The Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA) at present enables the judiciary, as it did in the Belmarsh decision, effectively to strike down provisions in the Anti-Terrorism Act 2001. Should this be so, particularly if human rights legislation fails to protect the public and national security?

The first human right is the right to life. Human rights legislation is in danger of becoming a vehicle for terrorism and death.

Lord Hoffmann, one of the eight law lords who vehemently upheld the HRA in the Belmarsh case and attacked the anti-terrorism laws, has made it clear in another case that Parliament can amend the HRA itself. We need urgently to amend the HRA 1998, as I stated to the Home Secretary on July 20 in the House of Commons.

Parliament must legislate to protect the nation. Providing that legislation is clear and unambiguous the judiciary have the constitutional obligation to apply the latest Act of Parliament, even if it is inconsistent with the HRA 1998.

The Prime Minister, who clearly disagrees with the Belmarsh case, has the power to amend the HRA and the Conservative Party could support him, as I have urgently requested; but will they?

The protection of the nation lies primarily in Parliament and not in the courts.

BILL CASH
(Shadow Attorney General, 2001-03)
House of Commons

From Mr Michael Morris

Sir, National security is the responsibility of government. Judges lack experience in this area.

In 1940, the Home Secretary used the Defence Regulations to detain a number of people, including a Member of Parliament, who were believed to be security risks. There was no provision for appeal to the courts but individual cases were reviewed by a committee of Privy Councillors who had relevant experience.

Should this precedent be followed today?

MICHAEL S. MORRIS
Mill Hill, London

Explore Letters

• Feedback