IF the government took political corruption as seriously as it takes terrorist threats, and IF ACPO had its way on detention without charge, THEN Lord Levy, Ruth Turner, Des Smith and Sir Christopher Evans would only now be emerging blinking into the daylight after spending most of the last 15 months banged up in Belmarsh. Fortunately, they were able to keep their liberty and now of course, we discover there's nothing to charge them with.
What makes them so different from the innocent person suspected of terrorist involvement?
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights. Show all posts
Friday, 20 July 2007
Sunday, 17 June 2007
Pre-charge publicity
Last week, as I'm sure everyone knows by now, Michael Barrymore was arrested by police investigating the death six years ago of Stuart Lubbock. Two other men were arrested at the same time, but Barrymore's is the name that made the story 'news' and which has stuck in the public memory. No matter that a couple of days later two were released without charge, although still on police bail. Similarly in the 'cash for honours' case Lord Levy's name has been splashed across the headlines in the press and on television each time he is required to present himself to the police.
It is sometimes argued that this type of publicity impacts on these individuals' prospect of a fair trial, should a decision to prosecute ever be taken. I suspect that it does not, but another aspect concerns me. There is a popular if unreliable belief among the British people that 'there is no smoke without fire'. Even if no charges are ever laid, these two people and countless others will find their lives tainted by this publicity.
I have spent a great deal of time in Spain over the past twenty odd years. They handle things differently there. The arrest of suspects is reported just as it would be here. However, names are never used in advance of charges being laid. In the Spanish press you would read that a male MB (age) had been arrested in connection with investigations into the death of Stuart Lubbock, or that ML (age) had been arrested and interviewed in connection with the cash for honours investigation. To the vast majority of readers these initials would have no meaning, especially in the majority of cases where the suspect would be unknown outside their immediate community. Nevertheless the public interest - that police were pursuing a particular line of inquiry - is fully met.
If we accept that everyone is innocent until proved guilty, then it is surely appropriate that no one should be named as a suspect at least until they have been charged?
It is sometimes argued that this type of publicity impacts on these individuals' prospect of a fair trial, should a decision to prosecute ever be taken. I suspect that it does not, but another aspect concerns me. There is a popular if unreliable belief among the British people that 'there is no smoke without fire'. Even if no charges are ever laid, these two people and countless others will find their lives tainted by this publicity.
I have spent a great deal of time in Spain over the past twenty odd years. They handle things differently there. The arrest of suspects is reported just as it would be here. However, names are never used in advance of charges being laid. In the Spanish press you would read that a male MB (age) had been arrested in connection with investigations into the death of Stuart Lubbock, or that ML (age) had been arrested and interviewed in connection with the cash for honours investigation. To the vast majority of readers these initials would have no meaning, especially in the majority of cases where the suspect would be unknown outside their immediate community. Nevertheless the public interest - that police were pursuing a particular line of inquiry - is fully met.
If we accept that everyone is innocent until proved guilty, then it is surely appropriate that no one should be named as a suspect at least until they have been charged?
Saturday, 26 May 2007
Whither justice?
As I look back over the fifty something years since I became politically aware, it strikes me that in the UK the democracy gene seems to be recessive. With each succeeding parliament its influence on government gets weaker and weaker. Now, as I look around me, all I see are sticks; the carrots are withering and rotting in the ground.
A colleague grew up in an inner city area during the fifties and speaks of the facilities that were available to guide adolescent males along the right track - the Boys' Brigade, Sea Cadets, boxing clubs, lads' clubs - staffed by dedicated people who set an example and acted as role models. Today they have largely disappeared from the areas that most need them, replaced by YOTs, youth offender teams, whose focus is on picking up the pieces after the damage has been done. I suspect that if we put half the money into training and employing youth workers and outreach teams, that we currently spend on ASBOs and attempts to rehabilitate young offenders, not only would we be able offer a social environment that appealed to young males, but we'd also see a real decline in all types of youth offending. And anyway, why should kids have to turn to offending in order to access any kind of input at all?
Instead, the focus is on calls for ever more severe crackdowns on those who offend - or are suspected of offending. The latest of which, which prompted the musings above, came from our soon-to-be-ex Home Secretary. Three people subject to control orders abscond, the result of insufficient resources to supervise them more closely, and does he accept responsibility? I jest, of course. No, he blames the High Court Judges who wouldn't let him just lock them up in Belmarsh until either some tangible evidence emerged that would let them be charged with an offence, or they grew to be so old, decrepit and mentally unhinged by their incarceration that they ceased even to be perceived as a threat.
The solution? Let's tear up that section of the Human Rights Act that says people have a right to liberty, or a judicial hearing at which they may hear what they are charged with, question their accusers, and speak in their own defence. Let's make a new law which will allow the government to bypass the judicial process, and in the interests of national security - a red herring that Hitler deployed to great effect by the way - just lock up whoever it wants to on the basis that someone, somewhere has come to the conclusion that they look like a 'wrong-un'.
If our security is at such great risk, may I - a non-lawyer - suggest a simple three pronged piece of legislation: First, allow the use of intercept evidence in court; second, if it is so sensitive that it must not reach public ears, allow a panel of three High Court Judges to hear the case in camera; third, apply the civil standard of proof rather than the criminal standard, so that those accused may be convicted if the evidence shows them to be guilty 'on the balance of probability', and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Those accused would be charged with a specific offence. They would have the right to legal representation. They would be entitled to a full and fair hearing with only such restrictions on openness and transparency as were justified. And we would still have the protection of Article 5 of the Human Rights Act. I believe that parliament would be prepared to pass such a bill into law, and that judges would be content to work within that framework.
A colleague grew up in an inner city area during the fifties and speaks of the facilities that were available to guide adolescent males along the right track - the Boys' Brigade, Sea Cadets, boxing clubs, lads' clubs - staffed by dedicated people who set an example and acted as role models. Today they have largely disappeared from the areas that most need them, replaced by YOTs, youth offender teams, whose focus is on picking up the pieces after the damage has been done. I suspect that if we put half the money into training and employing youth workers and outreach teams, that we currently spend on ASBOs and attempts to rehabilitate young offenders, not only would we be able offer a social environment that appealed to young males, but we'd also see a real decline in all types of youth offending. And anyway, why should kids have to turn to offending in order to access any kind of input at all?
Instead, the focus is on calls for ever more severe crackdowns on those who offend - or are suspected of offending. The latest of which, which prompted the musings above, came from our soon-to-be-ex Home Secretary. Three people subject to control orders abscond, the result of insufficient resources to supervise them more closely, and does he accept responsibility? I jest, of course. No, he blames the High Court Judges who wouldn't let him just lock them up in Belmarsh until either some tangible evidence emerged that would let them be charged with an offence, or they grew to be so old, decrepit and mentally unhinged by their incarceration that they ceased even to be perceived as a threat.
The solution? Let's tear up that section of the Human Rights Act that says people have a right to liberty, or a judicial hearing at which they may hear what they are charged with, question their accusers, and speak in their own defence. Let's make a new law which will allow the government to bypass the judicial process, and in the interests of national security - a red herring that Hitler deployed to great effect by the way - just lock up whoever it wants to on the basis that someone, somewhere has come to the conclusion that they look like a 'wrong-un'.
If our security is at such great risk, may I - a non-lawyer - suggest a simple three pronged piece of legislation: First, allow the use of intercept evidence in court; second, if it is so sensitive that it must not reach public ears, allow a panel of three High Court Judges to hear the case in camera; third, apply the civil standard of proof rather than the criminal standard, so that those accused may be convicted if the evidence shows them to be guilty 'on the balance of probability', and not 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
Those accused would be charged with a specific offence. They would have the right to legal representation. They would be entitled to a full and fair hearing with only such restrictions on openness and transparency as were justified. And we would still have the protection of Article 5 of the Human Rights Act. I believe that parliament would be prepared to pass such a bill into law, and that judges would be content to work within that framework.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
