Morning:
10°c
Naming serious criminals ‘breaks human rights law’
Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor11 Nov 2008
BRITAIN'S elite crime-fighting force has been barred from naming and shaming some of the country's most serious criminals because it could infringe their human rights.
Leaders of the Serious Organised Crime Agency - which was set up two years ago to tackle drug gangs, people traffickers and other racketeers -wanted to publicise details of convicted criminals to make it harder for them to reoffend and to alert the public.
The plan was abandoned, however, after the agency's lawyers advised that it would breach the convicts' right to a family and private life and could amount to an "unfair" punishment.
In a bizzare twist, the lawyers said that the only exception is when the offenders' details have already been publicised by the media.
The advice relates to 41 criminals who have had "financial reporting orders" imposed on them by the courts following Soca investigations.
These orders require offenders to provide the authorities with full details of their financial activities on a regular basis and are intended to help police detect suspicious transactions. Failure to comply is a criminal offence and carries a potential prison sentence.
Soca, which is led by the former head of MI5 Sir Stephen Lander, wanted to publicise the names of convicts subject to these orders so that the public could inform the police if they suspected that they were engaged in illicit activity which was not being declared.
However, lawyers advised that a precedent set by a 2003 test case involving Essex Police meant the naming of these criminals would breach Article Eight of the Human Rights Act, which protects the right to a family and private life.
Soca confirmed the legal advice, which came despite the orders having been "handed down in open court".
An agency spokeswoman said: "Soca is not entitled to punish and, where there have been no media reports of financial reporting order cases, the information cannot properly be said to be in the public domain.
"The information would therefore only become known to the public in this context due to the actions of Soca and we consider that, in unreported cases at least, there would be an interference with Article Eight rights."
The spokeswoman added that "we have no problem providing the names which have already been subject to media reporting" and said that, as a result, two of the 41 orders currently monitored by Soca could be disclosed.
These were the case of Abdullah Baybasin, a Turkish drugs baron from Edgware, who was sentenced to 22 years in prison in 2006, after being convicted of conspiring to supply heroin, blackmail and pervert the course of justice. His trial at Woolwich crown court had heard that he ran a gang which specialised in extortion and protection rackets.
A financial reporting order was also imposed on gangland boss Terry Adams, from Barnet, who was jailed for seven years at the Old Bailey last year for money laundering.
Senior figures within Soca are known to be deeply frustrated by their inability to name other convicts subject to orders - many of whom are understood to be similarly serious offenders.
Reader views (24)
In a democratic country like the UK, there is no need for human rights laws as they only favor criminals, illegal immigrants and lets not forget forign criminals. These ultra left laws need to be scrapped ASAP to protect the human rights of our British citizens.
- Brandon Thomas, London SW7, 12/11/2008 13:25
Report abuse
>I emigrated!
I wish i was able to do the same.
- Adam, Harrow, UK, 12/11/2008 09:34
Report abuse
These days naming serious criminals requires excellent spelling.
- Steve, London, 12/11/2008 08:43
Report abuse
Easy! Scrap the stupid Human Rights Laws, serious crime criminals are sub-human therefore have no rights.
- Vince London, West London, 12/11/2008 01:53
Report abuse
I emigrated!
- Rogan, Irving, 11/11/2008 19:28
Report abuse
How can it possibly be against human rights to publish the name of a person convicted in a public court, a forum which is open to all and sundry. I presume I could stand outside a court and tell anyone who asked who had been convicted that or any other day. I once sat behind Paul McCartney inthe public gallery of Uxbridge magistrates when Linda was convicted for cannabis possession. Good vegetarians all of us !
- Jack Hay, Oswestry, 11/11/2008 18:07
Report abuse
Anybody outside of our Country looking in but think the Government is trying to incite civil unrest. Because they are, and once it starts the paralyzed and hamstrung Police Force (sorry service) will be totally incapable in repressing it. One more straw Brown, just one!
- Roger, Staines, 11/11/2008 17:49
Report abuse
Its about time it was scrapped before Britain is scrap. The people who suffer most under this distortion of a law or rather Lore are the law abiding.
- Jas, Farnborough UK, 11/11/2008 17:30
Report abuse
The problem is the interpretation of this law. How can any sane person believe that a person's criminal activities are part of their private life?
The lawyer who decided this is in the wrong job.
- Liz, London, 11/11/2008 17:20
Report abuse
I am emigrating!
- Stuart, Luton, UK, 11/11/2008 16:37
Report abuse
I am sure we can rely on the Daily Mail to keep us fully informed.
- Marke, Houston, Texas, 11/11/2008 16:32
Report abuse
The 'uman rights pamphlet, Blair & Labours worse legacy.
- Frank, Home Counties, England, 11/11/2008 14:42
Report abuse
Maybe then the media can help out by investigating the activities and lifestyles of these convicted criminals to help Soca,and republishing their convictions.
- P.Robinson, Northants, 11/11/2008 14:37
Report abuse
Criminals, once convicted should, as part of their punishment lose their rights. They were brought in to make money for lawyers and now make the country a laughing stock. For example the Afgan Hignjackers the Somali rapist and the Iranian Embassy hostage taker we suffer and then PAY them to stay.
It may have made money for Tony Blairs wife but we don't need it any more
- Nick London, London, 11/11/2008 14:30
Report abuse
This is just getting stupid. What about the human rights of their victims??
- David H, London, 11/11/2008 14:28
Report abuse
The Central Office of Information's News Distribution Service reported on the issuing of financial reporting orders to Kuljeet Grover and Loch and Praveen Hakimzada back in June this year. Wouldn't that make these three eligible for inclusion as well?
- Tim, London, UK, 11/11/2008 14:14
Report abuse
So once again our "justice" or should I "lack of justice" system looks after the criminals.
- Mike Melbourne, Bedford England, 11/11/2008 14:14
Report abuse
What nonsense! Criminals give up their human rights from the moment they act outwith the accordance of the laws of this land.
It's high time this human rights rubbish was put where rubbish belongs. In the bin!
- Jock, London, 11/11/2008 14:08
Report abuse
So we now cannot name suspects, cannot name the convicted. Time to just shut down the police force, because how do we know they are actually looking for and convicting anyone?
The citizens have a RIGHT, a HUMAN RIGHT to know when danger lurks around them. FIGHT BACK UK
- Trunk, US, 11/11/2008 14:02
Report abuse
If I want to protect my family by making sure we don't live, work, or socialise in an area controlled or influenced by these convicted serious criminals or their associates, where can I get this information from?
Does the Human Rights Act protect me from potential or convicted criminals by allowing me to also have a 'right to a family and private life' without fear to my safety or health from these people?
Just wondering really, would like to know how the Human Rights Act protects me in these situations.
- Terry, London, 11/11/2008 13:49
Report abuse
Change the law!
- Robert N, London, 11/11/2008 13:39
Report abuse
Funny how Article 23 of the ECHR about privacy, only ever seems to relate to criminals.
Yet the Government constantly want want to invade our privacy. J
Just a thought.
- P I Staker, London, 11/11/2008 13:13
Report abuse
Has anyone else noticed that these so called "human rights" laws only benefit criminals and illegal immigrants?
- Brandon Thomas, London UK, 11/11/2008 13:12
Report abuse
Don't you just wish that these "lawyers", or as we in the trade call them "shysters", could be relieved of some/most of their 'hard earned' cash and pitched into poverty as some of the victims of these crimes were. I think there would be another story regarding breaching Article Eight of the Human Rights Act, which protects the right to a family and private life.
- Ayliff Mcnab, Spain, 11/11/2008 13:00
Report abuse
