Bingham Centre holds a joint seminar with ALBA

Strasbourg and the UK: Dialogue or Conflict

London, 4th October 2011

A packed meeting on this subject was held in the Inner Temple on Tuesday 4 October, in collaboration with the Constitutional and Administrative Bar Association (known as ALBA). The meeting was chaired by Lord Justice Laws and the speakers were Lord David Pannick QC and Professor Philip Leach of London Metropolitan University.

The subject matter of the event was particularly topical as it was held on the same day that the Home Secretary had attacked the Strasbourg Court at the Conservative Party Conference.

Lord Pannick QC said that our present Human Rights Act wisely recognises that Parliament is not bound by the European Convention on Human Rights. It is clear that the European Court is in need of reform to reduce its delays. Account should be taken of the public's anxieties about human rights both by the UK and Strasbourg courts, without compromising principle. However, he also noted that open defiance of the Court may be inconsistent with membership both of the Council of Europe and the European Union and believed that judges, rather than politicians were the most appropriate guardians of human rights.

Professor Leach was critical of the UK's response to Strasbourg on the question of prisoner voting rights. He reminded the audience that the European Court acts as a safety net for some of the most vulnerable people on the continent. The repetition of human rights violations has led the Court into more prescriptive action, such as directing states to take particular measures (such as implementing new legislation). He supported the principle of subsidiarity, but argued that it required truly effective national implementation of human rights standards.

Professor Sir Jeffrey Jowell QC, concluding on behalf of the Bingham Centre, sought to remind the meeting of the European Court's role in binding together a wider Europe based on the core values of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. Although some of the Court's judgments disappointed some countries some of the time, at present only two governments were engaged in actually challenging the Court's legitimacy: Russia and the UK. Criticism was of course in order, but care should be taken not to damage this impressive enterprise which is so important for the peace and security of future generations.