Judges and rights exam update

Further evidence that the judiciary can be engaging topic and one ripe for debate has cropped up just a few hours ago with news that Labour ministers and their counterparts on the opposition benches have turned DNA retention by the police into a political football.

You may remember that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg ruled in late 2008 that keeping the DNA details of innocent suspects was in breach of Article 8 of the rights convention, covering the right to privacy. In one sense this shows how the judiciary has sought to protect the rights of citizens, but the judiciary, of course, had no police force, and the government appealed whilst not altering policy. Hardly, therefore, very good protection.

This rights story was echoed in January of this year when the Strasbourg Court (which, as a reminder, is not an EU body) struck down the government’s use of stop and search powers, agian under article 8. Hundreds of thousands have been detained by the police under S44 of the Terrorism Act 2000, despite the fact that it has not resulted in the successful prosecution of a single terrorist. So, yes, judges are protecting the rights of the individual, but widespread use of S44 remains in place.

Whilst we’re the subject of rights, a couple of further examples are worth a mention.

This month, the conviction of four men for bank robbery was secured as a result of the first criminal trial in 400 years to take place without the presence of a jury. How judges fit into this is up to you. They didn’t bring about the change in the law, but a judge has convicted a number of men following the dismissal of an age old principle law. As far as I can see, it falls into the category of the judiciary failing to protect the rights of ordinary people.

Lastly, back to terrorism. Also this month, senior judges instructed the government to decide whether Lofti Raissi, who was held in Belmarch prison for four months after being caught up in post 9/11 panic is entitled to compensation.

So, the judiciary is controversial, and at times complex. But hardly boring.