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 1 Version 2
Top judge backs Human Rights Act Top judge backs Human Rights Act
(about 8 hours later)
The Human Rights Act is a vital part of the fight against terrorism and should be strongly supported, the Lord Chief Justice has warned. The Human Rights Act is a vital part of the fight against terrorism and should be strongly supported, the most senior judge in England and Wales has argued.
Resentment and support for terrorism will grow, if immigrants feel their human rights are not being respected, Lord Phillips said in a speech. Resentment and support for terrorism will grow if immigrants feel their human rights are not being respected, Lord Chief Justice Lord Phillips said.
Ministers have warned that it may have to be re-examined, if it proves to have hampered the fight against terrorism. Some anti-terrorism measures have been abandoned after judges ruled they were illegal under the act.
Some measures have been scrapped after being found to break human rights laws. But Lord Phillips denied any "strife" with ministers over anti-terror 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. 'Limited action'
Ministers have warned the act may have to be re-examined, if it proves to have hampered the fight against terrorism.
Control orders were brought in last year to contain foreign terror suspects after the Law Lords ruled detention without trial, introduced in the wake of the 11 September attacks, 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 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". Lord Phillips' speech, at the University of Hertfordshire, in Hatfield, acknowledged 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 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.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 denied any "strife" between ministers and judges over anti-terrorism laws.
Control ordersControl orders
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. Lord Phillips questioned whether there was an alternative to control orders, under which suspects movements are restricted based on evidence they are not allowed 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. The orders 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 in court.
Lord Phillips raises doubts about the government's refusal to use intercept evidence in court. Lord Phillips raised doubts about the government's refusal to use intercept evidence in court.
"There are many who believe that this blanket embargo [on telephone intercepts] cannot be justified," he will say. "There are many who believe that this blanket embargo [on telephone intercepts] cannot be justified," he said.
There has been repeated criticism of the way in which the Act has been interpreted in the courts. There has been repeated criticism of the way in which the Human Rights 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.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.The Department of Constitutional Affairs is to publish two new guides to interpreting it.