This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.theguardian.com/law/2014/aug/13/grieve-cameron-european-court-of-human-rights

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Cameron warned over 'sabre-rattling' with European court of human rights Cameron warned over 'sabre-rattling' with European court of human rights
(about 5 hours later)
The former attorney general has warned David Cameron not to take an aggressive stance against the European court of human rights (ECHR).The former attorney general has warned David Cameron not to take an aggressive stance against the European court of human rights (ECHR).
Dominic Grieve, who was sacked from his post in last month's reshuffle, said the court's decision on Tuesday not to award compensation to prisoners who had not been allowed to vote had offered the government "a way out" from a split.Dominic Grieve, who was sacked from his post in last month's reshuffle, said the court's decision on Tuesday not to award compensation to prisoners who had not been allowed to vote had offered the government "a way out" from a split.
The Tory MP also reiterated his previous claim that the introduction of legislation to make parliamentary consent necessary before judgments were implemented would be a "disaster".The Tory MP also reiterated his previous claim that the introduction of legislation to make parliamentary consent necessary before judgments were implemented would be a "disaster".
His intervention comes after the home secretary, Theresa May, on Tuesday called for Britain to pull out of the European convention on human rights. The Tories are known to be finalising plans to curtail the role of the ECHR in the UK, due to be unveiled at the autumn party conference and included in its manifesto for next year's general election.His intervention comes after the home secretary, Theresa May, on Tuesday called for Britain to pull out of the European convention on human rights. The Tories are known to be finalising plans to curtail the role of the ECHR in the UK, due to be unveiled at the autumn party conference and included in its manifesto for next year's general election.
The ECHR ruled that article 3 of the convention – the right to a free election – had been violated, but rejected the applicants' claim for compensation and legal costs. The ECHR ruled that article 3 of the first protocol of the convention – the right to a free election – had been violated, but rejected the applicants' claim for compensation and legal costs.
On Radio 4's Today programme, Grieve said the decision proved there was no appetite for a "big argument" with the UK. He called the ruling a "hopeful sign" that the court had been "listening to what the UK has been saying". On Radio 4's Today programme Grieve said the decision proved there was no appetite for a big argument with the UK. He called the ruling a hopeful sign that the court had been "listening to what the UK has been saying".
He said: "My view is that we need to have a robust dialogue with the court and I think we have been trying to have that.He said: "My view is that we need to have a robust dialogue with the court and I think we have been trying to have that.
"Our own judiciary have been saying quite clearly that they think there are areas where the court is not as good as it should be."Our own judiciary have been saying quite clearly that they think there are areas where the court is not as good as it should be.
"The danger for the UK is that if we engage in sabre-rattling with the court, I don't think it will be constructive."The danger for the UK is that if we engage in sabre-rattling with the court, I don't think it will be constructive.
"There are suggestions that my own party wants in some way to enact legislation if we get into government to prevent the court's judgments … [being] implemented unless the parliament approves it. That would be, in my view, a disaster."There are suggestions that my own party wants in some way to enact legislation if we get into government to prevent the court's judgments … [being] implemented unless the parliament approves it. That would be, in my view, a disaster.
"It would put us in breach of our international legal obligations, would place us in great difficulty in terms of our international standing on human rights."It would put us in breach of our international legal obligations, would place us in great difficulty in terms of our international standing on human rights.
"And one only has to look at what is going on at the moment in northern Iraq to see that human rights do matter."And one only has to look at what is going on at the moment in northern Iraq to see that human rights do matter.
"We ought to be acting prudently and moderately in trying to get the changes we want.""We ought to be acting prudently and moderately in trying to get the changes we want."
Asked about being dropped from the cabinet, which some said was due to his support for the court, he warned that he would use his new position to speak out against the government.Asked about being dropped from the cabinet, which some said was due to his support for the court, he warned that he would use his new position to speak out against the government.
"I have got the freedom of the backbenches and therefore I intend to express my views on matters which I think are of interest."I have got the freedom of the backbenches and therefore I intend to express my views on matters which I think are of interest.
"To do that in a way which is loyal to my own party but at the same time [it] is not going to prevent me from expressing divergent views if I think we are doing something wrong."To do that in a way which is loyal to my own party but at the same time [it] is not going to prevent me from expressing divergent views if I think we are doing something wrong.
"I think we are in danger of making a very serious mistake, one that would be reputationally very damaging to the Conservative party in any future government."I think we are in danger of making a very serious mistake, one that would be reputationally very damaging to the Conservative party in any future government.
"The danger is if one gets carried away with one's own rhetoric, one can do a lot of damage to the country. Because ultimately this country is founded on the rule of law," he said."The danger is if one gets carried away with one's own rhetoric, one can do a lot of damage to the country. Because ultimately this country is founded on the rule of law," he said.
The ECHR in Strasbourg ruled in 2004 that a UK blanket ban on prisoners' votes was unlawful after it received a claim from the convicted killer John Hirst.The ECHR in Strasbourg ruled in 2004 that a UK blanket ban on prisoners' votes was unlawful after it received a claim from the convicted killer John Hirst.
Seven years later, MPs voted to keep the ban on prisoner voting – excluding those on remand – despite the ECHR's repeated calls for the UK to comply with its original ruling. Seven years later MPs voted to keep the ban on prisoner voting – excluding those on remand – despite the ECHR's repeated calls for the UK to comply with its original ruling.
Convicted prisoners in the UK are banned from voting on the basis that they have forfeited that right by breaking the law and going to jail.Convicted prisoners in the UK are banned from voting on the basis that they have forfeited that right by breaking the law and going to jail.
Last December a cross-party committee of MPs concluded that prisoners serving a jail term of a year or less could be entitled to vote – but this was never made law. Cameron has said that the idea of giving prisoners the right to vote makes him feel "physically sick". Last October the convicted murderers Peter Chester and George McGeoch lost a bid at the supreme court to win prisoners the right to vote in light of the ECHR's original 2004 ruling.Last December a cross-party committee of MPs concluded that prisoners serving a jail term of a year or less could be entitled to vote – but this was never made law. Cameron has said that the idea of giving prisoners the right to vote makes him feel "physically sick". Last October the convicted murderers Peter Chester and George McGeoch lost a bid at the supreme court to win prisoners the right to vote in light of the ECHR's original 2004 ruling.
On Tuesday, Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, said one of the most controversial aspects of the European convention on human rights was that it was an international set of rules with the ECHR. On Tuesday Lord Neuberger, president of the supreme court, said one of the most controversial aspects of the European convention on human rights was that it was an international set of rules with the ECHR.
"UK judges have, I suspect, sometimes been too ready to assume that a decision – even a single decision of a section of that court – represents the law according to Strasbourg, and accordingly to follow it," he told a conference at the supreme court of Victoria in Melbourne."UK judges have, I suspect, sometimes been too ready to assume that a decision – even a single decision of a section of that court – represents the law according to Strasbourg, and accordingly to follow it," he told a conference at the supreme court of Victoria in Melbourne.