Justice For Families

What are the Convention rights?
There are 16 basic rights in the Human Rights Act – all taken from the European Convention on Human Rights. As you would expect, they concern matters of life and death, like freedom from torture and being killed, but they also cover rights in everyday life, such as what a person can say and do, their beliefs, their right to a fair trial and many other similar basic entitlements. They are listed at pages 6 to 9.
Can I ever refuse or restrict a right that someone is claiming?
Sometimes – especially if there is a real and serious danger to public safety. Not all Convention rights carry the same weight. They can be grouped into three broad types:
•
Absolute rights – such as the right to protection from torture and inhuman and degrading treatment (Article 3). The state can never withhold or take away these rights.
•
Limited rights – such as the right to liberty (Article 5). These rights may be limited under explicit and finite circumstances. If in doubt, seek legal advice.
•
Qualified rights – rights which require a balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the wider community or state interest. These include: the right to respect for private and family life (Article 8 the right to manifest one’s religion or beliefs (Article 9); freedom of expression (Article 10); freedom of assembly and association (Article 11); the right to peaceful enjoyment of property (Protocol 1, Article 1); and, to some extent, the right to education (Protocol 1, Article 2). 3
Interference with qualified rights is permissible only if:
•
there is a clear legal basis for the interference with the qualified right that people can find out about and understand, and
•
the action/interference seeks to achieve a legitimate aim. Legitimate aims are set out in each article containing a qualified right and they vary from article to article. They include, for example, the interests of national security, the prevention of disorder or crime, and public safety. Any interference with one of the rights contained in Articles 8–11 must fall under one of the permitted aims set out in the relevant article, and
•
the action is necessary in a democratic society. This means that the action or interference must be in response to ‘a pressing social need’, and must be no greater than that necessary to address the social need.
If you have any doubts about whether a right can be refused or restricted, seek legal advice without delay.



http://www.justice.gov.uk/docs/hr-handb ... uction.pdf

If the Labour Government did not sign up to Article 1 which ensures the rest of the Article can be made law, just what protection do we have from the state intervention.

This government has choosen which articles to allow us and which ones not to allow us. What is the point of going to Europe if all they can do is slap someones wrist. How can we campaign for the right for family life to be a certain right and not one that can be changed like in the secret family courts.

The Convention rights

(Article 1 is introductory and is not incorporated into the Human Rights Act.)

Article 2: Right to life

A person has the right to have their life protected by law. There are only certain very limited circumstances where it is acceptable for the state to take away someone’s life, e.g. if a police officer acts justifiably in selfdefence.

Article 3: Prohibition of torture

A person has the absolute right not to be tortured or subjected to treatment or punishment which is inhuman or degrading.

Article 4: Prohibition of slavery and forced labour

A person has the absolute right not to be treated as a slave or to be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

Article 5: Right to liberty and security

A person has the right not to be deprived of their liberty – ‘arrested or detained’ – except in limited cases specified in the article (e.g. where they are suspected or convicted of committing a crime) and provided there is a proper legal basis in UK law.


“Article 6: Right to a fair trial

A person has the right to a fair and public hearing within a

reasonable period of time. This applies both to criminal

6 Making sense of human rights: a short introduction

charges against them and to cases concerning their civil rights and obligations. Hearings must be carried out by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. It is possible to exclude the public from the hearing (though not from the judgment) if it is necessary to protect things like national security or public order. If it is a criminal charge, the person is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law and has certain guaranteed rights to defend themselves.

Article 7: No punishment without law

A person normally has the right not to be found guilty of an offence arising out of actions which at the time they committed them were not criminal. They are also protected against later increases in the maximum possible sentence for an offence.

Apart from the right to hold particular beliefs, the rights in Articles 8 to 11 may be limited where that is necessary to achieve an important objective. The precise objectives for which limitations are permitted are set out in each article, but they include things like protecting public health or safety, preventing crime and protecting the rights of others.

Article 8: Right to respect for private and family life

A person has the right to respect for their private and family life, their home and their correspondence. This right can be restricted only in specified circumstances.

7 Making sense of human rights: a short introduction

Article 9: Freedom of thought, conscience and religion

A person is free to hold a broad range of views, beliefs and thoughts, and to follow a religious faith. The right to manifest those beliefs may be limited only in specified circumstances.

Article 10: Freedom of expression

A person has the right to hold opinions and express their views on their own or in a group. This applies even if those views are unpopular or disturbing. This right can be restricted only in specified circumstances.

Article 11: Freedom of assembly and association

A person has the right to assemble with other people in a peaceful way. They also have the right to associate with other people, which includes the right to form a trade union. These rights may be restricted only in specified circumstances.

Article 12: Right to marry

Men and women have the right to marry and start a family. National law will still govern how and at what age this can take place.

(Article 13 is not included in the Human Rights Act.)

Article 14: Prohibition of discrimination

In the application of the Convention rights, a person has the right not to be treated differently because of their race,

continued on page 13”___________________________________________________________________________________________________



The UK High Contracting Party in order to deceive and con the People has reworded and DOCTORED the ECHR Articles to deprive us of our Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, as you can see from the following ECHR link - with Article 1 and Article 13 included:



The European Convention on Human Rights - Articles:
http://www.hri.org/docs/ECHR50.html#C.Art1

At a case I was involved in and had rights of audience for the LA sol told the Mages that the HRA (1998) was NOT primary leglislation !!!! After I had finished falling about laughing I expained how and why it was. BUT and this is a big BUT the HRA rarely is used by itself in an action. It is often used in conjunction with other legislation and therefore it has to be weighed and balanced with other acts and case law. The court always has to deceide what it puts first. Sometimes it isn't the HRA.

The HRA should come first. If it isn't put first then the law is wrong.

It is one of a few constitutional acts.

It could be better, but the point about the family courts is that they are often corrupted in various ways and don't follow the laws properly.

I do think we should strengthen support for the family, but the ECHR actually is much better than what happens in the courts in England.

I 2nd what Julie has said. In my experience whenever any HRA legislation has been used in our case, we have been told that family law comes 1st

fassitangels wrote:I 2nd what Julie has said. In my experience whenever any HRA legislation has been used in our case, we have been told that family law comes 1st

All domestic law in theory should comply with the articles of the human rights act - Nuff said

Agreed but where there is a conflict between the 2 laws, the UK domestic law takes presedence allegedly

Statute should be interpreted to give rise to the ECHR. Secondary Legislation can be ignored. Guidance can be ignored.

Statute can be declared to be incompatible, but it still remains in force until changed.

The rights of the child and articles under the HRA are ignored and abused every day in family courts. How can "they" get away with it if UK domestic law does not take presedence?

If the HRA was a primary consideration in family law how can PR be dispensed with in adoption cases and limited in special guardianship cases and it not be seen as a HRA issue?

How can children's wishes and feelings be ignored where there is no risk of harm and experts draw conclusions from contested/disputed reports before there is any sort of final hearing and this not contravene the HRA?

I was always under the impression that UK law is the primary law used, the HRA is taken into consideration but only where the UK law doesn't conflict. In cases where there is conflict the UK laws take presedence.

You only need to look at my case for blatant human rights abuses.
1. Professionals being allowed to say what they want about me and make recommendations if I was to parent my own child, and me not being allowed to defend any of their accusations as my party status was refused
2. Even though the above has occured, I am still expected to co-operate in all assessments that may occur in the future
3. Contact and PR being limited for the father, not for the mother
4. An ISW conducting the assessment in a very dodgy fashion and refusing to complete the assessment
5. Then conclusions being drawn from a hotly disputed and contested report, so all professionals are now raising concerns
6. People make allegations in family courts and parents have to respond by proving that they are innocent. The burden of proof should be on the person making the allegations

If UK family law was being HRA compliant;

- the report by the ISW should have resulted immediately in a contested hearing where all the evidence should have been heard. In the situation we are in now, it could be 2 years before this person is put on the stand and has to defend their report.

- I would be able to defend myself against allegations made about my parenting and be joined as a party

- The burden of proof should be on the people making allegations not down to parents to provide proof that they are innocent

Basically it's all arse about face

Have you appealed being refused party status?

FA what you describe is exactly how the courts act, it is corruption pure & simple, they know they have to abide by the HRA but frankly don't give a fig about it because cases are normally never taken that far so they can do what they like.

johnhemming wrote:Have you appealed being refused party status?

No - the judge gave the reasons of it not being my case, me not having PR and my husband being able to dispute information about me on my behalf.

Andrew wrote:FA what you describe is exactly how the courts act, it is corruption pure & simple, they know they have to abide by the HRA but frankly don't give a fig about it because cases are normally never taken that far so they can do what they like.

In that case I'm going to see exactly how far I can push it. My human rights are being blatantly abused yet I can't do anything about it. If I apply again at a suitable moment then appeal the decsion and make it my application then they have to listen to me. If my appeal is not taken seriously by the COA then let's see what the ECHR make of it....all in good time though. Isn't it frustrating that we all have this to contend with as well as trying to get our kids back and a GSCC complaint. It's no wonder why really when parents get their kids back they just want to enjoy the time they have with them.

It's no wonder why really when parents get their kids back they just want to enjoy the time they have with them.

Yea,

These fights are long hard & stressful, often not because of what is happening (although that is a major part) but because of the type of people that you are dealing with ie lying, manipulative people - Basically spin artists, it is irritating.

Also we have to be careful. When you are labelled as being unco-operative and disruptive you don't really want to start disagreeing with the judge and appealing their judgments....it paints a picture and an impression that is difficult to wriggle out of