Blood & Mud

Stade accuse England of possibly breaching Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Well, sort of.

I know what you're thinking, "I didn't know the ECHR mentioned being forced to watch crap rugby", and although England's play could come under the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment for the viewing public, that is not what we are talking about.  No, this is about the increasingly hysterical situation with James "James Haskell" Haskell.

Stade mouthpiece Max Guazzini has stated that the RFU is "keeping Haskell prisoner" and he has asked the Six Nations committee to punish them.  Surely the Stade owner is setting his sights too low with the Six Nations commitee, when the European Court in Strasbourg (right) could be the way forward? 

Article 5 of the ECHR states that everyone has a right to liberty, thus only by a correct legal authorisation procedure can you deprive a person of their liberty.  Guazzini could argue, as in Ashingdane vs UK (ECHR, 1985), that Haskell is under such close supervision and control in the England camp that he is effectively deprived of his liberty; or as in Guzzardi vs Italy (1980) that his confinement to a specific area, i.e. Pennyhill Park, is tantamount to a deprivation. 

The problem with this is that, should Mad Max win, and Haskell is returned to Stade, then England could start the whole procedure again accusing the French team of the same.

Some of you may think this an over-reaction, but judging by the media coverage, and the behaviour of all the parties involved, this is a case of grave seriousness that must be treated accordingly.  In no way is it a pointless flexing of egos over a player who is a little bit on the shit side.  No.  No way.

Rugby and human rights law, a heady cocktail you will only find on this blog.

Tweet

Why not subscribe to Blood and Mud? You can get all our updates fresh in your inbox via email and add us to your favourite feedreader. You can also follow us on Twitter.

Like this this post? Why not like bloodandmud.com on facebook and tell your friends?

Comments

Stade accuse England of possibly breaching Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights

Well, sort of.

I know what you're thinking, "I didn't know the ECHR mentioned being forced to watch crap rugby", and although England's play could come under the meaning of cruel and unusual punishment for the viewing public, that is not what we are talking about.  No, this is about the increasingly hysterical situation with James "James Haskell" Haskell.

Stade mouthpiece Max Guazzini has stated that the RFU is "keeping Haskell prisoner" and he has asked the Six Nations committee to punish them.  Surely the Stade owner is setting his sights too low with the Six Nations commitee, when the European Court in Strasbourg (right) could be the way forward? 

Article 5 of the ECHR states that everyone has a right to liberty, thus only by a correct legal authorisation procedure can you deprive a person of their liberty.  Guazzini could argue, as in Ashingdane vs UK (ECHR, 1985), that Haskell is under such close supervision and control in the England camp that he is effectively deprived of his liberty; or as in Guzzardi vs Italy (1980) that his confinement to a specific area, i.e. Pennyhill Park, is tantamount to a deprivation. 

The problem with this is that, should Mad Max win, and Haskell is returned to Stade, then England could start the whole procedure again accusing the French team of the same.

Some of you may think this an over-reaction, but judging by the media coverage, and the behaviour of all the parties involved, this is a case of grave seriousness that must be treated accordingly.  In no way is it a pointless flexing of egos over a player who is a little bit on the shit side.  No.  No way.

Rugby and human rights law, a heady cocktail you will only find on this blog.