The abuse of the Human Rights Act This newspaper has frequently pointed out the deficiencies of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, and its often bizarre extensions of the rights which the European Convention bequeaths. The latest example is the Strasbourg Court's decision that Abu Qatada - known to be a very dangerous individual, who has inspired terrorist attacks on the United Kingdom - cannot be deported to stand trial in Jordan. If we have not dwelt on the deficiencies of our own judges in interpreting the Convention, it is because we have been content to let the Appeal Court identify those failings. And, as we report today, the Appeal Court has done so, in very clear fashion, in relation to a judgment handed down by Mr Justice Blake, President of the Upper Tribunal Immigration and Asylum Chamber. Sitting with a colleague, Mr Justice Blake decided that Rocky Gurung, who was convicted of an extremely unpleasant instance of manslaughter, had a "right to family life" in the UK, which meant that he could not be deported, despite the passing of legislation which states that all those who have been imprisoned for 12 months or more in the UK should be automatically deported, unless it is completely clear that deportation would breach their human rights. The Appeal Court ruled that Mr Justice Blake had misinterpreted the law. His judgment, the Appeal Court found, had the appearance of "a search for reasons for not deporting" Gurung. It seemed not to be a cool assessment of whether in fact the man's rights would be violated if he was deported from Britain. That error, unfortunately, is frequently committed by the judiciary. As many (including this newspaper) predicted, the passing of the Human Rights Act has given judges an excuse to downplay parliamentary legislation, and to find reasons for ignoring it. It has allowed them to give vent to their own convictions of what would be "right" - which of course is not what, under our constitution, judges should do. Judges ought to interpret the law according to precedent, consistency and overall intelligibility, not according to their own political prejudices. It is vitally important that the tendency in some of our judges to reinterpret the law according to their own views about the importance of extending individual rights, such as that of family life, is checked, for it has two profoundly undesirable effects. One is that it discredits the notion of human rights. Few people accept that a killer should have the "right" to stay in this country on the grounds that he has the "right" to be with his family. The other negative consequence is that it diminishes judges" authority and status as fair and rational interpreters of our law. That is bad for them, and - since it has the effect of undermining the rule of law - bad for the rest of us, too.