Straw Repudiates Law Lords' Decision

It is ironic that Jack Straw invokes the special immigration appeals tribunal to support his case:

Mr Straw told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "The people concerned have a right of appeal to a special immigration appeals tribunal, which is chaired by a high court judge, and on each of the cases of the people currently detained the decision to certify them as requiring detention was approved by that court.

Because as the BBC reports:

When the men were first held, they took their cases to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission (SIAC).

The commission ruled on 30 July, 2002 that the anti-terror act unjustifiably discriminated against foreign nationals as British people could not be held in the same way.

The Court of Appeal felt bound to overrule the Commission: hence the House of Lords judgment.

EU's Preponderance Is "Dangerous Timebomb"

The EU says the "Big Four" auditors are too powerful and dominant, and should be broken up.

I say, the EU's preponderance is itself a dangerous timebomb, and it should be broken up into separate nation states, each with their own autonomous government, and accountable through national parliaments to their own people.

"Can independence be preserved"? At the moment, and as envisaged by its proposed constitution, the EU is not democratically accountable, and keeps usurping the role of national governments. The EU does not have a democratic government - it is run by a cabal of heads of state and officials. The people of Europe are unable to throw out the EU government, and their national politicians are powerless to decide any of the ever growing range of matters over which the EU has competency.

The latest evidence is that the EU is costing its members 12% of GNP - over £100 billion a year in Britain alone - in adhering to the EU's regulations. EU competitiveness report (pdf).

The EU is currently putting in place structures to support foreign and military policies, including a foreign minister, military expeditionary forces, and Galileo a satellite system.

Internally, the EU is constructing centralised police, justice and surveillance systems and institutions.

Can Man Really Control The Weather?

The Scotsman reports research suggesting the world is 0.44C warmer in 2004 than the average for 1961 - 1990, and that the last decade has seen 9 of the 10 warmest years since 1861 when global records began.

If the world really is getting warmer, is it down to Man or natural causes (such as sunspots)?

The University of Bern thinks it really is getting warmer.

The Max Plank Institute thinks its down to natural causes.
Stanford isn't sure.

If the world really is getting warmer, is that a bad thing?

The US NCPA reckons cutting emissions is very expensive, and unlikely to make much difference.

The Canadians agree.

So if the world really is getting warmer, is it easier to adapt to that or to attempt to control the weather? Personally, I would go with adapting to it.

Britain's Muslim Question

Britain is increasingly dominated by the Muslim question.

The seemingly perpetual 'War on Terror', a war against Muslim 'extremists', throws up questions of freedom, discrimination, and the rule of law: for example, the anti terror measures, including detention without trial, the Civil Contingencies Act, draconian asset confiscation powers in the Proceeds of Crime Act, and now ID cards.

The Muslim question raises fears about how to keep the large immigrant Muslim populations in the UK and other Western countries onside, to prevent them becoming disaffected, and an enemy within, while at the same time avoiding them becoming the subject of resentment: because either possibility could lead to civil unrest. The government wants to introduce an offence of incitement to religious hatred mainly as a sop to the Muslims, but also partly to suppress discontent with them.

Other EU countries have discovered their own problems with immigrant populations, including Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Spain. With Turkey's possible entry to the EU, they are wary of adding fuel to what may prove a fire.

Government Contempt For Rule Of Law

The Law Lords have ruled that the law used to detain foreign terrorist suspects without trial conflicts with the Human Rights Act, is discriminatory, and incompatible with the rule of law.


The BBC reports:

Detaining foreign terrorist suspects without trial breaks human rights laws, the UK's highest court has ruled.


In a blow to the government's anti-terror measures, the House of Lords ruled by an eight to one majority in favour of appeals by nine detainees.


The Law Lords said the measures were incompatible with European human rights laws, but Home Secretary Charles Clarke said the men would remain in prison.


He said the measures would "remain in force" until the law was reviewed.


Most of the men are being held indefinitely in Belmarsh prison, south London.

Law Lords ruling in full (382kb pdf file)


The Government has known all along the anti-terrorist measures are a violation of established principles of English law, including habeas corpus, which has applied to Englishman and foreigner alike.


The problem is that the Government has contempt for legal restraints on its actions, and for the idea of due process.


Ever since the Government came to power it has been trying to throw off the yoke of the traditional principles of criminal law and due process in favour of flexible administrative powers and penalties:

• So we have anti terrorist measures which allow potentially indefinite detention, without trial or cause, on the basis of suspicion;
• We have the Proceeds of Crime Act, which allows the confiscation of money and other assets from people, on the basis of suspicion and without at any point having to secure a conviction (even following an acquittal), and where the onus is then on the victim of the confiscation to prove their right to the assets;
• The Proceeds of Crime Act also turns professional advisers and others into secret state informers, as they are obliged to report in secret any suspicion they may have that their client may hold assets wrongfully (including, for example, trivial amounts of unpaid tax);
• We have ASBOs - which enable the courts (on the basis of hearsay and a civil burden of proof) to restrain people from doing virtually anything or visiting anywhere, for potentially indefinite durations, in cases where they may not even have committed an offence. Breach of an ASBO is a criminal offence carrying a penalty of up to 5 years in prison, and effectively allows the authorities to invent new crimes tailored to individual people.

Should Juries Be Challenged?

The UK Government is looking at whether jury verdicts should be open to challenge on the basis of prejudice, after the House of Lords considered the conviction of a Pakistani where a juror afterwards alleged the other jurors had been racially prejudiced.

But that is a risk for anyone in a trial: that the jury will pick on some irrelevant detail or use poor reasoning in arriving at their verdict.

The main safeguard is surely that the courts heed the jury members who do not fall into the trap and refuse to convict. Traditionally, all jury members had to reach agreement for a guilty verdict, but the risk of a wrongful conviction is much increased now that majority verdicts are allowed.

If people are concerned about prejudice in the juryroom, the answer is to revert to the requirement of a unanimity for a guilty verdict.

That is far preferable to opening up juries to "investigations", which would challenge their independence and finality, essential if juries are to be able to stand up to pressure and (in time) possible intimidation from the state, and act as the safeguard of last resort against bad law.

If someone is found guilty in the face of the evidence, there is always the possibility of an appeal, doubtless helped along by the misgivings of the trial judge.

The other reason not to countenance opening up the jury's proceedings after the event is that the state will use it as a device, not so much to ensure wrongful convictions are quashed, but as a way to secure convictions after acquittals. And the fear of losing more cases is the principal reason there will be no return to the requirement for unanimity in guilty verdicts.

Judge Ends Mushroom Abuse Case

One judge seems to have some sense of justice. Yesterday, Claire Miskin, a Crown Court Recorder, stopped the case against two men accused of selling magic mushrooms.

According to the Guardian, she ruled

the law was so ambiguous that to put them on trial amounted to an "abuse of process". She recommended that parliament consider new legislation to clarify the legal position.

Two years ago the Home Office issued guidance that selling magic mushrooms was legal. Now it seems to want to change its mind, and the police in some parts of the country are rounding people up with a view to bringing charges.

What does it say about the police that they can be so susceptible to Government pressure?

What does it say about Government and officialdom that they think they can in effect make and unmake the law at whim? And then make fun for themselves prosecuting those then ensnared?

Health Risk From Tax?

The Government is warning people against the 15% of cigarettes sold in the UK which are smuggled into the country. Many are 'fake' - made in Eastern Europe and China to look like well-known brands - and can contain high levels of toxic substances, like lead and arsenic, and so are even more dangerous to health than normal cigarettes.

It doesn't seem to have occurred to them that it is only worth supplying fake cigarettes because high taxes make legitimate ones so expensive - tax makes up £3.77 or nearly 80% of the price of a pack of 20.

Should the Government cut the tax on cigarettes to improve smokers' health?

Politically Correct Justice

The Court of Appeal has thrown out an attempt by the Government to increase the sentence of a man convicted of child cruelty last April.

I still find it very wrong that anyone should be taken back to court for the prosecution to have a go at setting the sentence.

It seems to me to infringe the double jeopardy rule, in the sense that the convicted person is unable simply to accept the punishment and get on with their life (but then this is the government which is open to retrying acquittals).

It also puts the prosecution in a position which they are not ordinarily in - demanding a particular sentence - which is really a matter for the judge's discretion, after hearing all the evidence and legal submissions. We will see the development of case law, with less latitude for judicial discretion, and more pressure, I suspect, for politically correct sentences.

Another question arises in my mind. This case predates the change in the law which previously allowed "reasonable chastisement" of children by their parents. The man was convicted of child cruelty and was said to have a "distorted view" of how to discipline children.

The methods described in the Telegraph report do not seem to me in themselves outlandish, just to hark back to different times, and the Court accepted they had not caused injury, presumably including psychological injury.

Is administering a slipper beyond the pale? It is not so long ago it was common. Or lightly caning backsides with bamboo? This was a school punishment. Dipping boys in cold baths for 20 seconds? A recent television programme putting volunteers through a school regime of 40 years ago used cold showers and cold swims as punishment (feeling unable to use a cane).

What then is the undistorted, acceptable view of how to discipline children, given the legitimacy of "reasonable chastisement"?

Politically Correct University Admissions

The Government increases its control over universities by placing responsibility for admissions with a bureaucracy, rather than academics.

This will make it easier to make universities conform with the Government's idea of what universities should look for when admitting candidates, and reduces the importance of specialist academic factors in selection, particularly at interview - because the specialist academics will not be making the decisions.

To maintain their learning and educational functions, and their ability to achieve their intellectual best, without compromising to the latest political fad, universities must regain and maintain their independence.

Who knows what factors the Government may in future deem relevant and decisive?

Ban To Cut Out Knife Crime?

So Blunkett proposes yet another ban - to stop under 18s buying knives, because so many crimes involve knives, and youths arm themselves with them. Apart from creating more types of crime, and inconveniencing people, it will have no effect.

The trouble is the problem is not with buying knives, or using knives, but with using them as weapons.

I had a sheath knife as a Scout (I may even have had one as a Cub, but I can't remember), and many - perhaps most boys - had penknives, perhaps they still do. Boys generally have knives for innocent purposes, and I believe it is a good thing for them to learn how to use them and look after them.

The underlying problem signalled by knife crime is that the police are not policing properly. They generally react to, but don't prevent crimes. (Perhaps I am being kind, because many people complain the police don't even react to crimes).

My local police station is large, and its car park looks pretty busy. But how many police do we see on the street? On the beat? Very few. What on earth are the rest doing?

Clean up crime on the street, and keep it cleaned up.

Why should people pay to have their police huddled inside stations and cars? We want them on the streets! There are heaps of police, you just can't see them. Is it any wonder that people are increasingly employing their own security firms? They shouldn't have to - or if they should, they shouldn't have to pay for the police too.

If you're going to ban knives, what about all hand tools? All sharp objects and implements? Where does it stop? Razor blades?

There will be 16 year olds who have set up home and will be unable legally to buy common kitchen utensils and household tools. How absurd!

For more questions, see Spy Blog, which kindly brought this my attention.