ABSTRACT
To what extent can statutory rights provide an adequate safeguard against the potential for panel excesses? Whilst the European Convention on Human Rights is incorporated into United Kingdom law from October 2000 under the Human Rights Act 1998, the application of such legislation to public protection panels has been little discussed. The most relevant parts of the convention concern the right to liberty (Article 5), the right to a fair trial (Article 6), freedom from arbitrary punishment (Article 7) and the right to privacy and family life (Article 8). However, these can often be overridden in the interests of the prevention of disorder or crime. The Convention is also something of a balancing act of rights, in which protection of individuals from inhumane treatment and the fundamental right to life will naturally outweigh privacy if criminal behaviour is likely or threatened. Scott and Ward (1999, p 113) contend that this may mean that criminal justice agencies are held accountable for ‘failures to protect the public from known and avoidable dangers by not enforcing court orders’ and for ‘denying the public information essential for the well-being of their families’. Victims may well also use the right to life clause to challenge the risk management failures of panels and the decisions of professionals involved. In short, the Convention, rather than providing a brake on any internal excesses, may inadvertently fuel the current predisposition to public protection at the expense of the individual rights of potential offenders.
