Courts need not be bound by Europe, says top judge

British courts do not need to be bound by European human rights rulings, the country’s most senior judge said yesterday.

"

Lord Judge, the Lord Chief Justice, said the UK need only “take account” of the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights but not necessarily follow it.

His comments will be seized upon by David Cameron who is furious with a series of rulings by the Strasbourg court imposed on the UK.

The Prime Minister is resisting a demand from Europe to give some prisoners a vote after the court ruled the current blanket ban is unlawful but is under increasing pressure to abide by it.

The domestic courts had all agreed with Government policy but the human rights challenge won in Europe.

Giving evidence to the Lords Constitutional Committee, Lord Judge was asked whether Strasbourg “always wins”.

He said: “I would like to suggest that maybe Strasbourg shouldn’t win and doesn’t need to win.”

“I think for Strasbourg I think there is yet a debate to happen, it will have to happen in the Supreme Court, about what we really do mean in the Human rights Act, what parliament means in the Human Rights Act, when it said that the courts in this country must take account of the decisions of European Court of Human Rights.

“I myself think it is at least arguable that having taken account of the decision of the court in Strasbourg our courts are not bound by them. Give them due weight in most cases obviously, we would follow them but not, I think, necessarily.”

The Human Rights Act, which the last Labour Government passed, enshrined the European Convention of Human Rights in to British law.

Lord Phillips, the President of the Supreme Court, told the peers that Strasbourg can cause “serious problems” when it rules against the UK courts.

But he said that as long as the Human Rights Act existed Strasbourg would win.

The Government has been given a further stay by Europe on its demand to impose prisoner voting pending the outcome of a similar case involving Italy.

Mr Cameron has suggested replacing the Human Rights Act with a British Bill of Rights.

He also plans to use the UK’s presidency of the Council of Europe from next month to lead a radical shake – up of the European human rights court.

However, he was warned last month by his own commission examining a Bill of Rights that radical reform of the court would not prevent it again overruling Parliament on issues such as allowing prisoners to vote.

In other issues, Lord Judge warned ministers that their open criticism of decisions of the courts that they do not like is “damaging”.

The relationship between parliament and judiciary was strained earlier this year in a row over the growing use of injunctions and claims that the courts were effectively creating a law of privacy by stealth.

Asked about a public perception of antagonism between parliament and the judiciary, he said: “It would help if Government ministers did not cheer when they agree with a judicial decision or boo when they disagree.

“That is, I think, very undesirable and I think it is damaging. If we got rid of that I think it would be much easier.”"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8836487/Courts-need-not-be-bound-by-Europe-says-top-judge.html