There is a strange anomaly in UK law that allows those suspected of genocide and other serious crimes against humanity to remain in the UK with impunity. This arises following the UK ratification of the 1998 Rome Statute which establised the International Criminal Court based in the The Hague and adopted by the UK in the International Criminal Court Act of 2001. Crimes of genocide committed before 2001 do not come within the jurisdiction of the UK Courts whereas similar crimes committed after 2001 were liable for prosecution in the courts.
Human rights organisations have long been aware of this anomaly but it was when an appeal by four Rwandans suspected of genocide was upheld and the four were freed that the matter came to a head. The Lords of Appeal held that the Rwandans if guilty had committed their crimes in 1994 and therefore were not covered by the 2001 Act.
The opportunity arose, conveniently, in the context of the Coroner’s and Justice Bill currently before the House of Lords to press for change. Accordingly I, and many others, put forward amendments to urge the Government to extend the period of liability back to 1991, the date when the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia was given jurisdiction to try offences under the Tribunal’s Statute adopted by the UN Security Council. The UK Government has now agreed to do this.
It is rare for a Goverment or indeed the law to allow retrospective action, one of the fundamental pillars of justice being that a crime can only be successfully prosecuted if it was a crime at the time it was committed. However given the severity of the crime of genocide and the available precedents established in international juridiction the UK Government has taken a significant step to remove the existing anomaly thereby signalling that the UK is not nor ever will be a safe haven for those guilty of such heinous crimes.
As you say it’s a crime in international law which is an exception from the ECHR for retrospective action so pretty non controversial. Without looking back to the debates on the Criminal Court Act of 2001 I have some memory of peers raising this loophole then and suspect they were ignored by the government which wasn’t interested at the time?
Since for reasons I don’t agree with we now allow double jeopardy can the Rwandan case be resurrected?
Croft, good point but I don’t know the answer. I suspect not but will find out. Incidentally,as you probably know, the reason why the four were not extradited to Rwanda despite the request to do so, was/is because the Judges were not convinced that the justice system in Rwanda conformed sufficiently with international standards. This is an added reason why the four continue to live with impunity in the UK.
My instant guru has got back to me with the following message:
‘‘double jeopardy’ doesn’t apply with extradition – the 4 Rwandans haven’t yet had a criminal trial, so there is every possibility that the individuals could be prosecuted if there is enough evidence. The fact that they have been subjected to some kind of legal process doesn’t prevent them from being subjected to a criminal trial’
Well that was quick, always useful to have an instant guru. thinks: that would look great on a calling/business card – “joe bloggs instant guru” 🙂
I assumed they would be able to face trail but couldn’t remember the details with certainty.
That does seem to leave the law in one of its absurd inconsistencies. You can be tried presently for genocide back to 2001, under ‘your’ proposal this will roll back to 1991. Separately you can be tried for war crimes committed ’39-45 under the ill conceived War Crimes Act if you are now a British citizen or resident but not otherwise. This isn’t exactly joined up legislation. If international law if strong enough to go back before ’91 in one instance it should be so across the board for all identical crimes. If not then the exception shouldn’t exist.
I never supported the war crimes act for the simple reason I didn’t think a fair trial was possible on cases that were so old. However I’m prepared to accept that there may be cases earlier than but closer to the ’91 cut-off where this concern may not be an issue.
Why was there no relevant legislation before the International Criminal Court Act? In other words, why weren’t genocidaires in 1994 committing a crime under UK law if it was a crime under international law?
Lord Pearson has something to say on Genocide occurring right now in Britain.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQisZM1X8lU