The European Court of Human Rights; whose rights are they protecting?

The principle of the European Convention on Human Rights was raised after the Second World War as a measure to prevent recurrence of the dreadful atrocities carried out in Europe. It came into force in 1953.

In 1959 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was set up in Strasbourg to consider cases brought before it by people, organisations and states against those countries which are bound by the convention, which is almost all of the European nations. The court is monitored by the Council of Europe, a pan-European human rights body.

Nations which have signed the human rights convention, including the UK, have their own laws in place, and the court will only hear a case when all domestic legal avenues have been exhausted. Countries must comply with the court’s verdicts, and if they do not the judgements can trigger huge compensation claims.

Since then the court’s laudable objective to deliver fundamental human rights to all in sundry has gone off the rails and now interferes with perfectly rational, domestic national laws, incensing both politicians and the public alike.

Of the 47 members sitting on the European Court, 23 have never been sat as judges. They are all appointed for nine year terms and paid an annual, tax free, salary of £152,000, except it is, of course, paid in euros. They also get three months holidays and a golden pension.

A convicted murderer John Hirst, 60, was jailed in 1979 for killing his landlady by hitting her seven times on the head with an axe; pleading guilty to manslaughter by reason of diminshed responsibility. He served 25 years before being released in 2004. 

Using huge amounts of taxpayers’ money and legal aid, Hirst brought a case challenging the ban on prison inmates having the vote, taking it all the way to the European Court.

The ECHR has ruled that banning the convicted killer from voting whilst he was serving his time breached his right to free elections. Well, tell that one to his poor, murdered landlady. Hirst didn’t think too much of her human rights when he was bashing her to death with an axe, did he?

Our government is now compelled to allow prisoners to vote in line with the European Court of Human Rights ruling, or risk a flood of claims from prisoners like Hirst seeking compensation for the deprivation of their human rights.

If the European Court continues to make such spurious judgements that bear no relation to social justice or common sense they will fan the flames of the fire of those who wish to burn the document that ties the UK to the Human Rights Act.

This judgement is perverse and undemocratic. It smacks of the law being used to promote liberal progression and must be resisted.