Lord Bingham - The Rule of Law

Summary

In this insightful discussion, the speaker delves into the concept of the rule of law, emphasizing its significance as a constitutional principle. They outline eight key principles, including clear and accessible laws, equality before the law, and fair trials. The speaker passionately argues for the importance of human rights and international law, asserting their necessity for good governance and global peace. The debate touches on contentious issues like the Human Rights Act and the implications of international law on national sovereignty, providing a nuanced perspective on these complex topics.

Takeaways

• 📜 The rule of law is a fundamental constitutional principle that governs the UK, yet it is often vaguely defined and difficult to pin down.
• 🌍 The rule of law is recognized internationally and is included in dignified instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
• 📖 The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 acknowledges the rule of law as an existing constitutional principle, but does not define it within the Act itself.
• 🤔 The speaker suggests that the rule of law encompasses eight principles, including clear and accessible laws, equality before the law, and fair trials.
• 📚 The law should be clear, accessible, and intelligible to all, which is often complicated by the vast amount of legislation and amendments.
• 🏛️ The principle of being governed by law rather than discretion is crucial to prevent arbitrary decisions by autocratic figures.
• 👥 Equality before the law is a key aspect, although historical and current inequalities persist, such as the treatment of non-nationals.
• 💼 The exercise of public power should be reasonable, fair, and for the purpose for which they are conferred, not a blank check.
• ⚖️ Dispute resolution should be through established legal avenues rather than private vengeance, although litigation can be expensive and slow.
• 🌎 Human rights and international law are integral to the rule of law, despite some critics arguing they impinge on parliamentary sovereignty.
• 🏦 The state should comply with its duties under international law, which is a critical aspect of global peace, order, and cooperation.

Q & A

What is the rule of law?

The rule of law is a principle that all individuals and organizations within the state, whether public or private, are bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws that are publicly administered in the courts.

Why is it difficult to find a definition for the rule of law?

It is difficult to find a definition for the rule of law because it is a complex and multifaceted concept that encompasses various principles, making it challenging to define succinctly.

What does the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 say about the rule of law?

The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 states that nothing in the act shall detract from the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, recognizing it as a fundamental principle of the UK's constitution.

What are the eight principles suggested by the speaker in relation to the rule of law?

The eight principles suggested by the speaker are: 1) laws should be clear, accessible, and intelligible; 2) governed by law, not discretion; 3) equality before the law; 4) exercise of public powers should be reasonable, fair, and for the purpose conferred; 5) fairness in the criminal process; 6) availability of justice; 7) human rights; and 8) compliance with international law.

Why is the clarity of laws important?

The clarity of laws is important because if people are bound by laws, they need to be able to understand and access them without undue difficulty.

How does the speaker view the problem of legislation becoming increasingly complex?

The speaker views the increasing complexity of legislation as a problem because it makes it difficult for people to know what the law is, especially with constant amendments and the prolixity of judges.

What does the speaker mean by 'governed by law and not discretion'?

The speaker means that people should not be subject to the arbitrary whims of autocrats, whether ministers, officials, or judges, but should be governed by established laws.

Why is equality before the law considered important?

Equality before the law is important to ensure that all individuals are treated the same under the law, regardless of their status or background.

What is the significance of the Human Rights Act in the UK?

The Human Rights Act is significant because it requires public authorities in the UK to act in a manner consistent with the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights, making it easier for individuals to assert their rights domestically rather than having to go to Strasbourg.

How does the speaker feel about torture and its relation to the rule of law?

The speaker is strongly opposed to torture in any form and believes that the exercise of public authority should not result in someone being tortured, as it is completely unacceptable and repulsive.

What is the role of international law according to the speaker?

According to the speaker, international law is crucial for governing the conduct of nations and maintaining peace and order in the world.

Outlines

00:00

📜 The Concept of Rule of Law

The speaker begins by discussing the familiarity of the term 'rule of law' and its frequent mention alongside concepts like freedom and democracy. Despite its common usage by politicians and judges, there is often a lack of clarity about its precise meaning. The Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 acknowledges the rule of law as a constitutional principle without defining it, underscoring its importance as a fundamental governing principle. The speaker proposes a definition that encompasses the idea that all individuals and organizations within the state are subject to and benefit from laws that are promulgated and administered publicly in courts. The speaker also introduces eight principles to further elaborate on the rule of law, starting with the law being clear, accessible, and intelligible.

05:00

📚 Clarity and Accessibility of Law

The speaker emphasizes the necessity for laws to be clear, accessible, and intelligible, given that everyone is bound by and entitled to the benefit of them. Despite the apparent straightforwardness of this principle, challenges arise due to the vast amount of legislation and amendments that make it difficult for citizens to understand the law. The speaker cites an example of a man who was subject to a compensation order that had been revoked seven years earlier, highlighting the complexity and obscurity of legal amendments.

10:02

🏛️ Law Over Discretion and Equality Before the Law

The speaker argues against governance by discretion, favoring the rule of law to prevent arbitrary decisions by autocrats. Using the story of John the Baptist's execution by Herod as an example, the speaker illustrates the contrast between rule by discretion and the rule of law. The principle of equality before the law is also discussed, noting historical inequalities and the ongoing challenges of ensuring equal treatment, especially for non-nationals.

15:03

💼 Exercise of Public Power and Dispute Resolution

The speaker discusses the proper exercise of public power, emphasizing that it should be reasonable, fair, and honest, and used for the purpose for which it was conferred. An example is given where the Terrorism Act was used inappropriately. The speaker also addresses dispute resolution, advocating for legal avenues over private vengeance, while acknowledging the high costs and delays associated with litigation.

20:04

🌍 Human Rights and International Law

The speaker argues for the inclusion of human rights within the rule of law, rejecting the notion that clear laws should be observed regardless of their content. The importance of international law is also highlighted, with the speaker asserting that nations should comply with international law as they do with national law. The debate over the authorization of the Iraq War is mentioned as an example of differing interpretations of international law.

25:08

🏛️ The Universality of Rule of Law Principles

The speaker contends that the principles of the rule of law are widely accepted globally and could be considered a form of universal secular religion. He suggests that adherence to these principles is essential for good governance and international peace and cooperation. The speaker also addresses potential criticisms regarding the expansion of the rule of law to include human rights and international law, defending the view that these components are integral to the concept.

🚫 The Rejection of Torture

The speaker passionately argues against torture, stating that public authority should not lead to torture. He contrasts the UK's historical stance against torture with practices on the Continent, emphasizing the UK's leadership in abolishing such cruel practices. The speaker also touches on the controversy surrounding the deportation of individuals to countries where they may face torture, defending the European Court of Human Rights' decision to prevent such actions.

Keywords

💡Rule of Law

The rule of law refers to the principle that all members of society, including government officials, are subject to and accountable under the law. In the video, the speaker discusses how this concept is a fundamental constitutional principle in the UK and is essential for good governance and societal order. The rule of law is mentioned in various contexts, such as the preamble to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

💡Constitutional Reform Act

The Constitutional Reform Act is a UK statute that aims to clarify the separation of powers between the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. The speaker mentions this act to emphasize that it does not detract from the existing constitutional principle of the rule of law, indicating the act's role in reinforcing the legal framework without altering the foundational principles.

💡Clear and Accessible Law

Clear and accessible law implies that the legislation should be understandable and easy to find. The speaker argues that for the rule of law to function effectively, individuals must be able to comprehend and access the laws that govern them. The script cites the problem of voluminous and complex legislation that makes it difficult for the average person to know what the law is.

💡Discretion

Discretion, in the context of the video, refers to the arbitrary exercise of power without being bound by established laws. The speaker advocates for governance by law rather than discretion to prevent the whims of autocratic rulers or officials from overriding the legal system, as illustrated by the story of John the Baptist's execution at the behest of Herod.

💡Equality Before the Law

Equality before the law means that everyone is treated the same under the law, regardless of their status. The speaker discusses historical and ongoing challenges to this principle, such as the unequal treatment of women, non-nationals, and religious minorities, emphasizing the importance of legal equality for societal fairness and justice.

💡Public Powers

Public powers are the authorities granted by law to public officials or bodies. The speaker explains that these powers should be exercised reasonably, fairly, and for the purpose they were conferred. An example given is the misuse of the Terrorism Act to exclude someone from a political conference, highlighting the importance of proper exercise of public powers.

💡Dispute Resolution

Dispute resolution refers to the process of settling disputes outside the court system, such as through mediation or arbitration. The speaker mentions that while litigation is not always the best solution, having the option to go to court for dispute resolution is a crucial aspect of the rule of law, ensuring that individuals can assert their rights in a formal setting.

💡Human Rights

Human rights are the fundamental rights to which all individuals are entitled. The speaker passionately defends the integration of human rights within the rule of law, arguing that rights such as the prohibition of torture and保障个人自由 are non-negotiable. The discussion also touches on the tension between human rights and parliamentary sovereignty, particularly in regards to the Human Rights Act.

💡International Law

International law consists of the rules and principles governing the conduct of nations. The speaker emphasizes the importance of compliance with international law, especially in areas such as the use of force and human rights. The script references the United Nations Charter and the prohibition of force except in self-defense or with Security Council authorization.

💡Fair Trial

A fair trial is a legal proceeding in which the rights of all parties are respected and due process is followed. The speaker discusses the importance of fair trials not only in criminal cases but also in civil and hybrid trials, such as parole hearings or control order applications. The script highlights the challenges to fair trials, such as when national security considerations allow for secret evidence not disclosed to the defendant.

💡Parliamentary Sovereignty

Parliamentary sovereignty is the principle that the UK Parliament is the supreme legal authority and can create or change any law. The speaker, while supporting this principle, also notes the importance of the Human Rights Act, which requires public authorities to act in accordance with human rights, thus balancing parliamentary sovereignty with the protection of fundamental rights.

Highlights

The rule of law is a fundamental constitutional principle that has been recognized by statute.

The rule of law implies that all individuals and organizations within the state are bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws.

The law should be clear, accessible, and intelligible for everyone to understand.

The difficulty in knowing the law due to the vast amount of legislation and amendments.

The rule of law demands that we should be governed by law and not by the arbitrary discretion of individuals.

Equality before the law is a principle that has evolved over time and still faces challenges.

The exercise of public powers should be reasonable, fair, honest, and for the purpose they are conferred.

Dispute resolution should be through legal means rather than private vengeance.

The expense and delay in litigation make it difficult for many to access the courts.

Human rights are integral to the rule of law and should not be disregarded.

The state should provide a fair trial in both criminal and civil cases.

The state should comply with its duties in international law as well as national law.

The rule of law is widely accepted among nations and could be considered a universal secular religion.

Observance of the rule of law principles is crucial for good governance and international cooperation.

Parliamentary sovereignty is supported, but Parliament has also passed laws like the Human Rights Act.

The Human Rights Act was implemented to allow rights to be asserted in UK courts rather than Strasbourg.

International law is crucial for governing the conduct of nations and maintaining global peace.

The prohibition of torture is a fundamental aspect of the rule of law and international law.

The UK has a strong historical stance against torture, which is reflected in its laws and international commitments.

Transcripts

good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and

thank you all very much indeed for um

turning up uh the rule of law is an

expression uh that I think most of us uh

have been familiar with as an expression

uh for very very uh many years we've

heard politicians including it among a

list of desirable things uh usually

along with freedom and democracy and

things of that kind we've heard judges

using it uh they tend to say Parliament

couldn't possibly have intended uh to

enact this because that would violate

the rule of law uh and we've heard the

expression used in very uh um dignified

International instruments uh like the

preamble to the universal Declaration of

Human Rights right and the European

Convention of Human Rights and the

Treaty of European Union uh but on none

of these

occasions on the whole has anybody ever

paused having invoked the rule of law to

say what they actually mean by it uh and

then n in

2005 section 111 constitutional Reform

Act of that year by Amendment enacted

nothing in this act shall detract from

the existing constitutional principle of

the rule of law well now uh from that uh

we uh derive that there is an existing

constitutional

principle uh and that the ACT doesn't

detract uh from it uh but anybody who

looks through uh the back of the act or

indeed elsewhere uh to find a definition

doesn't find

one uh and I my own view is very wise

not to try and give one because of the

difficulty um of it but I mean this now

is recognized by Statute as a principle

of our Constitution that is of the most

basic rules that govern uh this uh

country uh and that of course means that

a time is bound to come and has indeed

already come when people in invoke it

and they say we're relying on this

constitutional principle uh and so uh

sort of vague obfuscation as to what it

actually means uh it cannot be pursued

now I've attempted um first of all in a

a sentence uh to sum up in I'm afraid a

rather legalistic way uh what the Crux

of this is uh and I think it is really

this uh that all individuals and

organizations within the state whether

public or private are bound by and

entitled to the benefit of quite

important that laws perspectively

promulgated uh and publicly administered

in the courts uh now that's quite a

mouthful and what uh this little book

really consists of is trying to spill

out in in a little bit more detail and

indeed in a way that um is intended to

be extremely accessible to anybody

whether they're a lawyer or not is what

this actually means and so I've

suggested eight principles the first of

these you may say well goodness me what

could be more obvious than that um is

that the law should so far as possible

be clear accessible uh and

intelligible if we're all bound to obey

the law uh and if we're entitled to the

benefit of it we do need without undue

difficulty uh to be able to find what

the law is

you may say well surely there's no

problem about that well there is a

problem uh with governments churning out

thousands of pages of legislation every

year and those thousands of pages of

legislation being uh

supplemented uh by um uh thousands more

pages of of ministerial orders made

under statute it is extremely difficult

to know what the law is not least

because Provisions are amended and then

the amendment is amended and then the

amendment to the amendment is amended

and there's a case which I account in

the book uh where a man uh was the

subject of a compensation order for

£66,000 and it was only at a very late

stage and by

chance that it emerge that the order

under which uh this order had been made

had been revoked seven years earlier and

nobody could have found it out how ever

pointing uh a finger of accusation at

Parliament isn't good enough because the

judges themselves are given to extreme

prolixity and length and complication

and they do not do in my opinion what

they might do uh to make the law uh as

simple and straightforward as they might

uh and this is true at the highest level

where you get five people all giving

their own take on something that's point

one point two is that by and large uh we

should be governed by law and not

discretion we don't want by and large to

be subject to the arbitrary whim of some

autocrat uh whether he be a minister or

an official or a judge and it occurred

to me this morning uh that you couldn't

really get a much better example than

that uh than the execution of John the

Baptist by Herod why did he do it

because of something terrible that John

the Baptist had done no uh because he

promised his daughter uh that in return

for her wonderful dancing uh he would

give her anything she wanted um and

anything more utterly contradicts the

rule of law than that it would be quite

hard to imagine uh the third thing I um

elaborate a little is equality before

the law and again you'll say well that's

quite obvious uh surely we're all equal

before the law well um slave weren't

equal uh a number of uh religious

Believers were not equal until

relatively uh

recently uh women were not equal um

until uh recently and there is a

tendency not just in this country but

elsewhere uh to treat

non-nationals unequally uh not simply in

an immigration context uh but for other

purposes as well fourth point I make uh

is that the exercise of public Powers

I.E Powers publicly conferred by Statute

uh should be exercised by those on whom

they're conferred reasonably fairly

honestly and importantly for the

purpose for which they are conferred I

mean many of you will recall the example

when the terrorism act the terrorism Act

was invoked uh to um exclude include a

man who told the Home Secretary at the

labor Party Conference that he was

talking

rubbish uh it was the foreign secretary

not not not the home SEC um so we it's a

very important principle we elect

members of parliament we give them

authority to make laws they make laws

the laws bind us but we don't give it

the people who are given Powers by those

laws a blank check we give them power to

do what the statute says they can or

must do sixth Point dispute

resolution uh we live in a society where

private

vengeance is discounted if you are owed

a lot of money by somebody uh you don't

um hire a lot of Heavies to go and

threaten the man uh until he pays you as

used to happen in um Russia after um GL

noon um so

but there is a corollary of this I mean

if in The Last Resort I'm not advocating

resort to litigation litigation does not

on the whole lead to

happiness uh I'm not certainly

discounting arbitration mediation

conciliation and other words of

resolving cases out of court they're

entirely beneficial but in the last

resort uh if we have rights to assert or

or to defend we ought to be able to go

to a Court established by the law of the

land in order to get an answer assuming

uh that it isn't a frivolous or stupid

or utterly uh hopeless uh

contention that you may say again is

completely obvious

but we all I think know uh that the

expense of

litigation uh is such uh as to make it

very very difficult and a formidable

undertaking uh for anybody except the

very rich or the legally aided a

diminishing group uh to go to court uh

for almost any purpose this isn't a new

problem uh in uh the

1650s uh someone said you know the law

is beyond remedy it costs 10 to recover

five well it's a problem that uh some

centuries later is still with us as is

the problem of delay uh it's not as bad

as Italy for example uh but it does take

much too long uh for cases uh to reach

Court uh I should have mentioned human

rights there are those who say human

rights have have nothing to do with it

if the law is absolutely clear the law

should be observed and it doesn't matter

how appalling uh the things are that the

law Pro describes well I um passionately

disagree with that view and no doubt

Charmy disagrees with it even more

passionately um and it may be we will uh

talk about it uh but my own contention

is that while human rights are not

Universal nobody is going to say that

women have equal rights in uh Saudi

Arabia uh to Western European uh

countries but within any given Society

I think there is a high degree of

consensus as to what the most uh

important uh rights

are uh my uh next principle is that the

state should provide a fair

trial again completely obvious and you

may say well of course criminal trial

should be fair Civil Trial should be

fair uh I also address what I call

hybrid or sort of mix trials which are

not criminal uh and are not strictly

civil either but for example it's a case

uh where a prisoner is seeking uh

release on parole and there's a hearing

before the parole board or uh let us say

somebody is the subject of an

application for a control order by the

Home

Secretary now these are

situations in which there have

been uh and are on the statute book

departures uh from what has hitherto

been regarded as almost the most

fundamental ingredient of a fair trial

which is the requirement uh that a

person who's the subject of an adverse

order like being refused parole or being

made the subject of a control order

should know what the case is against

him uh and have a complete opport

to argue it in a forum where the judge

or decision maker uh has received no

material which he has

not now that's been departed from uh

because grounds of National Security uh

provision has been made that there are

situations uh in which the decision

maker can be given material which is not

shown to the defendant if we call him

that not shown to his

lawyers uh but uh shown to a special

Advocate uh who has shown the material

uh but cannot

communicate with the defendant after

he's seen it and so he can't take

instructions and say well um what do I

ask this witness do you know him is he a

reliable man what we dealings with him

so you can't do any of that uh and and

uh the last uh of my eight uh principles

uh is uh that uh the state State Should

comply with its duties in international

law as it should with its duties in

National Law now international law

covers um very significant areas of uh

uh International life the law of the Sea

The Law of the air the law of outer

space law of Antarctica etc etc and

things uh closer to uh home uh the

ministerial code which binds all

ministers in this country uh says that

they should comply uh with International

as well as national law uh and of course

uh international law

governs the use of

force and as s Michael Wood uh without

at that stage betraying any view at all

it was after he'd retired uh he said

about the war of Iraq in Iraq uh it

really raises no significant question of

principle

it either was authorized or it wasn't by

the security Council of the United

Nations so that is the Crux uh of of of

of this debate the the government and

its immediate advisers uh said yes it

was

authorized uh a large body of opinion um

including my own uh says it was uh not

authorized so um in conclusion

at this stage uh we live in a world

which is Riven by differences of race

religion nationality wealth Etc uh

Etc uh and there are hosts of problems

that no set of legal principles uh is

ever going to uh

overcome but the principles that I've

been talking about comprised under the

general heading of the rule of law are

very very widely accepted among the

nations of the world uh I've suggested

and I suggest again that it's the

nearest where likely to come to a

universal secular

religion uh and I've also suggested and

suggested again uh that observance of

these uh principles is the best recipe

that the world has yet devised uh not

only for good government at

home uh but also for peace order and

cooperation among the nations of the

world thank you very very much

indeed well thanks Tom for that very piy

tutorial

I've got my eight points down and intend

to use them um looking at your eight

points um it seems to me that probably

the most

contentious would be um the human rights

component for some for some critics of

your of your theory um and possibly the

international law component I think that

um just just preempting what some um

critics might say they might say that

that's where you're pushing at the

boundaries are you not of of of what we

tradition Ally would would think of as

the rule of law that might more

minimalistically just be well equality

before the law um and and maybe Fair

trials independent judges and so on but

but in both the human rights principle

that you've introduced and the

international law principle you're

looking at the content of the law rather

than just having a process and and

having equality of access to to that

process what do what would you say to

for example those who currently want to

scrap the Human Rights Act or or um

dilute it in some way on the on the

basis that it somehow impacts upon

parliamentary sovereignty which you've

also spoken in favor of I think many

times yes I am um an unashamed um

supporter of the principle of

parliamentary sovereignty which means of

course that Parliament Sav in

matters uh in which it's lent its

authority to somebody else uh is so and

as Professor bogor has said what the

queen enact in Parliament enacts is law

well so it is but so far as the Human

Rights Act is concerned Parliament has

passed an act of parliament uh that says

public authorities in the United Kingdom

including courts shall act in a manner

consistently with the rights set out in

the schedule to the ACT which are the

main rights in the convention

and there's no option it doesn't say it

may apply these things or it can if it

likes to or needn't whatever it it says

it

must now um Parliament could revoke that

uh the effect of revocation would be

extremely uh

limited because we're still Bound by the

convention we signed it in 1951 we

drafted it we were the first country to

sign it and the first country to ratify

it so we've been bound by it since 19 51

and all we did in

1998 was to say instead of having to

wait for years and spent a lot of money

going to Strasburg to try and assert

your rights there without the benefit

for the European judges of any judgment

in this country uh you can assert your

rights here and the courts must give

effect to

them uh the the result of that partly uh

has been um that our record in Strasburg

while not Immaculate has been much

better we had uh had about 150 cases in

which the United Kingdom was held to

have violated the convention and

although I don't know how many there

have been since our courts were applying

the act it it would only be a handful

and to those who say these are spurious

rights and why are they so important uh

I would say and I'm afraid sh's heard

say this before well which of these

rights exactly would you wish to do

without would you not wish to protect

the right to life would you not wish to

prohibit torture and cruel and inhuman

treatment or punishment would you not

want uh to eliminate uh slavery would

you not want to give a potent guarantee

of personal Liberty would you not want

to give people a fair trial and uh so on

there is I suggest nothing here that any

of us would gladly forego although of

course it is true that the further you

get from the very very Central core of

some of these rights the more

disputatious they may become uh turning

to shami's Second point I mean it is

very important to understand that

international law is

law it's not national law uh but it is

the law which the Nations themselves

have made made and nothing could be

clearer than the fact that with two

world wars behind them the nations of

the world 1945 resolved to adopt the

United Nations

Charter which prohibits the use of

force except in

self-defense or with the authority of

the security Council given under chapter

7 after all other means of resolving

problems have been resolved

now there is one gray area as to whether

the use of force is legitimate uh to

prevent an imminent humanitarian

catastrophe that isn't spelled out in

the charter there's school of thought

that supports it uh there are other

nations that don't support it I think

the United Nations those states does not

support uh that but we're not in a

recent context certainly not in an Iraqi

context involved with that

nobody suggested there was an imminent

humanitarian catastrophe in Iraq and

nobody suggested that we were entitled

to invade in

self-defense so it is as I said earlier

a question of

authority uh uh but I I do think the

importance of international law as a

means of uh governing the conduct of

Nations is hugely important

uh and as I think I've said in what was

intended to be a witty aphorism uh the

law of the Jungle is no more acceptable

simply because it's a big

jungle well just to push you just a

little step further Tom you see I I I

suspect well I I noticed all the nods of

approval in this room but to go back to

your rhetorical question on human rights

which of the which of these rights would

you like to discard torture protection

from torture Free Speech Fair trial I'm

thinking of some former home secretaries

on both sides of the aisle actually that

I've had the pleasure of discussing

these matters with and what they would

probably say if pushed in response to

your question which of these rights

would you like to discuss they would say

none for for our

citizens and people like us the problem

let's face it the the woly mammoth in

this great room is what we really want

to do is to deport foreign Nationals to

places of torture and that's the link

with the international law argument as

well it's about how big the jungle is

and or how big the the society in which

you say we have a legal system is and

who gets

protected well as shami points out

absolutely correctly as you would expect

um

the decision of the European court of

justice given uh before the human rights

act so it's not in any way a product of

that is a decision which lawyers know as

chahal against the United Kingdom chahal

was a seek

terrorist we wanted to support Deport

him to

India uh he said that if he was deported

to India he was a grave risk of

torture and uh severe Mal treatment and

that was accepted as a real risk in his

case and the European Court of Human

Rights said you may not Deport anyone to

a country where they

are serious risk of being tortured now

that is a decision that has been hugely

unpopular with the government they went

to sturg again in another case to try

and upset it and the European Court of

Human Rights stuck to its guns and refus

to budge now you can take two views you

could say well um send him to India and

let him get on with it or you could say

as they

have torture is something so

repulsive uh and so completely

unacceptable uh that one simply cannot

uh countenance and exercise of Public

Authority which may result in somebody

being torture now there's room for two

views I support the European court on it

but it is uh I think think without doubt

the most unpopular decision that the

European Court of human rights has given

from the point of view of the

governmental authorities in this country

but surely if it's and surely if it's

okay to deport someone to a place of

torture you can't then jump up and down

about rendition it's really we're really

dancing on the head of the pin are we

not if we say that we can Deport someone

to a place of torture but but if we do

it sort of rather deliberately and

specifically and get some very vital

intelligence back that's an

Abomination I I think um that we in this

country have every reason to be

extremely proud of our record in

relation to torture uh as those of us

who read the sort of history books I did

as a child will remember it used to be

in medieval times the practice uh to

make somebody hold a boiling molten lead

in their hand and if it went septic then

they were guilty they were duly

slaughtered and if it didn't go septic

they probably lost the use of their hand

but they were regarded as innocent uh

and in 1215 that was declared to be a

cruel and unacceptable procedure uh by

the leran council that year and there

was a choice for the Nations of Europe

to make as to what they were going to do

uh we said we would stick to our jury we

would allow people to give evidence um

and we would uh entrust uh guilt or

innocence to the decision of a jury and

one witness uh for the the prosecution

was enough the countries of Continental

Europe adopted a different uh rule uh

which was uh that um you should either

have two witnesses to the crime or a

confession well now there lots of crimes

you don't get two

witnesses uh and so they needed a

confession and how better to get a

confession than to torture somebody

until they confessed uh and this was an

accepted practice in the countries of

Contin Europe until an amazingly late

date and there was 18th century

textbooks of very elegant young men owed

wi and hes and Silk Stockings putting

people to the rack and and thumb screw

and this uh sort of thing uh so we led

the way in uh setting our face Against

torture now almost every country in the

world is a party to the torture

convention which is very swinging and

very uncompromising in its turn

uh so um as I say

I'm a total opponent of torture in any

shape or form and I don't think we

should lend it uh any countenance