“We will be strong in defence of freedom. The Government believes that the British state has become too authoritarian, and that over the past decade it has abused and eroded fundamental human freedoms and historic civil liberties. We need to restore the rights of individuals in the face of encroaching state power, in keeping with Britain’s tradition of freedom and fairness.

• We will implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties and roll back state intrusion.

• We will introduce a Freedom Bill.

• We will scrap the ID card scheme, the National Identity register and the ContactPoint database, and halt the next generation of biometric passports.

• We will outlaw the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.

• We will extend the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.

• We will adopt the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.

• We will protect historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.

• We will restore rights to non-violent protest. • We will review libel laws to protect freedom

of speech.

• We will introduce safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.

• We will further regulate CCTV. • We will end the storage of internet and email

records without good reason.

• We will introduce a new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

• We will establish a Commission to investigate the creation of a British Bill of Rights that incorporates and builds on all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights, ensures that these rights continue to be enshrined in British law, and protects and extends British liberties. We will seek to promote a better understanding of the true scope of these obligations and liberties.”

Further items of note within the document are:

Chapter 13 – Europe

“We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that treaty – a ‘referendum lock’. We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.”

“We will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.”

Chapter 17 – Immigration

“We will introduce an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit.

We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

We will create a dedicated Border Police Force, as part of a refocused Serious Organised Crime Agency, to enhance national security, improve immigration controls and crack down on the trafficking of people, weapons and drugs. We will work with police forces to strengthen arrangements to deal with serious crime and other cross-boundary policing challenges, and extend collaboration between forces to deliver better value for money.

We support E-borders and will reintroduce exit checks.

We will apply transitional controls as a matter of course in the future for all new EU Member States.

We will introduce new measures to minimise abuse of the immigration system, for example via student routes, and will tackle human trafficking as a priority.

We will explore new ways to improve the current asylum system to speed up the processing of applications.”

Chapter 21 – National Security

“We will urgently review Control Orders, as part of a wider review of counter-terrorist legislation, measures and programmes. We will seek to find a practical way to allow the use of intercept evidence in court.”

“We believe that Britain should be able to deport foreign nationals who threaten our security to countries where there are verifiable guarantees that they will not be tortured. We will seek to extend these guarantees to more countries.”

The full document is available here.

Observer, February 7, 2010, 23

A coalition of judicial experts, lawyers and politicians has warned the Government that its continued ban on prisoners voting could lead to a series of legal challenges after the 2010 general election. In 2009 the Government acknowledged that some prisoners must be allowed to vote in line with a 2001 European Court of Human Rights ruling, however it is likely that certain categories of offender will continued to be denied the vote.

To read the speech in full, please click here.

In this case, a man whose partner had been refused fertility treatment on the basis that Edinburgh City Council had reported the existence of an apparently unfounded allegation that he had been in prison for murder, sued over the refusal of legal aid.

The couple went abroad for private treatment, which was successful. The Scottish Legal Aid Board said that, although his complaint was based in part on negligence and in part on alleged violations of his Arts 6, 7 and 8 rights, it was essentially one of defamation. The 2007 and 2008 Directions of which he sought judicial review were irrational, he claimed, because they made it practically impossible to get legal aid for defamation.

Lord Wheatley refused the petition for a variety of reasons, holding that it was an academic question, the Scottish Legal Aid Board hadn’t received adequate medical evidence and so would have refused legal aid anyway and that the applicant had not exhausted his remedies. Importantly for Art 10, however, Lord Wheatley agreed with the Sheriff Principal that the Scottish Ministers fully intended to make legal aid for defamation only in exceptional cases: “The standard that has to be reached in this respect…may be almost insurmountable, but…it is clear that was nonetheless what the legislature intended. But that is not quite the same thing as saying that the granting of legal aid for such claims has become impossible. I cannot therefore hold that the Directions are irrational…” (The 2007 and 2008 Directions are effectively in the same terms- both introduce an extremely limited right to legal aid in defamation actions of overwhelming individual and distinctive wider social importance.)

H further submitted that his detention was in breach of Article 5(1)(f) of the ECHR, which allows for “the lawful arrest or detention….of a person against whom action is being taken with a view to deportation or extradition”, since he was detained prior to any determination of whether an exception under section 33 of the 2007 Act applied to his case, and so before action was underway to deport him.  The court determined that deportation was intended unless one of the exceptions applied, and that the secretary of state had shown a sufficiently firm intention to deport H.  The fact that there H had  an ongoing asylum application  did not alter the intention to deport.

H also submitted that his detention was unlawful as it infringed implied limits on the exercise of the power to detain.  The court held that the secretary of state  has to act with reasonable diligence and expedition to effect deportation. Reasonableness includes taking account of the length of time which H had spent in detention after the conclusion of the criminal sentence, pursuant to the immigration powers.   Taking into account delay’s at H’s own request to the asylum application process, the length of time was not so great as to infringe the implied limitation on the power to detain.  The secretary of state was also entitled to take into account the fact that H’s probation officer had noted that H was likely to reoffend if released.  Additionally, the court found that due diligence had been complied with, although it was suggested that determining whether an individual fell within any of the exceptions within section 33 of the 2007 Act prior to the conclusion of their criminal sentence may be sensible.

The full report can be viewed here.