Return to: Home | Politics | Law & Reform

Shami Chakrabarti on the Chindamo case and human rights

Published 24 August 2007

Shami Chakrabarti argues why David Cameron owes Mrs Lawrence an apology, and Douglas Murray director of the Centre for Social Cohesion argues why the Human Rights Act should be condemned yet again.

David Cameron owes Mrs Lawrence an apology. It is always rather tawdry when politicians attempt to make capital from the misery of the bereaved, but to do so in such haste that you get the facts wrong is just plain irresponsible.

Mr Cameron has been performing his ‘scrap the Human Rights Act’ for a fair old while now- even to the embarrassment of many in his own party. His “Home Grown Bill of Rights with Common Sense” has yet to materialise and since he has promised to maintain Britain’s ratification of the ECHR, it is unlikely to differ dramatically from either the HRA or equivalent Rights’ instruments around the democratic world.

The truth is that save where deportation gives rise to a real risk of torture (i.e. Not the Chindamo case), the HRA and ECHR give you relatively little say about where you live. Article 8 (the right to privacy and respect for family life), is heavily qualified by a number of factors (economic as well as security-based). The Article 8 doctrine is that of simple “proportionality”. It is hard to see how this would not survive any Cameron or Brown coloured new Constitutional settlement. What could be more British or commonsensical than the notion that “the punishment should fit the crime”? The devil lies not in the law or principle but in genuine debates about application in various hard cases.

By contrast, the evolved law of the European Union contains a very strong presumption against immigration control (including deportation) of Union nationals- hardly surprising given the underlying ethos of free movement of goods, services and people within the community. Apart from anything else- what is the real point of deportation to a country with which you have an almost open border? This is the central reasoning of the Chindamo judgment but where is Mr Cameron’s recommencement of the European debate that has been so destructive to his party?

If a prisoner who has served the tariff portion of a life sentence is still a real danger to the people of Britain, Italy or Timbuktu, law and logic dictates that he or she should remain in custody. Whether that custody should be in Britain or somewhere else should be decided on the basis of family and other ties and finance (where is rehabilitation most likely and which exchequer should foot the bill). In relation to released prisoners, there will continue to be many circumstances where deportation is perfectly possible. However, politics does the public a disservice when the possibility becomes a panacea.

If I were the victim of a serious crime, I would be comforted neither by the knowledge that my assailant was true blue British, nor by the alternative possibility of deportation. I would rather not be a victim. If I lost a loved one to violent crime, who knows where my grief would take me? Perhaps even deportation would be too good for the perpetrator? Mrs Lawrence’s reaction is completely understandable. For meeting her genuine grief with his standard ill-considered sound bite - even if in August error rather than October premeditation, Mr Cameron owes her an apology.

Shami Chakrabarti is director of the human rights group Liberty

Post this article to

6 comments from readers

G Jeffreys
24 August 2007 at 23:20

The problem is that the government introduced a Human Rights Act adopted from a treaty signed by Europeans in the aftermath of the 2nd World War. It was introduced to a country with a right wing Eurosceptic press and a public unused to the idea of Constitutional Rights in the legal system. The British are not Americans and such ideas would need to be nutured and given support by a government that wished to change the legal culture. Instead, having introduced this legislation, they let it lie, allowing the Tories and the tabloids to brand it a 'criminal's charter' . That is now how the average Brit regards his own Bill of Rights. Britain is the only country I know where there is a populist, grassroots movement to deny citizens their basic inalienable Rights.

gnuneo
24 August 2007 at 23:59

you may not have glanced across the pond recently then.

where, by a total coincidence, they also have a media dominated by one rupert murdock.

how easy it is for the media to take one isolated example, or even a couple, and build up public hysteria about it. At least, its easy when the public can be blitzed on many fronts by the same media company.

yes, we need human rights in this country, and we need them desperately - but there is little point when the public can be tricked into attacking their own rights by demagogues who are apparently untouchable by our supposed elected leaders.

when will we get the human right of anti-monopolistic media?

taghioff.info
26 August 2007 at 18:02

When the UN gets control of Global public service broadcasting, and we thus get a meaningful global public sphere, as a precondition to meaningful global governance.

This is the kind of thing Murdoch fears most, which might explain his hatred of the rights frameworks that underpin any such development.

gnuneo
26 August 2007 at 19:44

that *would* be an improvement - except i trust our 'elected' leaders only slightly more than completely unelected private monopolies.

i think about other 'politician controlled' media around the world, and it hardly fills me with inspiration.

the best system, ultimately, is to ensure that ownership is spread equally amongst the staff of these media, so decisions are made in agreement. It will not immediately end the travesty of such 'reporting' as the Sun, or skynews, but it will move towards it.

people like murdock can play their games with socially created and directed hatred, because they live in gated estates, even often in other countries. At least the actual 'reporters' themselves have to live in the 'real world', and can see directly what their hate-filled, racist and socially divisive articles create.

which would be a good first step, and a definite improvement, IMHO.

capitalist partnerships would end many of the problems facing our societies today.

Bruno Rodrigues
04 September 2007 at 11:08

I was in the pub the other day overhearing two people talk about this case. One of them said "You see it's only the bloody foreigners that get human rights"

Hearing this depressed me. It still makes me angry to think that the majority of people see this case in that way. The newspapers have fanned the flames of anti-immigration, pro-deportation to the extent that the majority of Britons want to see the human rights act repealed.

Current attitudes to asylum, human rights, and this new Boarders Act 2007 almost make you ashamed to be British.

Human rights by their definition are universal, you are entitled to the same treatments whether you are a vicar or a murderer. That one incorrectly reported case can jepodise the whole existence of a human rights regime in the UK does actually keep me up at night!

angela pinter
04 September 2007 at 15:24

Liberty under Chakrabarti has persistently defended the most egregious cases like Chindamo or Abu Hamza.

She attempts predictably but unsuccessfully to occupy moral high ground in a parody of human rights.

Her defence of Learco Chindamo is faulty because human rights are based on ‘proportionality’.

He is not British, has no right to be here as he may be perceived to be a threat to public safety and a burden on society. He has always been a criminal. He may now stop his criminal career but he can do this in Italy. He should not be allowed to stay here because of an accident of history.

The free movement of goods and services does not include crime or criminals or citizens with serious criminal records.

In addition Chindamo was part of a gang which took in a racially motivated rape attack on an Austrian tourist. The words used were ‘ **** the white bitch’ and this was not disputed at the trial although it was subsequently denied by left wing ‘anti racist feminists’(sic).

Such people as Chindamo have no place in a civilised society.

It is important that everybody should have the equal protection of the law and Chindamo received a fair trial although has only recently ‘shown’ remorse. But this protection should also extend to Mrs Lawrence.

It is Chakrabarti who should apologise to Frances Lawrence. Liberty’s board also includes Doreen Lawrence the mother of Stephen Lawrence. What does she think?

I think we should be told.

Chakrabarti and Liberty have never called for the extradition of killers who escaped abroad and have never been tried. Many of them like the killers of Kriss Donald claimed to be escaping from the ‘racist British justice system.’

Richard Everitt

Whether Liberty reflects realityor is guilty of breathtaking hypocrisy can be seen by its endorsement of the view that ‘Belmarsh is a concentration camp’

Angela Pinter

angelapinter@lawyer.com

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before you can comment on the website

About the writer

A Barrister by background, Shami Chakrabarti has been Director of Liberty (The National Council for Civil Liberties) since September 2003. She has been recently appointed a Governor of the London School of Economics and the British Film Institute and a Master of the Bench of the Honourable Society of the Middle Temple.