This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk/6068018.stm

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Top judge backs Human Rights Act Top judge backs Human Rights Act
(20 minutes later)
Any watering down of support for the Human Rights Act will foster resentment and encourage support for terrorism, the Lord Chief Justice is to say. The Human Rights Act is a vital part of the fight against terrorism and should be strongly supported, the Lord Chief Justice has warned.
Lord Phillips, the top judge in England and Wales, is due to give a speech warning that the Act is a vital in the fight against terrorism. Resentment and support for terrorism will grow, if immigrants feel their human rights are not being respected, Lord Phillips said in a speech.
Ministers have warned that it may have to be re-examined, if it proves to have hampered the fight against terrorism.Ministers have warned that it may have to be re-examined, if it proves to have hampered the fight against terrorism.
Some measures have been scrapped after being found to break human rights laws.Some measures have been scrapped after being found to break human rights laws.
Control orders had to be brought in to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Act.Control orders had to be brought in to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial was illegal under the Act.
Is there an alternative solution to the imposition of restrictions on liberty based on mere suspicion and on evidence that the suspect is not permitted to see? Lord Chief Justice Lord PhillipsIs there an alternative solution to the imposition of restrictions on liberty based on mere suspicion and on evidence that the suspect is not permitted to see? Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips
Lord Phillips's speech acknowledges that the Act has limited action that would otherwise have been "the response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade". Lord Phillips's speech acknowledged that the Act has limited action that would otherwise have been "the response to the outbreak of global terrorism that we have seen over the last decade".
But he says: "It is essential that [immigrants] and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights. But he said: "It is essential that [immigrants] and their children and grandchildren should be confident that their adopted country treats them without discrimination and with due respect for their human rights.
"If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society"."If they feel that they are not being fairly treated, their consequent resentment will inevitably result in the growth of those who, actively or passively, are prepared to support the terrorists who are bent on destroying the fabric of our society".
He denies any "strife" between ministers and judges over anti-terrorism laws. He denied any "strife" between ministers and judges over anti-terrorism laws.
Control ordersControl orders
But Lord Phillips also says that the constant legal battles over control orders are "manifestly unsatisfactory" and will raise doubts about the government's refusal to use intercept evidence in court. But Lord Phillips also questioned whether there is an alternative to control orders - where suspects movements are restricted based on evidence they are not allowed to see.
He asks: "Is there an alternative solution to the imposition of restrictions on liberty based on mere suspicion and on evidence that the suspect is not permitted to see?" The order are used when there is not enough evidence for a criminal prosecution - sometimes evidence will have been collected by bugging the suspect and is therefore inadmissible.
There are many who believe that a blanket embargo on telephone intercepts cannot be justified, he goes on to say. Lord Phillips raises doubts about the government's refusal to use intercept evidence in court.
There has been repeated criticism of the way in which the Act has been interpreted in the courts - not just in cases of terror suspects. "There are many who believe that this blanket embargo [on telephone intercepts] cannot be justified," he will say.
Convicted rapist Anthony Rice, who was freed from prison because of concerns about his human rights, went on to murder Naomi Bryant - prompting criticism that the Act was putting the rights of criminals first. There has been repeated criticism of the way in which the Act has been interpreted in the courts.
The courts ruled nine Afghan men who hijacked a plane at Stansted could not be sent back to their own country under human rights laws, because their lives would be at risk - something denounced at the time by prime minister Tony Blair as "abuse of common sense".
But the Lord Chancellor, Lord Falconer, said in September the government was "unashamed" of the Human Rights Act.
The Department of Constitutional Affairs is to publish two new guides to interpreting it.