War on Traditional English Liberties

There's an article in today's Sun making the usual claims about the Human Rights Act causing the destruction of the UK as it only helps criminals. The article then turns into a complaint about English common law, which from a paper which is prides itself in its "patriotism" is an odd position to take.

For some unknown reason they have an interview with the father of the murdered model Sally Ann Bowman who says that last month's unanimous ruling by the European Court of Human Rights that the government's DNA database goes way too far, is a disaster for the UK and he supports a national DNA database.

It is the usual "victims rights" nonsense (which I have previously covered) - that people who have suffered from crime are the ones that should be listened to more than anyone, irrespective of what they say. I can only hope that her father makes the effort to read the judgement, especially paragraph 125

"[We] find that the blanket and indiscriminate nature of the powers of retention of the fingerprints, cellular samples and DNA profiles of persons suspected but not convicted of offences, fails to strike a fair balance between the competing public and private interests and that the respondent State has overstepped any acceptable margin of appreciation in this regard [and it] constitutes a disproportionate interference with the... right to respect for private life and cannot be regarded as necessary in a democratic society."

I also guess that her father is unaware of the government's numerous losses of personal data that have been exposed over the past 18 months.

The Sun further states that the murder was only caught because he was only on the register due to previously being in trouble with the police. If that is the case it simply shows how poor the police are in this country.

What's interesting is the it states that the Home Office "fears it may only be allowed to take DNA samples AFTER someone is convicted". Has the Sun had a tip-off about the government's response to the ruling? Is it simply fear-mongering? Or is it both?

It then goes on and quotes her father complaining about the fact that nine year olds can't be prosecuted. He blames it on the HRA, but it is actually to do with the fact that there is a minimum age at which anyone can be considered to be culpable of a crime. The age limit in England and Wales of 10 years old is the joint second lowest within Europe, only Scotland has a lower limit of eight years old. In any event, he should be grateful of the current limits because until 1998 there was a rebuttable presumption that anyone under 14 years was incapable of committing a crime by the doctrine of doli incapax. He must want anyone of any age to be liable of a criminal record...

In fact the only thing about this article that is correct is that it doesn't state that the ECtHR is part of the EU or that the HRA was one of its directives.