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