Justice, of course, is far wider than simply what courts of law do. It also encompasses how we treat other people. Whatever your feelings about the invasion of Iraq (I was opposed to it), the plight of those Iraqi citizens who came forward to assist British troops, security companies, diplomats and the like, mainly by acting as interpreters or drivers should be of concern to us.
By their actions these people have placed themselves and their families in very great danger, even of death at the hands of those who see them as collaborators. The British government has rejected the suggestion that such people should be entitled to find asylum here in the UK, arguing that they are not our responsibility. I disagree. If you also disagree, there is a newly opened petition on the Downing St website which you can sign (if you are a British citizen), and which calls on the government to grant asylum to these people.
http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Iraqi-Employees/
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label justice. Show all posts
Tuesday, 24 July 2007
Tuesday, 19 June 2007
PrisonPlaces
If government is not prepared to invest adequately in tackling the causes of crime, isn't it morally bound to invest properly in tackling the consequences of crime? Just a thought....
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?
Thursday, 10 May 2007
Ministry of Justice?
I’ve been reflecting on the subject of yesterday’s post, the creation of the Ministry of Justice. The more I think about it, the more concerned I become.
When, suddenly and without regard to its long and distinguished pedigree, the government announced the proposed abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, and immediately replaced the Lord Chancellor’s Department with the Department of Constitutional Affairs, the justification put forward was the need to secure a proper separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. With the subsequent creation of Her Majesty’s Courts Service, bringing the judges and magistrates under one roof for the first time, responsibility for the judiciary passed from the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice.
Much as I will regret the disappearance of the office of Lord Chancellor (if it ever happens), the objective, separation of powers, I see as entirely laudable. It is the job of parliament to enact law, and the duty of the judiciary then to uphold and apply that law, at the same time treating each case on its individual merits. It is not for the executive to micromanage the way in which judges and magistrates carry out that duty.
It seems to me, however, that the new Ministry of Justice represents a retrograde step so far as the separation of powers is concerned. The Secretary of State for Justice is charged with responsibility provision and administration of the court system, the prisons and the probation service; the head of the judiciary, responsible for the delivery of justice in individual cases, remains the Lord Chief Justice. Well and good, but the Secretary of State takes up his duties with a prison service under severe strain and a probation service which is seriously underfunded. Both of these organisations face difficulties in providing the courts with the service which they need effectively to carry out their responsibilities. And the response? On the very first day of its existence, the head of the Ministry of Justice, Lord Falconer (the executive arm), announces his intention to restrict the use of custody, suspended or immediate, by the magistrates (the judicial arm). Thus, the very person who argued so persuasively for strengthening the separation of powers now proposes on his first day in office to blur or diminish that separation. The reason, moreover, is not that he considers that we are acting perversely or in bad faith, but rather that one of his departments is in a financial mess and so he wants to take some of the pressure off it.
All of this is justified on the basis that community penalties address reoffending more productively than custody, as if the only purpose of sentencing was to reduce reoffending. I don’t want to get onto the subject of the various other purposes of sentencing today, but I think I may well post something on that subject in the not too distant future.
For today, suffice it to say that I fear that the creation of a Ministry of Justice in its present form, may yet herald far greater interference by the executive in the delivery of justice. I’d particularly welcome comments on this from anyone reading this post.
When, suddenly and without regard to its long and distinguished pedigree, the government announced the proposed abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor, and immediately replaced the Lord Chancellor’s Department with the Department of Constitutional Affairs, the justification put forward was the need to secure a proper separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary. With the subsequent creation of Her Majesty’s Courts Service, bringing the judges and magistrates under one roof for the first time, responsibility for the judiciary passed from the Lord Chancellor to the Lord Chief Justice.
Much as I will regret the disappearance of the office of Lord Chancellor (if it ever happens), the objective, separation of powers, I see as entirely laudable. It is the job of parliament to enact law, and the duty of the judiciary then to uphold and apply that law, at the same time treating each case on its individual merits. It is not for the executive to micromanage the way in which judges and magistrates carry out that duty.
It seems to me, however, that the new Ministry of Justice represents a retrograde step so far as the separation of powers is concerned. The Secretary of State for Justice is charged with responsibility provision and administration of the court system, the prisons and the probation service; the head of the judiciary, responsible for the delivery of justice in individual cases, remains the Lord Chief Justice. Well and good, but the Secretary of State takes up his duties with a prison service under severe strain and a probation service which is seriously underfunded. Both of these organisations face difficulties in providing the courts with the service which they need effectively to carry out their responsibilities. And the response? On the very first day of its existence, the head of the Ministry of Justice, Lord Falconer (the executive arm), announces his intention to restrict the use of custody, suspended or immediate, by the magistrates (the judicial arm). Thus, the very person who argued so persuasively for strengthening the separation of powers now proposes on his first day in office to blur or diminish that separation. The reason, moreover, is not that he considers that we are acting perversely or in bad faith, but rather that one of his departments is in a financial mess and so he wants to take some of the pressure off it.
All of this is justified on the basis that community penalties address reoffending more productively than custody, as if the only purpose of sentencing was to reduce reoffending. I don’t want to get onto the subject of the various other purposes of sentencing today, but I think I may well post something on that subject in the not too distant future.
For today, suffice it to say that I fear that the creation of a Ministry of Justice in its present form, may yet herald far greater interference by the executive in the delivery of justice. I’d particularly welcome comments on this from anyone reading this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
