Last week
teenager Hughes Cousins-Chang won a landmark court ruling meaning police must
now treat arrested 17-year-olds as children. Hughes was wrongly held last April
on suspicion of stealing a mobile. He was refused permission to contact his
mother, put in a cell for 12 hours and strip-searched before being proved
innocent. His mother, not knowing where he was, was beside herself with worry.
His case followed the tragic deaths of two 17-year-olds who committed suicide after being detained by police. Joe Lawton was held overnight on suspicion of drink-driving in 2012 – without his parents’ knowledge. He panicked, later shooting himself. Edward Thornber hanged himself in 2011 after being sent a court summons, instead of a warning, for being caught with 50p worth of cannabis – again without his parents being notified.
It was a real anomaly – 17-year-olds in prison are treated as children, so why was the situation different in police custody? As Lord Justice Moses said at the High Court, the treatment of Hughes was “inconsistent with the rights of the claimant and his mother, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights”. “It is difficult to imagine a more striking case where the rights of both child and parent are engaged than when a child is in custody on suspicion of committing a serious offence and needs help from someone with whom he is familiar and trusts,” he added. The story was well-covered by the press, but despite the judge’s strong words there was little love for human rights. No front page splashes or eye-catching headlines. You could’ve counted the cursory mentions on one hand.
And last month an inquest ruled that three women and three young children who died in a fire at Lakanal House, London could have been saved if Southwark Council had carried out basic safety checks. Again the heartbreaking story featured prominently in the media. But any reference to the fact that the wide ranging inquest was only made possible by Article 2 of the Human Rights Act, the right to life, was widely absent from the coverage.
We have a proud free press in this country, and many publications were instrumental in exposing Britain’s role in some of the War on Terror’s most shameful excesses. There will always be court judgments people disagree with, and of course newspapers will have their own editorial lines on particular issues. But it’s a shame they don’t feel able to report both sides of the coin in a fair, balanced way – and let readers make up their own minds in terms of rights and freedoms.
Edward’s mother Ann, speaking after last week’s ruling, said: “If it can stop a family going through the same devastation, there has to be something positive”. That’s exactly what human rights can do – help bereaved loved ones and protect potential victims. But you probably won’t read that in many of the papers.
