The Human Rights Act 1998 has a significant impact on all aspects of police work. Police investigations, conducting the prosecution and the presentation of evidence in court, all in contradiction with human rights.
In the context of criminal proceedings the most important areas of human rights are:
• The right to a fair trial (Article 6 of the Convention)
• The right to privacy (Article 8 of the Convention)
• Right to an effective remedy (Article 13 of the Convention)
The courts are obliged to read and effect to primary legislation in a way that is compatible with the Convention rights "so far, it is possible to do this."
Examining the impact of the Convention on the Criminal Justice system shows the problems, some of which are addressed in this discussion. Police surveillance has already fallen foul of Article 8 in a series of cases. In the case of Kahn v. United Kingdom, 2000, and the similar case of the PG and JH / United Kingdom, 2001 (The Times, October 19, 2001), he found that there is a breach of Article 8 and Article 13, but not a violation of Article 6 It was noted that the applicant the right to respect for private and family life, as enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention have been violated. That is simply because the national law does not prevent the use of covert listening devices at the time the applicant conviction. The European Court has, however, find that no violation of Article 6, that the applicant had a fair trial. I can not help but think that these two decisions in contradiction to each other. If the evidence is contrary to Article 8 and the case was based on the weight of the evidence, then, how could it have been a fair trial?
In the case of Mr. Kahn v UK Nolan explained to the House of Lords:
"The only reason for this case, your mansion is the absence of a statutory scheme regulating the use of equipment by the police. The absence of such systems is astounding, more so in view of the legal framework, the use of such devices by the Security Service since 1989, and the interception of communications by the police as well as from other institutions since 1985. "
It seems that over the years, the police did an ad hoc system in relation to surveillance and therefore the European Court has fundamental flaws in the way of the Convention in relation to the procedures that were adopted by the police in relation to the use of surveillance.
The work of the security services has been carried out legally under the umbrella of the legislation, namely the monitoring of suspects. The police do not appear to have their work legally, therefore, the European Court of Justice sets examples in cases like the above, the main principle is that a body does not carry out illegal acts, a legal solution (eg a conviction). However, the regulation of investigatory powers act 2000 provides the police with guidelines on the subject surveillance, so it should not be a problem now. The cases that the European Court of Justice hearing convictions before this law was processed.
In the case of one and Condron v United Kingdom, 2000 it was found that there was a breach of Article 6 of the Convention. This was because the judge in this case is not properly the jury on the question of the defendant's minute of silence during a police interview that he had said that the silence was negative. He did this with reference to Section 34 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
The first point that I would like is the fact that the defendants were withdrawing from heroin, which was the reason that her lawyer had advised them to remain silent. Most crimes are drug related, this gate could open in the fact that they remained silent because they are "drug-up," every criminal could abuse this right. This could be the reason for the judge that the jury is directed in this way to prevent the locks. This would also put pressure on the legal adviser, simply because, if the interview is silent on the lawyer's advice, then it can be, and against the defense. However, if I were a juror I would not think that silence was positive, and I agree in this case that the judge did not have in his view, in the jury.
In the case of Atlan v United Kingdom, it was adopted by the European Court of Justice that there is a breach of Article 6 of the Convention, because the prosecutor had the trial judge on the question of disclosure of evidence. The indictment would simply procedure, the judge decides whether the evidence attracts public interest immunity, as in the case of Conway v Rimmer. If the procedure has not been adhered to correctly then we would be with similar beliefs and unfair trials in the seventies and eighties, for example, the Gilford Four, and the beginning of the nineties, as in the case of Edwards v United Kingdom (1992).
In the case of entrapment, there is no protection for those in England and Wales. However, the Convention Article 6, to prevent this, as in the case of Texiera de Castro v Portugal (1998). "Even the obvious public interest in combating drug trafficking, not justified by evidence, as a result of police entrapment." I think that is true, but only depending on the circumstances. I think if a drug-trafficker is a known "heroin dealer" and the last resort for the police to stop him by "Agent Provocateur", then I think that this is justified.
With the accession to the European Union, the government has the laws, regulations, directives, etc. of the community. I think that the courts go so far as they are, to ensure compliance and the interpretation of these laws in us. My view is that on any other body of law in mind, so to speak, which is our good. There is less chance of unfair trials, monitoring and national laws, and the chance of fair and orderly manner within the public security and order in this country.
Online Memorial Website
Funeral Poems
0 ความคิดเห็น:
แสดงความคิดเห็น