportation been successful, is one that would have undermined the moral principles on the United Kingdom claims to champion. Similarly, the issues sur rounding the breach of Article 5 (4) also presents problems concerning the United Kingdom’s adherence to the rule of law (another staple of a fair democratic society). This case therefore shows the role that the European Court plays in preserving fundamental aspects of our society. The second issue to consider is to what extent the European Court too heavily limits the interests of national security, and the desires of the British courts and parliament, in the name of human rights. Although it is true that the European Court has struck down legislation in the past that may have had some benefits for national security, such as that of Section 44 of the Terrorism Act of 2000 (the extension of stop and search powers) which was repealed on the ground that it violated Article 8 of the Convention (right for respect of a private and family life), the extent to which the European Court 5 Honeywood, C. (2016) ‘Britain’s Approach to Balancing Counter - Terrorism Laws with Human Rights’, Journal of Strategic Security 9: 28-48. 6 Bingham, T. (2010) The Rule of Law. London. 7 Ibid. 8 ECtHR- Chahal v. The United Kingdom (1996)
145
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software