In Roberts v Parole Board  UKHL 45 (7 July 2005) the House of Lords was asked whether the legal procedure for parole of even the vilest criminals should remain transparent and accord with natural justice under domestic law and/or the European Convention on Human Rights. In powerfully persuasive dissents, Lord Bingham and Lord Steyn struck a powerful plea for human rights. Alas, the majority, Lord Woolf, Lord Rodger Earlsferry and Lord Carswell were the appeasers, echoing popular sentiment, well illustrated both in the UK and in this country by the hue and cry that follows the release of paedophiles into the community.
"Convicted Murderers lose their Human Rights: Roberts v Parole Board,"
Bond Law Review:
2, Article 9.
Available at: http://epublications.bond.edu.au/blr/vol17/iss2/9