Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Burglar claims he should be released from prison because locking him up violates his children's human rights, this is complete and utter nonsense!
Long ago but not that long ago, Wednesday, March 3, 2010, I wrote these blog posts.
The jist was that Tam Baillie wanted judges to consider the human rights of children before considering jailing their parents convicted of a crime.
It came after a ruling by Judge Abie Sachs in South Africa who refused to jail a woman because she has children.
At the time I said;
If you break the law then you cannot use the human rights of others in order to circumvent justice. That isn’t then a human right, as “rights” are specific to the individual in the Court.
In other words you can’t use the innocent to escape justice.
In short the ‘concept’ touted by Abie Sachs was complete bollocks.
It wasn’t a human right but it was a subjective whim on his part, him taking pity on the woman’s children was an act of kindness.
Now, we have a burglar claiming that his eight-month jail term violates his human right to 'respect' for family life.
Again; short version this complete bollocks.
Simple minded Wayne Bishop, from Clifton, Nottingham, says he is the sole carer for his five children.
His lawyer Ian Wise QC has won permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal. Bishop will be granted legal aid to fund his case.
And he will lose it on the basis, if this went through no one could be sent to prison because either human rights apply to everyone or they don’t apply at all.
It is thought it will be the first time that a convicted criminal has used family circumstances to ask for leniency in a UK court.
Mr Wise told Nottingham Crown Court:
“This case is of public importance and could have significant wider repercussions.”
And it also flags up that clowns are running legal aid in this country.
Mrs Justice Gloster has granted Bishop permission to appeal and ordered that his case be heard 'with the greatest possible expedition and given the earliest possible hearing date'.
Clearly, Gloster should know that this case is rubbish and bounced it out the door.
Bishop was jailed on April 11 to four months for burglary and four months for dangerous driving after pleading guilty.
He was also banned from driving for three years.
His Consel, Ian Wise QC referenced Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention - which enshrines the right to respect for family life and privacy - saying judges 'have to bear in mind the consequences to children if the sole carer is sent to prison'.
Bollocks, and this is the problem with human rights, the ‘rights’ of the children don’t exist in the court case as it travels through the court.
They maybe brought up in mitigation but the judge isn’t legally bound to consider there circumstances.
The lawyer graciously has said that although the jail term was not 'wrong in principle', but it had a 'disproportionate' impact on Bishop's family life and the children should have been a 'primary consideration'.
“It would appear from the judge's sentencing remarks that he had no regard to the interests of the children whatsoever. He did not carry out the balancing exercise required of him”.
Not relevant and not a right.
“There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that the court inquired into the caring arrangements and any potential impact on the children of their father being committed to prison.”
So, let’s imagine Bishop was a murderer because as we know human rights apply to everyone all the time and cannot be taken away except in certain circumstances.
Would a judge prior to sentencing a murderer who has children say to themselves, ‘they have children; I must consider whether not to put him in prison’.
Not for a minute.
Bishop's full appeal is likely to be heard by a three-judge Appeal Court in London within the next few days.
And it will lose because it is nonsense to try and use the human rights of others as a shield or get out of jail free card.
Wayne Bishop is going to jail.
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University