Quote of the day
“If he wanted to have a family he should have thought of that before he robbed my family of a much-loved man.”
- Peter Askins, 53-year-old brother of George Askins who was kicked to death by Kirk Dickson and a friend in 1994 because he refused to hand over a cigarette. Kirk Dickson and five other prisoners in British jails have applied to have children with their partners following a European court ruling that their human rights would be breached if they are prevented from becoming fathers. The inmates claim they or their partners will be too old once they are released and should be allowed to donate sperm now for artificial insemination. The Dickson legal challenge has already cost the taxpayer more than £20,000 in legal aid.
Ridiculous. There’d be no point in incarcerating people to take away their freedom as a punishment if we are obliged to offset the effect of those restrictions. Otherwise, they could presumably sue for the ‘right’ to walk along the beach on the grounds that they will have difficulty walking when they get out of jail. And so on.
Bonkers.
Hence why the Human Rights Act is so patently ridiculous and should be replaced by something considerably less ridiculous.
I actually disagree. The HRA only incorporates something which we were subject to anyway, especially in cases where there was only common law. I would argue that the most egregious ‘failings’ of the Act, which I characterise as over-zealous implementation, come about for one of two reasons:
1) junior civil servants/policemen decide on their interpretation of it, maximally (of course) and then apply what they THINK it is; and
2) the CPS and DPP use atrocious lawyers with lame arguments designed not to win their cases or shape case-law but instead to appeal to the Tabloids.
Point 2 is not a surprise; when I was at law school all the nice-but-dim kids with 3rd class degrees were off to work at the CPS…
Peter Askins has hit the nail on the head; no-one has denied Kirk Dickson the right to become a father. Instead, he himself decided to put that opportunity at risk when he kicked George Askins to death. If he is upset at the loss, he only has himself to blame.
Also, Shaun is right; the substantive decision in this case is not the HRA but the ECJ at work. That is not an exoneration of the HRA, though, nor whatever idiot decided this was worthy of legal aid.
Finally:
Hence why the Human Rights Act is so patently ridiculous
Don’t even think about blaming me for that one!
)
From the Telegraph today:
“Their original request under the Human Rights Act in 2001 was blocked by the then Home Secretary, David Blunkett. The High Court, Court of Appeal and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg also rejected the claim. But Strasbourg’s final appeal court, the Grand Chamber, then concluded that blocking the request was a denial of the couple’s right to become parents. It said the British Government had breached Article 8 of the European convention on human rights, which guarantees the right to a private and family life.”
Sounds like the Act is the cause of the problem, not the interpretation.
That, LFAT, is where we disagree. That the ECHR made a decision means that it heard arguments and decided on the strength of them. Remember that we habitually use 3rd-raters to represent the state but high-profile clever legal bunnies usually take cases like this because it’s great for their careers. If Man Utd beat a 4th division team in the FA Cup, we don’t blame the tournament or the rules of football…
My point is that I don’t see how they can reach any other conclusion than finding in favour of the prisoners, such is the unwieldy nature of the ECHR, and this troubles me.
Maybe but I suspect it was never argues that these prisoners, did, when free, have these rights but that curtailment of rights is an inherent part of incarceration-punishment. I might be wrong and would be interested in seeing the actual court documents as I suppose it’s always possible that the State’s lawyers weren’t as incompetent as usual. I do suspect, though, that their argument turned on a wider issue of people not having an automatic right to state-assisted procreation due to some NHS actuary looking at the costs of IVF in relation to that well-documented rationing.
After all, if a prisoner has the right to IVF for his partner then surely *everyone* has the right to IVF? Ker-ching!
“Otherwise, they could presumably sue for the ‘right’ to walk along the beach on the grounds that they will have difficulty walking when they get out of jail.”
Don’t give them IDEAS!
Let’s be clear what they are asking for.
Since we do not prohibit masturbation in prisons, the only privilege these men want is to be able to put the product of their masturbation into a plastic pot and have it collected by an IVF clinic.
Not a big deal really.
If it means they develop a stake in society, have family responsibilities and a stable environment when they come out, and are consequently less likely to offend – then maybe it isn’t such a bad idea.
I wonder whether Blunkett’s initial refusal coincided with his own difficulties with that Fortier woman?
‘..the couple’s right to become parents’.
That’s such an absurd place to use the word ‘right’. Had he cared for other people’s rights he wouldn’t be in jail!
I am in complete agreement that when you kick someone to death you need to be punished and not allowed to pass on those violent genes to the next generation and allow a child to be brought up with his father is prison – that story never ends up well.
Having a child will not provide a stable environment for an ex-prisoner – who is to say where that violent streak will manifest itself – another Baby P in the making? That should certainly not be allowed.
Tom, Kirk Dickson is in prison for kicking a man to death over a cigarette. I don’t really see where you get your idyllic picture from of how these people would behave if they had children. What evidence do you have that they will be less likely to offend? Do murderers tend to provide stable environments?
That’s all irrelevant, LFAT. Incarceration is designed to take awat a prisoner’s freedom. Starting with freedom of movement, we take away their ‘right’ to employment, their ‘right’ to heterosexual relationships, their ‘right’ to lie in, their ‘right’ to drink alocohol and their right to vote. Amongst others. Why would we expressly leave inmates with the right to society’s assistance to procreate?
I would contend that when you comitt an imprisonable offence, it is precisely the freedom to indulge those possibilities that your forfeit, not just some notional right to shop at Ikea with the missus.