Other Projects

Human Rights Debate

Lord Lester initiated a debate on human rights in the House of Lords, which took place on 22 March 2007. The debate can be found here

Equality Work

The Trust remains involved heavily in the campaign for a single Equality Act. The legal officers are observer members of the Equality and Diversity Forum, which represents a range of organisations and which campaigns tirelessly for a single Equality Act. This campaign has the support of all the Equality Commissions, major NGOs, Trade Unions and some employers groups.

In February 2005, the Government announced two reviews on equality, the Discrimination Law Review and the Equalities Review. The Discrimination Law Review will work towards a clearer and more streamlined equality legislation framework. The Equalities Review will investigate the causes of persistent discrimination and inequality in British society. This is in addition to an ongoing review of equality legislation in Northern Ireland. The Equalities Review published an Interim Report in March 2006. The Discrimination Law Review is yet to publish a report, which is expected in summer or autumn 2006.

The recent surge in campaigning is underpinned by Lord Lester's Equality Bill and the Trust will monitor the work of the Discrimination Law Review closely. The Trust hopes that the new Commission for Equality and Human Rights does not have to wait long before it can administer a clear and concise single discrimination and equality law.

back to top

Serious Crimes Order
The Trust's outreach work with UNHCR led to Lord Lester Praying against the government's Serious Crimes Order in November 2004.

This Order lists some 500 offences. If a refugee is convicted of one of these offences, there is a presumption that it will invoke certain provisions in the UN Refugee Convention which allow individuals to be returned to their country of origin despite a continuing well-founded fear of persecution there.

Due to the serious implications of such refoulment, UNHCR and the Trust were concerned that some of the offences included on this list were not sufficiently serious to satisfy both elements of refoulment, namely that the crime is 'particularly serious' and that the individual constitutes a danger to the community of the country. The offences include, for example: theft, entering a building as a trespasser intending to steal, aggravated taking of a vehicle, criminal damage and possession of controlled drugs.

Lord Lester argued that the Order was beyond the lawful scope of the government's order-making power as it was incompatible with the UK's international obligations under the UN Refugee Convention. The Trust will continue to monitor the use of the Order very closely.

back to top

Religious Hatred Act

The Trust worked closely with a broad coalition of writers, artists, religious organizations, Bishops and Peers to achieve crucial amendments to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill in the House of Lords, which were accepted by the House of Commons and became law.

The Government had proposed a new criminal offence of incitement to religious hatred in several Bills prior to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill. These proposals sought to extend the existing offence of incitement to racial hatred found in the Public Order Act 1986.

The stated intention was not to provide religious ideologies with any protection, but rather religious groups. Thus in theory saying "Christianity is evil" would be legal whilst saying "all Christians are evil" may not be. All reasonable persons agree that whipping up religious hatred against any religious group is wrong. However, the Trust opposed creating this new offence as there is already sufficient law in place to deal with this problem, and legislating against it in the way proposed would have interfered unjustifiably with free speech.

The Trust believes that existing legislation is sufficient. There is a wide array of offences protecting public order and ethnic minorities. The Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 also created new offences of religiously aggravated assault, criminal damage, public order and harassment, alarm or distress. If any of these offences are aggravated by religion or religious hostility, they incur higher penalties.

Amendments to the Racial and Religious Hatred Bill were drafted by the Trust and Lord Lester, and were passed by the House of Lords at Committee stage. The amendments secured four vital changes to the Bill. First, the amendments created a separate code for religious hatred offences. Second, as with almost all serious offences, the burden was placed on the prosecution to prove a criminal intent. Third, the amendments ensured that only threatening (as distinct from abusive or insulting) words or behaviour may give rise to criminal misconduct. Fourth, the Bill was amended to include a broad declaratory provision to protect freedom of expression. The free expression clause is a unique addition to the criminal law in the UK and reads:

“Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system.”

The amendments were supported by a broad Lords coalition consisting of the Opposition parties, backbench Labour peers, Bishops and Cross-Benchers. They were also supported by English PEN and Liberty.

In a stunning victory, the amendments were accepted by the House of Commons in the face of Government opposition. The Bill as amended received Royal Assent on 16 February 2006.

back to top

Human Rights Act and the Implementation of the ECHR
The Trust continues to monitor the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998, noting key cases brought under the Act and keeping abreast of academic writing and new developments in the field of human rights at home and overseas. We monitor government Bills which have human rights implications and draft amendments where necessary, often along the lines of recommendations made by the JCHR. The Trust also provides briefings for other peers, NGOs and the press. Lord Lester has continued to work with the wider media, publishing letters in newspapers and appearing on radio and television. Lord Lester continues to give seminars and lectures, deepening public awareness of the Act.

back to top

International Human Rights Obligations
Further to the incorporation of the European Convention, the Trust continues to press the government to commit fully to the UK's other international human rights obligations. The government published their review of the UK's international human rights obligations in July 2004. The review was extremely disappointing. The Trust welcomes the government's announcement that they will accept the right of individual petition under CEDAW (the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women) but we are disappointed that they have declined to accept the right of individual petition under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Racial Discrimination (CERD) and the UN Convention Against Torture (UNCAT).

back to top

Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill

Lord Lester's Private Member's Bill, the Parliamentary Commissioner (Amendment) Bill, had its First Reading on 24 November 2004. The Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the Ombudsman) undertakes independent investigations into complaints about government departments and other public bodies. Under the provisions of the Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 the public can only gain access to the Parliamentary Commissioner via an MP. Lord Lester's Bill would enable the public to have the option of direct access to the Parliamentary Commissioner, but the Bill does not take away the option of the MP filter. The aim of the Bill is to enable and encourage members of the public to submit complaints to the Parliamentary Commissioner directly; to date far fewer people than expected are making use of this valuable procedure.

The Bill had its Second Reading on 4 February 2005. It was a high quality debate, albeit with a disappointing response from the Government. Lord Lester had been careful to address the Government’s previous concerns about allowing direct access to the Commissioner and although the Government recognised the importance of the issue, they declared themselves unable to support the Bill. Nonetheless, the Bill passed successfully through its subsequent stages in the Lords with Committee stage on 25 February 2005 and Third Reading on 3 March 2005. It has not been taken up in the Commons.

Lord Lester reintroduced the provisions of the Bill as Part 5 of the Constitutional Reform (Prerogative Powers and Civil Service etc.) Bill, which had its Second Reading in the House of Lords on 3 March 2006. The Constitutional Reform Bill passed through all subsequent stages of the House of Lords, with Third Reading on 24 July 2006.

Children Act 2004

Reasonable Chastisement

In the Children Act the defence of reasonable chastisement has been largely removed so that it can no longer be used in situations where an assault on a child causes actual bodily harm. This was the result of the Government accepting an amendment drafted and supported by the Trust.

The Act, as originally drafted, did not address the loophole enabling some parents to escape a criminal conviction for causing actual bodily harm to their children by using the overly-broad defence of reasonable chastisement. Children's organisations supported an amendment that would have removed the defence of reasonable chastisement altogether and criminalised all parental smacking, even light disciplinary taps. Anthony Lester and the Trust took the view that such an amendment was a disproportionate response and an inappropriate interference by the state into private family life.

The Trust therefore proposed an alternative amendment. The effect of it was to outlaw abusive punishment without also criminalising parental discipline. Child battery can no longer be justified as a 'reasonable punishment' in any proceedings for wounding or causing grievous bodily harm, for cruelty to children under 16 years of age, or for assault occasioning actual bodily harm. This closes the loophole and increases the legal certainty of the reasonable chastisement defence. The Trust was very busy responding to media queries and providing briefings for parliamentarians and other interested parties.

back to top