eurealist.co.uk

From the Times

Interpreting laws on terror: judges, politics and human rights
From Lord Donaldson of Lymington

Sir, You warn judges against over-interpretation of the law and retreating into the ivory tower of self-indulgence whilst leaving the public exposed to terrorism (leading article, August 12; see also letters, August 15). I appreciate that one interpretation can be right and another wrong, but I do not understand the concept of grades of interpretation or how an interpretation can be selfindulgent when the interpreter has no personal interest.

The government of every state has an inherent right to refuse entry to or to deport any foreign citizen whose presence it deems not to be conducive to the public good. But Parliament can voluntarily restrict this right. This it did by enacting the Human Rights Act 1998, which prohibits any deportation which would expose the deportee to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In the exercise of their duty to interpret and apply the will of Parliament, the judges will take account of any memorandum of understanding with the receiving state, but they will not seek to balance the risks to the deportee against the risks to the United Kingdom of refraining from deportation.

If Parliament wishes to amend the Human Rights Act to require the undertaking of this balance, it can do so and the judges will seek to give effect to it. But in my view it is a wholly political exercise. The only merit of such an amendment would be to relieve the Home Secretary of a responsibility which is truly his.

JOHN F. DONALDSON
House of Lords

Thanks to Dennis Cooper