We say: "Council's frequently discriminate" So to does the Court of Appeal and the Criminal Cases Review Commission
Article 17 (Abuse of Rights)
Leaving out Articles 1 and 13 from the 1998 Act, is an abuse of Article 17
It is important to read all of the Articles together to understand how one right taken away can have a domino effect that perpetuates injustices. For example by leaving out Articles 1 and 13 from the Human Rights Act 1998, the United Kingdom have taken away the right to an appeal against a wrongful conviction and prevented anyone from remedying the situation.
Clearly, the slant is to gain convictions for some offences and deny appeals at the Single Judge stage, where certain judges are employed who the state know will stamp a refusal automatically. That is why the single judge application system is an abuse of Articles 5 and 6, in that there is no real remedy provided for by statute. Statistically, once such Judge appears to us to be Sir Christopher Holland.
"The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status". Here again, sex crimes come in for special consideration and that invokes discrimination - where all crimes should have an equal prospect for an appeal.
Article 14 also applies where your local authority fail to act to protect your rights, hence this important legislation introduces for the first time positive rights. In the past you only had negative rights.
Article 6 should be read in context with Article 14, in that the right to a fair hearing (or appeal) should not be the subject of discrimination - which at the moment it is in terms of finance for effective representation where a man accused of a sexual offence is guilty until proven innocent, instead of innocent until proven guilty. The reversal of the burden of proof requires additional funding over and above the £1500 allowed for case preparation in other criminal cases. To date this has not been addressed after David Blunkett, Jack Straw and other ministers changed the law of the land to more than double the conviction rate.
How can you do that? Simple, you arrange it so that a man is guilty, unless he is able to prove the claimant is lying. That is a tall order, where legal aid barristers will not take instruction, and just do their own thing, arguing that there are not funds to challenge, for example, medical evidence. Sentences doubled too and those convicted are sent to special camps where they are subjected to experimental sexual treatments, such as HMP Bure in Norwich, Norfolk. It appears that eugenics is alive and well in England, ingrained in those in many parts of the criminal justice system.
This is relatively new and untested legislation, which is already altering the way Council's proceed. Unfortunately, vendettas begun by Council's before implementation may not be reviewed in light of the new rights accorded, except where the Council concerned carries forward similar perverse behaviour past October 2000.
Perhaps this is a contributing factor to the plethora of reported serious abuses of authority plaguing Council's up and down the country. Where planning is concerned there is very limited access to justice! What is your MP doing about it?