Far from typifying what is wrong with the Human Rights Act, the case proves how vital the Act is for victims and their families. Without it, there would have been no inquiry and these damning mistakes would never have been exposed.
Naomi was murdered in August 2005 by convicted rapist Anthony Rice, on licence from prison. Rice had a series of convictions for rape, violent attempted rape, indecent assault, assault and threats to kill. For his last offence – a horrifying attempted rape – he was jailed for life. The judge stated: “This was as bad an attempted rape as one can imagine … his next offence will be murder … if released before cure, he will kill.”
But yet Rice was released, after almost 16 years, to Elderfield House in Hampshire. Nine months later, he murdered Naomi in her own home. Rice confessed immediately, leaving her family with numerous questions: What had the prison known about Rice? What information had the Parole Board had before releasing him? How had he been supervised? Had there been any warnings?
The family’s concerns were compounded by the Coroner’s initial decision not to hold an inquest, on the basis Rice had already been convicted.
Matters were worsened by a review of the authorities’ handling of the case by the Chief Inspector of Probation. One of his most striking conclusions was that the Human Rights Act was somehow responsible for Rice’s release. The result was a frenzy of negative reporting; the Daily Mail claimed Rice’s ‘human rights were placed above public safety’; Rice was freed ‘because of human rights laws’, declared The Sun.
Verna Bryant suspected differently. It was clear Rice had killed her daughter. But it also struck her that the agencies involved (the prison service, probation, the parole board, police and Elderfield House) might simply be waving the human rights flag to distract attention from their own failings.
Using Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, the right to life, Liberty argued that the State would be acting unlawfully by not holding an inquest. The right requires the State to conduct a full investigation into any death where it may bear some responsibility - failure to hold an inquest would breach that requirement. The Coroner was persuaded, agreeing to a full Article 2 compliant inquest.
Six years on, Verna Bryant has eventually been given the answers she craved. The inquest found that Naomi was unlawfully killed due to a staggering series of public authority errors. Verna now feels she finally understands how her daughter came by her death. She believes the key failings have come to light, and that lessons have been learned. This, she says, was the whole point – something only made possible by the Human Rights Act.
