-:Undertaker:-
03-12-2012, 03:51 PM
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9717241/Chris-Grayling-cant-defy-Europe-over-prisoner-voting.html
Chris Grayling can’t defy Europe over prisoner voting
Chris Grayling, one of the biggest critics of giving the vote to prisoners, may be forced to support giving prisoners the vote because of a legal wrangle over his dual role.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02057/Chris_Grayling__Eu_2057222b.jpg
Chris Grayling, Minister for Justice
Ministers have published new legislation which proposes continuing a ban on giving prisoners the right to vote in elections, in defiance of a European Court of Human Rights ruling. A vote is expected to be scheduled for the coming months.
Chris Grayling, the justice secretary and Lord Chancellor, admitted that he will be forced into the embarrassing position of having to abstain when MPs were given the chance to continue or lift it altogether.
This is because as Lord Chancellor and the head of the judiciary in England and Wales he cannot defy the European court, which provides rulings for courts in this country to follow. This will mean he will not be able to back his fellow MPs in trying to continue the ban in the House of Commons.
He said he would have to take legal advice before opposing any move in the House of Commons to give prisoners the vote.
As Justice Secretary he was "subject to an oath to uphold the law," and that included rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, he said.
He told BBC1’s Sunday Politics: “When we come to the point of a vote I will take appropriate legal advice. My position’s very different to other Members of Parliament on this because of my role as guardian of the judiciary.”
He added that the position was the same for MPs who were members of the Government, although many might rebel and vote to continue the ban.
He said: “The requirement upon the Government and Government ministers is very clear to implement the ruling of European court.
However, Parliament has the right to overrule the European Court of Human Rights if it wants to do so.
“It has to accept that there will be a political consequence in doing that but it has the right to do so. When we come to the point of the vote I will take appropriate legal advice.”
The Government has published draft legislation, which includes one option to defy the court and continue with the ban on prisoners being allowed to vote in elections.
Mr Grayling went on to say that the Prime Minister would have to decide whether he and government colleagues could oppose the measure in the Commons, or whether they would be in breach of the ministerial code.
The Strasbourg–based court has ruled that a blanket ban on all prisoners voting is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Last week Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, said the UK cannot simply ignore Europe's ruling that the blanket ban on prisoners voting infringes their human rights, the Attorney General has said.
Other countries may breach their international obligations, but that does not give the UK an excuse for not honouring our own, he said. The Commons last year voted overwhelmingly to retain the British ban on prisoner votes.
Mr Grayling also suggested last week that a vote for keeping the ban would lead the Government to reject the court's rulings and have only “political” consequences for the UK.
He told a Parliamentary committee: “It is certainly the case that we have an obligation to comply with the rulings of the European Court. But as we also know, parliamentary sovereignty supersedes those rulings. Ultimately Parliament can say ‘we're not prepared to accept that’.”
The human rights court is overseen by the Council of Europe, which is not directly related to the European Union.
Mr Grayling said that rejecting the ruling on prisoner voting could ultimately be discussed with other members of the 47–strong council. He said: “The political consequence of course then comes as we sit around the Council of Europe.”
Weak and pathetic.
As with so many things now, the laws of this country are now made in foreign courts and by the European Commission who are unelected and meet in secret. The likes of Mr. Grayling talk up a tough came, but when it comes to it - they cave in. But you know, even if they wanted to leave the ECHR they couldn't - because EU membership makes adherance to the ECHR compulsory.
Jellyfish, the lot of them.
Thoughts?
Chris Grayling can’t defy Europe over prisoner voting
Chris Grayling, one of the biggest critics of giving the vote to prisoners, may be forced to support giving prisoners the vote because of a legal wrangle over his dual role.
http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02057/Chris_Grayling__Eu_2057222b.jpg
Chris Grayling, Minister for Justice
Ministers have published new legislation which proposes continuing a ban on giving prisoners the right to vote in elections, in defiance of a European Court of Human Rights ruling. A vote is expected to be scheduled for the coming months.
Chris Grayling, the justice secretary and Lord Chancellor, admitted that he will be forced into the embarrassing position of having to abstain when MPs were given the chance to continue or lift it altogether.
This is because as Lord Chancellor and the head of the judiciary in England and Wales he cannot defy the European court, which provides rulings for courts in this country to follow. This will mean he will not be able to back his fellow MPs in trying to continue the ban in the House of Commons.
He said he would have to take legal advice before opposing any move in the House of Commons to give prisoners the vote.
As Justice Secretary he was "subject to an oath to uphold the law," and that included rulings from the European Court of Human Rights, he said.
He told BBC1’s Sunday Politics: “When we come to the point of a vote I will take appropriate legal advice. My position’s very different to other Members of Parliament on this because of my role as guardian of the judiciary.”
He added that the position was the same for MPs who were members of the Government, although many might rebel and vote to continue the ban.
He said: “The requirement upon the Government and Government ministers is very clear to implement the ruling of European court.
However, Parliament has the right to overrule the European Court of Human Rights if it wants to do so.
“It has to accept that there will be a political consequence in doing that but it has the right to do so. When we come to the point of the vote I will take appropriate legal advice.”
The Government has published draft legislation, which includes one option to defy the court and continue with the ban on prisoners being allowed to vote in elections.
Mr Grayling went on to say that the Prime Minister would have to decide whether he and government colleagues could oppose the measure in the Commons, or whether they would be in breach of the ministerial code.
The Strasbourg–based court has ruled that a blanket ban on all prisoners voting is incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Last week Dominic Grieve, the attorney general, said the UK cannot simply ignore Europe's ruling that the blanket ban on prisoners voting infringes their human rights, the Attorney General has said.
Other countries may breach their international obligations, but that does not give the UK an excuse for not honouring our own, he said. The Commons last year voted overwhelmingly to retain the British ban on prisoner votes.
Mr Grayling also suggested last week that a vote for keeping the ban would lead the Government to reject the court's rulings and have only “political” consequences for the UK.
He told a Parliamentary committee: “It is certainly the case that we have an obligation to comply with the rulings of the European Court. But as we also know, parliamentary sovereignty supersedes those rulings. Ultimately Parliament can say ‘we're not prepared to accept that’.”
The human rights court is overseen by the Council of Europe, which is not directly related to the European Union.
Mr Grayling said that rejecting the ruling on prisoner voting could ultimately be discussed with other members of the 47–strong council. He said: “The political consequence of course then comes as we sit around the Council of Europe.”
Weak and pathetic.
As with so many things now, the laws of this country are now made in foreign courts and by the European Commission who are unelected and meet in secret. The likes of Mr. Grayling talk up a tough came, but when it comes to it - they cave in. But you know, even if they wanted to leave the ECHR they couldn't - because EU membership makes adherance to the ECHR compulsory.
Jellyfish, the lot of them.
Thoughts?