Judges may be told how to interpret human rights law

THE British Government is considering legislation instructing judges how to interpret the Human Rights Act if they try to block the government’s tough new deportation policy.

The Lord Chancellor, Charles Falconer, said in an interview with The Guardian that he was looking at the possibility of introducing a Bill to clarify the legal position.

Officials in the Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed it could force judges to give equal weight in their assessment of such cases to the interests of state security and the rights of the individual facing deportation.

“What I am talking about is a Bill which says this is the correct interpretation of the Human Rights Act,” Mr Falconer said.

He said that it was “the sensible way” of staying inside the European Convention on Human Rights while having an effective policy on deportation.

It follows warnings from human rights lawyers that plans to deport Islamic extremists to countries where they could face torture would breach the European Convention on Human Rights which is enshrined in the Act. They have dismissed the government’s plans to agree memorandums of understanding with the countries concerned providing assurances that individuals who are returned would not be abuse.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has warned the government is likely to face a battle in the courts over its plans. However, Mr Falconer insisted ministers were not seeking a confrontation with the judiciary.

“It is both wrong and unhelpful to create a conflict between the judges and the executive in relation to that. They have got different roles to perform,” he said.

“I don’t think the independence of the judiciary is remotely at risk.”

When Mr Falconer was asked if he was seeking to tell judges how to interpret the law, he responded: “I want a law which says that the Home Secretary, supervised by the courts, has got to balance the rights of the individual deportee against the risk to national security.

“That may involve an act which says ‘This is the correct interpretation of the European Convention’.”

Solicitor Gareth Peirce condemned the suggestion, describing it as “a constitutional challenge of the highest order.”

“At the end of the day, we are subject to the European Court of Human Rights,” she said. “Fine if we want to leave the Council of Europe in disgrace, fine if we want to banish ourselves, but that’s what it would mean.”