This is a request for information in relation to the burden of proof being wrongly placed on the defendant, Human Rights and natural justice for all UK Citizens.

Dear Sir or Madam,

This is a request for information in relation to the burden of
proof being wrongly placed on the defendant, Human Rights and
natural justice for all UK Citizens.

The Human Rights Act
The Human Rights Act has had a significant, but beneficial, effect
upon the development of policy by central Government. There are
formal procedures for ensuring compatibility, together with outside
scrutiny by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights. This
to some extent has improved transparency and Parliamentary
accountability, which is vital for the Act to work. The Human
Rights Act could lead to better policy outcomes, by ensuring that
the needs of all members of the UK's increasingly diverse
population are appropriately considered. It promotes greater
personalisation and therefore better public services if it is
applied correctly and fairly.

Policy
Any policy which breaches the Human Rights Act must be incompatible
with one or more of the European Convention on Human Rights
articles, and would have been so whether or not the Human Rights
Act was in force. Secondly, many of the principles protected under
the Act are also embedded into the common law (such as the right to
a fair hearing which we are principally interested in and the rule
of law) and EC law.

Section 2
Section 2 has resulted in the courts have increasingly been
prepared to recognise "common law constitutional rights" similar in
content to those found in the Human Rights Act.

Compatibility
Through formalisation of the process for ensuring compatibility
with Convention rights there is a requirement for a positive
statement of compatibility for all Bills, an ECHR memorandum in
order for Bills to be approved for introduction and legislative
scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Given the
aforesaid could I please have a copy of the following;
1] The compatibility statement in relation to the CRoW Act, the
International Trade in Endangered Species Act and the Wildlife and
Countryside Act to the extent that the Acts do not violate people’s
human rights in relation to the burden of proof being on the
defendant which is an impossible burden in some cases even though
defendant can receive in some cases five years per offence when
there is still serious doubt as to the person’s guilty?
2] The ECHR memorandum in order for Bills to be approved in
relation to the CRoW Act, the International Trade in Endangered
Species Act and the Wildlife and Countryside Act to the extent that
the Acts do not violates people’s human rights in relation to the
burden of proof being on the defendant which is an impossible
burden in some cases even though defendant can receive in some
cases five years per offence when there is still serious doubt as
to the person’s guilty?
3] The scrutiny by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in relation
to the CRoW Act, the International Trade in Endangered Species Act
and the Wildlife and Countryside Act to the extent that the Acts do
not violate people’s human rights in relation to the burden of
proof being on the defendant which is an impossible burden in some
cases even though defendant can receive in some cases five years
per offence when there is still serious doubt as to the person’s
guilty?

In response to litigation this has forced a change in policy and a
change in the method by which a particular policy is delivered and
a change in behaviour driven by the greater immediacy of the Act,
which makes it unlawful for a public authority to act in a way
incompatible with a Convention right. This direct effect has
changed the weight that public authorities give to human rights
considerations, with results that are sometimes positive, sometimes
not.

European Convention on Human Rights
The European Convention on Human Rights compatibility in the policy
formulation process is also interesting to me. Since the enactment
of the Human Rights Act in 1998, all Bills and subordinate
legislation coming before either House must be "human rights
proofed". To some extent that should have happened before 1998; but
there are now a number of formal gateways and statutory
requirements, as described below.

Section 19
Section 19 of the Human Rights Act requires a Minister in charge of
a Bill in either House of Parliament to make a statement to the
effect that either:

1] In the Minister's view the provisions of the Bill are compatible
with the Convention rights
(a "statement of compatibility");

2] Or although the Minister is unable to make a statement of
compatibility the Government nevertheless wishes the House to
proceed with the Bill.

The statement must be in writing and be published in such manner as
the Minister making it considers appropriate. The result is that
all Government Bills coming before Parliament since the Act became
law must have been through a process of careful scrutiny by
officials and lawyers in order to brief the relevant Minister prior
to the Minister certifying their view.

Guidance to departments has consistently made it clear that human
rights proofing is not simply an exercise to be carried out after
legislation has been drafted. Questions of proportionality, and the
identification of policy options that produce the least
interference with Convention rights, should be embedded in the
policy development process.

I would like a copy all the detailed mentioned above under s19 in
relation to the CRoW Act, the International Trade in Endangered
Species Act and the Wildlife and Countryside Act to the extent that
the Acts do not violate people’s human rights in relation to the
burden of proof being on the defendant which is an impossible
burden in some cases even though defendant can receive in some
cases five years per offence when there is still serious doubt as
to the person’s guilty?

LP memoranda
It is also necessary, as part of the process leading to Cabinet
Committee approval of a Bill for introduction to Parliament, for
the relevant Department to compile a memorandum for LP Committee
[the Ministerial Committee on the Legislative Programme, is the
Cabinet Committee responsible for considering legislation and
related matters].

The memorandum must set out the Convention rights likely to be
engaged by the policy embodied in the Bill and explain how the
proposed legislative scheme ensures that any interference with the
identified right does not result in a breach. It will do this by
demonstrating that the interference is legitimate, necessary,
proportionate and non-discriminatory.

Given the LP Memoranda section above could I please have a coy of
the memorandum and compatibility statement in relation to the CRoW
Act, the International Trade in Endangered Species Act and the
Wildlife and Countryside Act to the extent that the Acts do or do
not violate people’s human rights in relation to the burden of
proof being on the defendant which is an impossible burden in some
cases even though defendant can receive in some cases five years
per offence when there is still serious doubt as to the person’s
guilty. Also any other information on the burden of proof not being
on the defendant especially in relation to the recent judgement on
the burden of proof being only a evidential burden in the Hunting
Act?

Do you have any information on what are the future plans in
relation to the burden of proof being returned back to the
prosecution to comply with the right of being presumed innocence in
relation birds and animal offences?

What information do you have on the police stopping non
governmental bodies like the RSPB control evidence without the
police supervising the evidence to the extent it may violate the
right to a fair trial and natural justice?

Yours faithfully,

Ross Errington