Paterson's Gambit
At the end of last week I mentioned in my round-up that Owen Paterson, the former MP who resigned his position in disgrace over a lobbying scandal, was suing the UK government at the European Court of Human Rights for its handling of the investigation.
Today we found out more about this application as Paterson’s solicitors put out a full statement. It is unusual for a firm to essentially go out of their way to burn their own client but, far and away, the best line is as follows:
“The irony that Mr Paterson, a vocal opponent of European institutions, should be seeking the help of the European Court of Human Rights is not lost.”
On a more serious note, the statement also speaks to the substance of the claims and the most interesting line is:
“the Government has yet to meet its promise of repatriating human rights law to Britain, hence the application to Strasbourg.”
To those well-versed in human rights law, it might seem strange to argue that human rights law has not been ‘brought home’ given the way that the Human Rights Act 1998 operates.
However Jonathan Jones KC pointed out on Twitter that what the statement actually seems to imply and advocate for when talking about the government “promise of repatriating human rights law to Britain” is pulling out of the Convention entirely.
Certainly this explanation seems more likely than the government promise to publish its own Bill of Rights that would have no bearing on this case.1
Either way the argument around Article 9 of the 1689 Bill of Rights is an interesting one. That provision reads:
“Freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament.”
In this context, that means the investigation by the Standards Committee could not be challenged by the courts because of parliamentary privilege. According to the statement from Paterson’s solicitors, the committee has repeatedly refused to waive that privilege although it is not clear it would have the power to do so even if it wanted to. In any case, it means Paterson has not been able to seek justice in the UK courts and must now instead turn to Europe.
If that is the thrust of the argument then this will be an interesting case to keep an eye on. There is nothing in the Convention that gives special protection to Parliament although the UK government will surely argue that proceedings in the legislature should be given a wider berth because it ensures free debate amongst MPs and lords.
Should Paterson come out on top and the UK government is forced to reconsider the 1689 Bill of Rights then it will strengthen arguments in the Conservative party for pulling out of the Convention entirely. In an ironic twist of fate, Paterson’s reliance on the court could help his Eurosceptic dreams come to fruition.
In case you missed the excitement and the emails last week, I covered the latest judgment from the Supreme Court (about the prospect of another referendum on Scottish independence) in an episode released last Wednesday so that means there was no episode today.
Episode link: http://uklawweekly.com/2022-uksc-31/
Make a difference today,
Marcus
A more favourable reading would be that the Standards Committee is protected by parliamentary privilege and so the Human Rights Act fails to truly ‘bring rights home’. I personally think/hope this is what the somewhat vague statement is driving at.