Quick thoughts on this - bearing in mind it is already pretty confused in the Telegraph article and the manifesto hasn't been published so this could be a balloon being sent up.
(Thread)
(Thread)
This relates to regular noises in recent years suggesting that soldiers should be protected from prosecution for offences going back more than, say, 10 years.
The direct targets are potential war crimes in Iraq/Afghanistan and illegal acts during the Troubles e.g. Bloody Sunday
The direct targets are potential war crimes in Iraq/Afghanistan and illegal acts during the Troubles e.g. Bloody Sunday
There is a separate issue, relating to Human Rights Act. The Telegraph splash is confused - soldiers can't be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act, it doesn't work like that.
This is about investigations of historic allegations, e.g. ones which happened more 10+ years ago.
This is about investigations of historic allegations, e.g. ones which happened more 10+ years ago.
A journalist (not Telegraph) sent me a release I suppose from the govt / or it was a leak earlier this evening which related to amending the HRA so it didn't apply to issues which took place before October 2000 when it came into force. So that's where the HRA comes in.
In fact, the HRA doesn't really apply to issues which took place before October 2000, with one exception, which is that sometimes it is necessary under the right to life (article 2) to investigate deaths where is potential state complicity, and this can sometimes apply pre-2000
The problem with amending the HRA to say that no deaths which occurred before 2000 need to be investigated is that the European Court of Human Rights has made clear that the state does have to investigate pre-2000 deaths where there has been state complicity.
So any amendment of the HRA would just lead to people going to Strasbourg and the European Court saying that the deaths have to be investigated. The UK has an international legal obligation to abide by judgments of the Strasbourg Court. So we're back to where we were.
The European Court of Human Rights might also say the amendment to the HRA isn't compatible with the Convention. But who knows.
In sum, I don't see what this proposed amendment is going to achieve in reality.
Some further thoughts in this theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
In sum, I don't see what this proposed amendment is going to achieve in reality.
Some further thoughts in this theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
One interesting point to note is that if the tories are planning on amending the Human Rights Act, that suggests they aren’t repealing it. Which (notwithstanding this bad policy) would be 🤞🏼 good news)
