Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
Her Majesty's Government whether all government funded bodies are required to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe guidelines on human rights, and if so who monitors their compliance.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
Under international law, the United Kingdom has undertaken to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. The Human Rights Act 1998 gives further effect in domestic law to certain rights and freedoms drawn from the Convention, called the Convention rights. Section 6(1) of the Act makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way which is incompatible with a Convention right. Under section 6(3), “public authority” is defined as including a court or tribunal, and “any person certain of whose function are functions of a public nature”; but does not include either House of Parliament or a person exercising functions in connection with proceedings in Parliament. Section 73(2) of the Care Act 2011 additionally specifies that a provider of regulated care and support that has been arranged or paid for by a local authority or Health and Social Care trust is also to be taken as exercising a function of a public nature for the purposes of the Human Rights Act. Any allegation that a public authority has acted incompatibly with a Convention right may be brought to court as specified in section 7 of the Act.
Guidelines produced by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe are not legally binding.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
Her Majesty's Government, how much legal aid was paid to England based solicitors of John Downey, who was accused of killing four soldiers in the 1982 IRA bombing in Hyde Park; over what period; and who were the solicitors and barristers instructed on his behalf.
Answered by Lord Keen of Elie - Shadow Minister (Justice)
Anyone facing a Crown Court trial is eligible for legal aid, subject to a strict means test.
The table below shows the legal aid paid to represent John Downey for representation at the police station and in court between May 2013-December 2014:
Criminal Legal representation at | Provider Type | Provider Name |
| Total |
Police station | Solicitor | Birnberg Peirce LTD |
| £293.40 |
Crown court trial costs |
| £18,412.07 | ||
Barrister | Henry Blaxland QC |
| £20,089.00 | |
Mark J Summers |
| £12,966.79 | ||
Total costs |
| £51,761.26 | ||
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether someone in prison is defined as residing at home or in prison.
Answered by Lord Faulks
There is no express provision in either the Prison Act 1952 or the Prison Rules 1999 that states that a prisoner in England and Wales is treated as either ‘residing’ in the prison or at their home. The law recognises concepts such as ‘ordinary residence’ but the meaning of this term will depend upon the specific context in which the question arises.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government by what criteria they define a serious crime as opposed to other crimes.
Answered by Lord Faulks
Various definitions of serious crime are used in different contexts. Sections 2, 2A and 3 of, and Schedule 1 to, the Serious Crime Act 2007 define ‘involved in serious crime’ for the purposes of Part I of that Act, which relates to serious crime prevention orders. Section 81 (2) and (3) of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 defines ‘serious crime’ for the purposes of that Act.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government how much was paid for the inquiry into the death of Dr David Kelly in 2003 to (1) the government legal team and (2) the chairman.
Answered by Lord Faulks
The report of Lord Hutton’s Inquiry into the circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly was published on 28 January 2004. The inquiry website indicates that staff costs for the inquiry secretariat were £145,975 and that the cost of external advice, including lawyers’ fees, was £990,303. No fees are shown as having been paid to Lord Hutton. No further breakdown of costs is available.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what non-disclosure agreements the Department for Constitutional Affairs made in 2003–04, and on what date each agreement was made.
Answered by Lord Faulks
The information requested is not held centrally.
The Ministry of Justice is the successor department to the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Searches have been conducted for the information requested. These searches have revealed no trace of any records that relate to such non-disclosure agreements, nor any references to records that were held previously and destroyed.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they believe that some parts of the UK require different human rights legislation to others; and if so, why and what are the different rights.
Answered by Lord Faulks
The government is committed to protecting human rights across the United Kingdom, continuing the UK’s proud tradition of respect for human rights. There is, of course, already some variation in the legal framework for human rights across the UK, as the devolved administrations have competence to legislate in respect of human rights in the policy areas which are devolved to them.
The government was elected with a mandate to reform the UK’s human rights framework. We will consider the implications of a Bill of Rights on devolution as we develop our proposals. We will, of course, fully engage with the devolved administrations.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government on how many occasions a non-statutory public inquiry has been instigated into the death of a single individual under section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 at a time when that individual had not been the subject of a full coroner's inquest; who were those individuals; why they were referred for a public inquiry in each case; and on which dates they were referred.
Answered by Lord Faulks
A coroner’s inquest was not completed into the deaths of the following individuals:
Victoria Climbié, Robert Hamill, Dr David Kelly, Alexander Litvinenko, Baha Mousa, Zahid Mubarek, Rosemary Nelson and Azelle Rodney.
The only occasion when an inquest has been adjourned under section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 because a non-statutory inquiry was to be held was following the death of Dr David Kelly. The Lord Chancellor established an inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death on 18 July 2003, the day that Dr Kelly’s body was found.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Faulks on 5 November (HL2965) concerning public inquiries that they have instigated into the death of a single individual since 1988, which of the individuals specified have not had a full coroner's inquest.
Answered by Lord Faulks
A coroner’s inquest was not completed into the deaths of the following individuals:
Victoria Climbié, Robert Hamill, Dr David Kelly, Alexander Litvinenko, Baha Mousa, Zahid Mubarek, Rosemary Nelson and Azelle Rodney.
The only occasion when an inquest has been adjourned under section 17A of the Coroners Act 1988 because a non-statutory inquiry was to be held was following the death of Dr David Kelly. The Lord Chancellor established an inquiry to investigate the circumstances surrounding the death on 18 July 2003, the day that Dr Kelly’s body was found.
Asked by: Lord Laird (Non-affiliated - Life peer)
Question to the Ministry of Justice:
To ask Her Majesty’s Government under what circumstances a coroner's investigation and court hearing is not necessary in the case of a sudden death.
Answered by Lord Faulks
Sudden deaths are always investigated by coroners in England and Wales.
Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 the coroner has a duty to investigate a death that is reported to him or her if it appears that the death was violent or unnatural, the cause of the death is unknown, or the person died in state detention. If the investigation does not disclose the cause of death, indicates that the death was unnatural, or the coroner considers that there is good reason to continue the investigation, he or she has a duty to hold an inquest.
Where someone is to be prosecuted for causing a death, the coroner’s investigation must be suspended and any inquest adjourned, until the criminal trial is over. The coroner may only resume the investigation after the trial if he or she considers there is sufficient reason for doing so. The coroner must also suspend an investigation where an inquiry under the Inquiries Act 2005 is to be held into the death. Again, the coroner may only resume the investigation after the inquiry has reported if he or she considers there is sufficient reason for doing so.