The European Convention of Human Rights - Essay Example

Public Law Public Law United Kingdoms constitution does not provide sufficient protection for the right to protestin the streets. The basic rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to are referred to as human rights. They compose of such rights as freedom of expression, equal treatment before the law and the right to life, among others. Here, there is freedom of expression which thus gives people the right to protest as long as they do not infringe into other people’s rights or break the law. This right represents entitlements of an individual or groups visa-vis the government, in addition to responsibilities of an individual and authorities in the government. These kind of rights are ascribed "naturally, “meaning that they should not be denied. Usually, these rights are advanced as legal rights in most constitutions and are secured by the rule of law. The right to protest however in the United Kingdom’s constitution is separate from and prior to law, and is used as a basis for formulating or criticizing both local and international law. Even though various "basic" rights like the right to protest in the streets should be provided with sufficient protection under any circumstances since there is provision of this. This is provided for in international human rights records like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights among others. However, whatever this merits in collaboration with the other UK constitutional arrangement aspects, flexibility has been proven to be problematic where the fundamental individual liberties are concerned. The imprecision attending flexibility in the UK constitution has left its citizens uncertain regarding the disposition and limitations of the rights they have and regarding their relationship with state institutions. In short, rights such us the right to protest in the United Kingdom constitution are residual in that they exist to the extent that statutory or common law rules have not restricted them (Beatson, 1998). 2. The rights protected by The European Convention of Human Rights. The European Convention on Human Rights sets forth a number of fundamental rights and freedoms such us the right to life, prohibition of torture, prohibition of slavery and forced labor, right to liberty and security, right to an impartial trial, no punishment without law, right to respect for private and family life, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and association, right to marry, right to an effective remedy and prohibition of discrimination. Parties undertook to ensure that these rights and freedoms are equally secured to everyone within their jurisdiction. International enforcement machinery is also established by the Convention. The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg was set up to make certain that the observances of the engagements are undertaken by the parties also dealing with individual and inter-State petitions. The Court has the mandate to give advisory opinions pertaining to the interpretation of the conventions and the protocols thereto as requested by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The control machinery which was set up by the Convention has undergone some restructuring as a result of the entry into force of Protocol No. 11 to the Convention on 1 November, 1998. Following this, all suspected violations of human rights are directly referred to the court. Usually, during the cases, the Court sits in Chambers of seven judges. It determines the acceptability and merits of submissions and undertakes an investigation if necessary. With a view to safeguarding a friendly settlement of the matter based on respect for human rights as stipulated in the Convention and the protocols thereto, the Court will also put itself at the disposal of the parties. Court hearings are public unless the Court decides otherwise in situations of circumstances regarded as exceptional (Bradley & Ewing, 2003). 3. The human rights act 1998 and the way in which the rights protected by the ECHR are built into UK law and how courts handle ECHR breach It was in October 2000 that the Human Rights Act 1998, also referred to as the HRA came into force in the United Kingdom. It is comprised of a sequence of sections with the task of codifying the protections in the European Convention on Human Rights into UK law. All public bodies like courts, police, local governments, hospitals and publicly funded schools among others bodies which carry out public functions have to adhere to the rights in the convention. This implies that an individual can take cases dealing with human rights to domestic courts among other things; thus people don’t have to go to Strasbourg to plead their case in the European Court of Human Rights. Most likely, The Human Rights Act is the most essential piece of legislation in the UK as far as human rights are concerned. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is an international treaty responsible for protecting human rights and basic freedoms in Europe. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) was established by the convention. Any person feeling that his or her rights have been violated as per the convention by a state party can plead in Court. If an act of parliament permits a breach of the ECHR, therefore Judgments which find violations are obligatory on the states involved and they are obliged to carry them out. A good case study is that of DPP vs. Percy, 1994 where a conviction under s.5 was overturned by the Divisional Court. Mrs. Percy had opened up a banner which proclaimed, “Stop Star Wars” outside a USAF air base in Norfolk. It was concluded that the magistrates did not pay much attention to the defendant’s rights to freedom of speech under Article 10 of the ECHR. Monitoring of judgment execution is done by The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe mainly to guarantee payment of the sum bestowed by the Court to the applicants as compensation for damage sustained. The setting up of a Court to defend individuals from human rights violations is a novel feature for an international convention on human rights, because an individual is given an active role on the international arena. The only international human rights agreement giving such a high level of individual protection is the European Convention (Runciman, 2008). 4. The police and criminal evidence act 1984 and the rights the police have to stop and search and arrest people. Following recommendations by the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 was enacted. Its purpose was to bring together police powers under one code of practice, carefully balancing the rights of the individual verses the powers of the police.  Accompanying the Act for more clarification to police officers on the degree of their powers were codes of practice.  The Secretary of State is required to issue codes of practice as stated in Sections 60 and 66 of Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 in association with the implementation of various powers. Eight such codes have been issued so far. If the precise terms of the Act itself are not adhered to, criminal liability may arise, whereas failure to adhere to the codes of practice during a search, arrest, detention or while interviewing a suspect may result to inadmissibility in court. The Serious Organized Crime and Police Act 2005 modified PACE significantly and as a result, replacing almost all arrest powers. Any individual vested with the duty of either charging offenders or investigating criminal related offences has to also follow PACE provisions and codes of practice as far as it’s practical and relevant. However, the power to stop and conduct a search has to be used in a fair and responsible manner. The person being searched should be respected by Police without prejudice.  The imposition on the individual stopped has to be brief and conducted in a proper manner with the stop being recorded in the correct way (Turpin & Tomkins, 2007). 5. Powers the police have to prevent a demonstration from taking place. The most essential thing to have in mind is that generally, the police are usually not impartial. In most cases, they may seem disinterested in simply upholding the law and your rights; and are generally very hostile to protestors. Years of experience show that the police generally view it their job to stop you protesting or make your protest less effective. According to their job, the police will employ certain tactics to try and convince you that your protest is illegal and that they have the power to stop you or move you. They convince a protester to give them his/her details and they can subject you to arbitrary search. There have been cases where unprofessional police lie and exaggerate, and most actions taken by police against protestors are unlawful, being undertaken in a dishonest and malicious manner. This is evident in the cases against five Occupy London protesters charged with public order offences during a peaceful demonstration outside the Bank of England as a case study. The case was dismissed after the judge deemed their arrests at the hands of police to have been unlawful. City of London Police officers had suspected that some individuals within the group were breaching an order which was put in place by senior police on the ground. The individual arresting officers could not ascertain if the individuals they arrested were themselves in breach. People witnessed protestors being patted down or questioned at the side of the road by a couple of police officers regarding the protest. This is known as a Stop and Search or Stop and Account’. This is used for a number of reasons which include when they believe it will assist in crime prevention, whilst investigating a crime which already took place, as an information gathering aid in order to learn more about the event and the people involved, and also while exerting control on a protest. One should know that police search powers are fairly limited, thus knowledge of the law can be a great way of putting a stop to the authorities from getting any information on you. It goes a long way in countering the intimidating methods and attitudes one may be subjected to while exercising his/her right to protest (Turpin & Tomkins, 2007). References Beatson, J., 1998. Constitutional reform in the United Kingdom: practice and principles. London: Hart Publishing. Bradley, A. W., & Ewing, K. D., 2003. Constitutional and Administrative Law. London: Longmans. Runciman, D., 2008. This Way to the Ruin. London Review of Books. Available from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v30/n03/david-runciman/this-way-to-the-ruin (Accessed January 31, 2013). Turpin, C., & Tomkins, A., 2007. British government and the constitution: text and materials. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cases DPP vs. Percy, 1994. Read More