Morning:
14°c
Tories hit back at DPP in clash over human rights shake-up
Martin Bentham, Home Affairs Editor22.10.09
The Director of Public Prosecutions was today strongly criticised by the Tory Party after making a powerful attack on David Cameron's flagship plan to replace the Human Rights Act.
He also rejected critics' claims that the law amounts to a “criminals' charter” and insisted that the rights it granted were “basic” and “fundamental”.
“It would be to this country's shame if we lost the clear and basic statement of our citizens' human rights provided by the Human Rights Act on the basis of a fundamentally flawed analysis of their origin and relevance to our society,” he added.
His comments, delivered during a lecture last night to mark his first year as DPP, were immediately seen as a direct attack on the Conservative plan to replace the Human Rights Act with a “British Bill of Rights” and prompted an angry riposte from opposition politicians.
Shadow justice secretary Dominic Grieve said the issue was a matter for Parliament, not publicly appointed prosecutors, to decide and that the Tory proposals would create a “better balance”. He added: “The Human Rights Act is not the only way to implement human rights in Britain.”
Although Mr Starmer, who was appointed on a five-year contract by Baroness Scotland, the Attorney General, was previously a prominent human rights barrister, his decision to make such an overtly political speech will raise questions about his long-term future if the Conservatives win power.
He has already given a recent newspaper interview which was seen by critics as barely masking his Left-wing views and is certain to attract further Tory hostility if he seeks to make more direct political interventions after the election.
Meanwhile, Justice Secretary Jack Straw seized on Mr Starmer's comments to attack the Tory proposals.
“What Mr Starmer has said underlines what Dominic Grieve knows but daren't say: that Tory plans make no sense at all,” he said.
Under the Conservative plan, an as yet undefined “British Bill of Rights” would be introduced to restrict what the party claims is misuse of the current legislation.
Reader views (14)
On what planet is this man living? Certainly not the same one as me and millions of others.
- Judith, KIng's Lynn, Norfolk, UK
The Human Rights Act as it stands has got to go and be replaced by a more common sense approach. This country has become the Laughing Stock of the world since Labour came to power.
- Vince, London, West London
Another out of touch, overpaid idiot. This buffoon
should do what he is paid to do and get on prosecuting criminals. But being part of the 'Criminal Rights
Brigade' I suppose he has some difficulty with that.
- Lb, Bromley
It is an out of date Act that is now being used by to provide yet another gravy train at the taxpayers expense and should be scrapped, but then these so called lawyers would have to get a proper job wouldn't they.
- Gordon, Macclesfield UK
What on earth is a legal functionary doing making statements about policy ? That is something proposed by and decided upon by the people and their representatives in parliament. If the act is being used as an excuse by defence lawyers to obtain aquittals or lenient sentences for their criminal clients then it should be amended. If it cannot be amended because it is EU legislation then the UK needs to get round that by excusing itself from those parts of it that are having an adverse effect here. Plenty of other EU members take just that course; all it needs is the political will. The nation has sovereignty and the right to decide what happens within its borders.
- Peter Haldane, Chelmsford
The laws of the UK have evolved over many hundreds of years with the House of Lords being the final arbiter, all meeting the needs of its citizens. The Human Rights Laws eminated from a need to establish a base for law in the immediate post second world war shattered Europe. Its implementation in the UK has created a gravy train for lawyers with severe disruption of our affairs in so many ways including placing this country at increasing risk from terrorism.
- Ralph, London, England
We don`t need a Human Rights Act, we do not live in China but in a modern democracy. I can understand where Keith is coming from as without it many lawyers wouldn`t be able to fleece the taxpayer with absurd cases. It is the PRACTICAL application of the law (ie not the principle) on which it should be judged and on that it is a terrible piece of legislation.
- Nickspurs, London
given the steady removal of our rights over the last 20+ years and the excessive information that is held about all of us...it is no surprise that the Tories plan to remove our rights under the HRA. Yes there are some who are able to abuse it (why not just tighten up the meaning of some of the clauses?) but for the majority of law abiding citizens it is an essential safety net.
- Andy, london
'as yet undefined “British Bill of Rights”...Once again another Tory policy without clear definition. Most may not like this, but the DPP is right to defend this act. Most cases we hear about in the media are the extreme ones & often highlighted to cause hysteria.
So I'll wait until the Tories can properly define/explain their ‘British Bill of Rights’...
- Jade, London
If what Keir Starmer says is true then why are there derogations in the act? Methinks the guy is talking rubbish. The act is nothing more than a money making scam for certain lawyers who failed at doing real work in one of the other legal branches, like probate or conveyancing.
- Threaded, Roskilde, Denmark
Jack Straw fought against the principle that criminals serving time should be allowed to vote. Quite rightly as it happens. Why was he defeated? Because of the Vermin Rights Act!
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
Starmer represents all that has gone wrong with the U.K. over the past 12 years, as it has lost more and more of its identity and independence. It says everything that Labour would appoint a leading human rights barrister as DPP. A biased appointment if ever there was one, but then that's Labour! Cameron doesn't seem to have the willpower to maintain the U.K. as a sovereign country -- as a huge majority of its people want -- but at least he can take steps on assuming office to bring back balance to the chaos that Labour has wreaked. A good start would be to dismiss Starmer -- if the possibility exists given his contract.
- Phil Jones, London UK
Keir Starmer QC comments show how a senior civil servant in the legal profession will make party political comments and question a future Government's logic to change the law. What is of more concern is the UK Supreme Court has the right to strike down Acts of Parliament, that a European Court determines do not comply with the HRA. Who should decide our laws UK Courts or European Courts?
- Andrew, London
Makes you wonder what reality Keir Starmer and his like live in. It has been one of the most negative, detrimental pieces of legislation for decades.
- Frank, Home Counties, England.
