The Hooper Lecture, which took place at Lincoln Inn on 17th November 2005, celebrated the enormous contribution Lord Justice Hooper has made to public understanding of citizenship education. As a founding member of the Citizenship Foundation, Lord Hooper has played a key role in the campaign to introduce Citizenship to the National Curriculum and is also the originator of the Bar National Mock Trial Competition. The competition, now in its fifteenth year, provides a unique opportunity for 15-18 year old students to gain hands on experience of the legal system. Cherie Booth, who this year judged the regional heat at Snaresbrook Crown Court, declared it a great honour to be giving the lecture in honour of Lord Hooper, professing tremendous admiration and respect for him.

Despite the constant media coverage Human Rights law receives, Cherie stressed the importance of talking about such a controversial subject. “The current media buzz about human rights is not really doing the concept, or the reality of rights protections, any good. Talk of human rights may be everywhere, but it is, by no means, the consensus view that human rights are a good thing or something to be fought for.” Attributing this mainly to today’s “sceptical consumer society”, she warned that the “notion of ‘human rights’ has become linked in the public imagination with ‘rights for terrorists’, or ‘rights for criminals’”.

The key challenge, Cherie contended, is to ‘reawaken’ peoples understanding of why human rights matter in their own lives, and why they are essential to society. People should recognise that human rights offer ‘fundamental protections’ against ‘harmful states’ and ‘individual intrusion’ that should be available to everyone. She mentioned that such rights grew out of the reaction to power abuse suffered by so many in World War II

Understanding these fundamental principles is crucial to understanding the significance of human rights law, Cherie asserted. Not only were the European convention on Human Rights and the Human Rights Act in Britain, based on such principles, but it is the nature of particular laws that the state is required to adopt legislation to insure their protection. It is also often the case, she explained, that the government or local authorities are able to take action themselves if, as the human right act states, ‘effective protection, in particular, of children and other vulnerable persons’ is needed.

Once people have grasped an understanding of what Human Rights actually are, Cherie affirmed, it is important to educate people on what they are not. In particular, that “for the most part, fundamental rights are not absolute”. Drawing on the examples such as the law on slander, which limits the right to free speech, she explained that there are ‘everyday limitations or qualifications’ on rights that the government are obliged to enforce. Perhaps the most prominent example was the ‘right to life’. Despite existing in some cultures, over time and with review, the death penalty is becoming less prevalent and ‘the scope of limiting the right to life is diminishing’.

As the ‘fundamental value of a democratic society’, the only exception to this rule is, of course, the right to be free from torture. Cherie therefore importantly highlighted that in 1996, the “absolute nature of the prohibition on torture” was recognised by the European Court of Human Rights. Furthermore, she referred to the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture as an illustration of how far this right can extend. “The aim of the OPCAT is to prevent torture and other forms of ill-treatment by establishing a system of regular visits to places of detention carried out by independent international and national bodies.”

Understanding that the majority of human rights are ‘limitable and can be qualified’, Cherie stipulates, is one of the most important aspects of legal education. She reflected on international and national treaties that have codified fundamental rights in order to ‘counter the power of the state’ whilst ‘allowing sensible government action’, and the practical ramifications of such laws. She then identified that by helping people to recognise that human rights law is already quanlified, we are empowering them to recognize imposed restrictions as either justifiable or unreasonable attempts to impose further limitations.

As a distinguished barrister herself, Cherie Booth spoke with great authority on why fair trial rights are a crucial element of human rights education. She emphasised that fair trial rights aim to readjust the power imbalance between an accused individual and the ‘combined resources’ of the court system, the prosecutor, and the police. This was supported by examples of rights such as allowing the accused time and facilities to prepare a defence. Cherie conveyed that by educating people that fair trial rights both address this power imbalance, and also offer protection to victims and witnesses, the myth that they hinder individuals can be dispelled.

Having begun the lecture by stressing that the media paint a dismal picture of human rights, and that public opinion is need of reform, Cherie naturally highlighted how the media could be used to achieve this. Amongst the plethora of human rights cases, she discussed a few that “stand out as needing to be swept off the pages of the law reports, and retold in a much more public arena”.

One such case was that of that of Mr and Mrs Gunter and their disabled daughter, Rachael. After caring for Rachael 24 hours a day for 6 years, her parents were no longer able to give her the physical support and mental stimulation she required. Mr and Mrs Gunter approached the primary care trust who, reluctant to provide care in their own home, hoped to put Rachael into a residential facility. However, Rachael’s parents felt this would deprive her of mental stimulation that they could provide, and that had already increased Rachael’s confidence and communication skills. On the grounds that taking Rachael from her home would infringe on her right to family life, the court ordered that the primary care trust reconsider its decision

“It is unfortunate”, Cherie reflected, “that this in not the face of human rights that we see on TV or read about in the papers.”

Cherie considered the final element of rights education even less likely to be publicised: the role human rights play in “the everyday running of public bodies”. Despite being imperative to understanding how to use human rights effectively, she admits that examples are difficult to find due to their anecdotal nature. However, in order to equip people to ‘know their rights’ and ‘insist that public bodies fulfil their duties under the human right act’, we must ‘ferret out’ the examples!

Cherie’s final suggestion was not one of how to educate the people, but the responsibility that needs to be fulfilled by public bodies and officials. The responsibility is not only to respect human rights, but to ensure they are central to the way services are delivered.
“When public authorities embrace human rights thinking, it will be one of the most powerful ways that the human rights act can have a direct and positive effect on people’s lives”, stated Cherie.

Furthermore, she took the opportunity to declare her support for the establishment of a new Commission on Equality and Human Rights (CEHR), anticipated to be effective in 2007. By means of a database of genuine human rights cases, the commission will provide public authorities with concrete, practical examples illustrating how to operate their services. It will also produce guides, general advice and online help facilities. Cherie expressed trust that the Commission would provide a means to publicise human rights case studies and therefore aid public legal education: “Much good will flow from the Commission telling people what their fundamental rights are and how they impact directly on their lives.”

Cherie concluded by stressing that “the challenge to perform that function rests with those of us who are passionate about citizenship and legal education”. As the leading charity in law related education, the Citizenship Foundation hosted the annual Hooper lecture to promote legal understanding and awareness. The foundation promotes an innovative, hands-on approach to teaching citizenship, providing a range of active learning competitions and teaching resources throughout the year. Cherie credited the charity as one that “fosters understanding and respect for law, justice, democracy, and for different opinions, values and cultures.”

by Sarah Fenlon