Human Rights

The hon. Gentleman is being patient. I want to understand his position. If he accepts that the judgment made in a British court was based on the European convention on human rights, does he believe that a different judgment would have been arrived at by a court in Strasbourg? If he believes that the judgment would be different, can he explain why? If he believes that it would be the same, how is the Human Rights Act in any way implicit in the decision that was reached about the legality of the position?