John Downey

Debate between Ian Paisley and Dominic Grieve

Wednesday 26th February 2014 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

My hon. Friend makes perhaps an important point. It is right to say that the letters were sent on the basis of decisions taken by both the Public Prosecution Service and the PSNI, in the context of Northern Ireland, and if domestic matters elsewhere in the UK were concerned, by their prosecutorial authorities. To that extent, it was an administrative system independently conducted of Ministers; I want to make that quite clear. However, it is also right that, at the end of the process, it was ministerial letters, or letters from officials, that constituted the giving of the information.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

This is a sad and sorry affair, which unfortunately is written in the blood of our brave servicemen on the streets of this wonderful city. We should never lose sight of that. However, does the Attorney-General recognise that the case law now established by this case and its outworking has done grievous harm to the rule of law and how it is considered across the whole of the United Kingdom, and will continue to do so unless he takes specific steps to rescind all the letters to all the individuals, and does his best to find fresh factors or new evidence to prosecute—once again—Mr John Downey?

[The Attorney-General]

So far as rescinding of the letters is concerned, that is not a matter for me. [Interruption.] No, it is not a matter for me, acting in my capacity; I accept that it could be a matter for Government, but it is not a matter on which I can give such an assurance to the hon. Gentleman.

On the question of case law, let me make the position quite clear. There is very well-established case law about abuse of process, and cases being stopped on the basis of an abuse of process, particularly in relation to assurances given that an individual might not be prosecuted for something, has not just suddenly emerged. It is perfectly well established in our law and indeed is part of our rule of law, for the very good reason that assurances given by public administrations may be binding upon them if they lead somebody to do something to their detriment.

In this case, as I have made clear, we took the view that there were arguments that could properly be put forward to the court that, although there was an error, it did not amount to an abuse of process and was not justified. The court has taken a different view, but I do not think that one can draw general conclusions about other cases from this case, which falls on its own individual facts.

Voting by Prisoners

Debate between Ian Paisley and Dominic Grieve

Thursday 10th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[The Attorney-General]

It is certainly true that our international legal obligations may alter by virtue of what Parliament has enacted, but the current position is that we have an international obligation that, if I understood correctly from what they said, is not one from which, in its principles, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden or the right hon. Member for Blackburn would wish to resile. We are bound by it as Ministers of the Crown. However, if my hon. Friend will bear with me, I will come to that in a moment.

I repeat the point that the Grand Chamber in the Hirst case commented on the lack of any substantive debate in Parliament. It must be the case, therefore, that the existence of a substantive debate—indeed, we may have to have more than one substantive debate on this issue—will be helpful to the process of finding a way through the problem that is exercising many Members of this House. However, although Members are fully entitled to express their disagreement with the judgment of the European Court—indeed, I have done so myself: I said that I consider the judgment in the Hirst case to be an unsatisfactory one, for precisely the reasons, which I will not repeat, that the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend articulated—the fact that we may be in disagreement does not in itself solve the problem.

In order for the views of this House to be helpful, we need to demonstrate that we are engaging with the concerns of the Court and that we are not just expressing our frustrations—although I have to say that on occasion I have felt very frustrated on this issue in the last few years, and actually rather angry. Through a dialogue about what the House considers to be proper and reasonable in respect of prisoner voting, we have to see whether we can bring our weight to bear as a legislature in the development of the jurisprudence of the Court. That will give us the best possible chance of winning the challenges that may arise thereafter. As we know, given the litigiousness of those who think that there is a gravy train on which they might be able to climb, we can guarantee that, whatever we do, there will be legal challenge to it that will go back to the European Court of Human Rights for determination.

[Ian Paisley]

I appreciate the Minister’s helpful guidance. Will he address the point made by the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) when he quoted Lord Hoffmann, the former Law Lord, saying in a lecture that it cannot be right for a European supranational court

“to intervene in matters on which Member States of the Council of Europe have not surrendered their sovereign powers”?

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give us some guidance on that point?

[The Attorney-General]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there has been a great deal of commentary, including in some learned lectures by judges, such as Lady Justice Arden, Lord Hoffmann and others, who have expressed growing concern about the way in which the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights is being developed and about the Court’s tendency towards micro-management. That is the nature of the challenge. That said, for the reasons I gave a moment ago, the judgments of the Court constitute an international obligation, so far as we subscribe to the convention and to membership of the Council of Europe. That is the dilemma the Government face, as did the previous Government: how can we find a way to persuade the Court to respect the views that the legislature may express without having to withdraw from the convention or the Council of Europe entirely, which, I have to say, would not come without cost or consequence for this country?