Bystander, over at The Magistrate’s Blog, has posted the list of our human rights, as promulgated in the European Convention on Human Rights and enacted in the UK via the Human Rights Act 1998. This list is:

• the right to life
• freedom from torture and degrading treatment
• freedom from slavery and forced labour
• the right to liberty
• the right to a fair trial
• the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it
• the right to respect for private and family life
• freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
• freedom of expression
• freedom of assembly and association
• the right to marry and to start a family
• the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
• the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
• the right to an education
• the right to participate in free elections
• the right not to be subjected to the death penalty

Nothing there which one can reasonably object to, of course. Although all these rights (with the exception of torture) are not absolutes and can be overridden by the authorities, eg. in order to arrest a suspect.

The one which stood out to me reading this was

the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it

I am not a lawyer but this seems to me to negate the whole of the MPs’ expenses fiasco. What MP’s have done was (mostly) not forbidden when they did it. That doesn’t say the rules, and therefore what was done, were right, only that the rules allowed what was done. It is only now that what the MPs did is being made forbidden, retrospectively. That seems contrary to the above right.

Is that alone not grounds for a judicial review? And what is anyone therefore complaining at the MPs for?

Remember that anything not explicitly forbidden by the rules (or legal precedent) is permitted. And if something is permitted, someone will (quite legally) take advantage of it, even if that was not your intent when making the rules.

You can try arguing, as the Daily Mail no doubt will, that the MPs “should have known better”. But really this doesn’t hold water. Why should MPs be any more (or less) moral than the rest of us? They were taking advantage of the rules in good faith (even if perhaps somewhat cynically) in the quite reasonable belief that they would (could) not be changed retrospectively. We all do exactly the same every day of our lives. For example: the law allows me today to drive at 50mph along the A40; in doing so I have a reasonable expectation that I will not be prosecuted for my action today, after the limit is lowered to 40mph tomorrow.

Yes, by all means campaign for the rules on MPs’ expenses, or indeed anything else, to be changed. But don’t vilify someone for adhering to those rules just because you (retrospectively) decide you don’t like them. At worst this violates that great institution “natural justice” and at best it is contrary to our legally enshrined human rights. Perhaps the tabloid press should be prosecuted under the Human Rights Act 1998?

PS. Note that I am not saying whether I agree or disagree with the rules on MPs’ expenses. My personal opinion is of no importance here as I am making a purely logical point about my understanding of our legally enshrined human rights.