Legal News
Sitting here waiting for the inevitable Sunni/Shia world war to kick off, I noticed an annoying whiny noise. What the hell was it? It was the BBC and that oleaginously sleek, Scots and never-elected-by-anybody Lord Falconer, being interviewed on recent legal developments. Falconer leads New Labour’s army of incompetent lawyers and bill-drafters that are undermining the foundations of the UK legal system as we speak.
Not content with having breached the Human Rights Convention – which they themzselves enshrined in English law – by creating civil/criminal hybrid monsters like the ASBO, the Labour government now plans to bring victims’ advocates to address the court in murder trials. My considered legal opinion is, as you might expect, that this is dangerous bollocks. We don’t have a victim-centered justice system. The English criminal legal system rests on the notion that a criminal offence is a breach of the Queen’s peace. The Royal prerogative is passed to the prime minister – and since sovereignty resides in the people via prime minister, who is theoretically answerable to our representatives in parliament, then an offence is an offence against all of us, not just one person. This desperate scheme is an attempt to bring in lex talionis by the back door, and a media driven publicty stunt to boot.
PR always trumps justice for Mr Blair… unless it’s sucking up to Bush, which takes precedence over, well, everything. I note that this ‘initiative’ – classic New Labour-speak – is only to run in several pilot areas. This is merely a way of getting headlines with bugger-all investment. Later the it’ll be quietly dropped, having served its purpose by satisfying the Daily Mail’s and Rupert Murdoch’s Sun’s lust for authoritarian headlines.
Then there’s the Enron 3, British accountants who worked for Natwest bank on Enron’s accounts, now accused of financial offences which are illegal only under US, not British, law. The US Justice Department seeks to extradite the 3 using provisions of the Extradition Act 2003. Parts of the act related to the US were agreed with the Bush adminsitration immediately after 9/11. For which, read ‘Blair rolled over and begged for more’.
Because the Act allows the US government to extradite anyone from the UK to the US, without having to put a prima facie case as to why they should be allowed to do so. Yes, you read that right. They can extradite anyone, no evidence required. As the US copngress has yet to ratify this treaty, the converse is not true for US citizens. The US and UK governments strongly implied at the time that this measure would be used only in exceptional terrorism cases. Oh yes, we truly believe, as my kids used to say.
Shami Chakrabarti of Liberty:
“The Extradition Act 2003 is a breathtaking example of a sovereign government trading away the rights and freedoms of its citizens as a political gesture for a foreign power. Human beings are to be sent across the world like sacks of carrots, away from family and friends, to be detained for long periods pending trial. There is no need to show even a prima facie case to a UK court. If we are wrong that this is a violation of fundamental rights, why will the US Government not allow similar traffic for its own citizens in the other direction?”
But wait, there’s more. There’s Amnesty International’s report on the UK and civil liberties:
The UK?s actions and policies seek to limit the applicability of human rights law, and pose a challenge to the absolute prohibition of torture both at home and abroad. Amnesty International demonstrates in particular how the UK has sought to legitimise the highly controversial practice of seeking ?diplomatic assurances? from third countries to allow for the deportation of persons suspected of terrorism to countries where they are at risk of torture or other ill-treatment. The report highlights how the UK government has also failed to meet its obligations in relation to abuse committed by other states, by evading its responsibilities concerning rendition flights through the UK. And it shows how the UK has been attempting to circumvent domestic and international obligations in relation to actions of its own armed forces personnel outside the UK, in Iraq and Afghanistan, and its intelligence officials in Guant?namo.
Falconer was asked about this by BBC Today Programme’s John Humphries too ( not verbatim, I can’t type that fast, so there are necessary ellipses) “They criticise us on human rights law but we are sticking to human rights principles.” Note the clever phrasing. Humphries: “Do you feel embarassed… that you are seen as allies of government…. which has produced Guantanamo Bay?” Falconer: “We stand by human rights principles, we stand by the USA, our ally… we don’t always approve of what they do…. we would not have done it…. it should come to an end’,
Listen to this interview (for next 24 hours only) here
I call Blair, who is himself a lawyer, and Falconer what they are, power mad, anti-democratic, incompetent authoritarians. Their minions, the government lawyers, I feel more generous towards as they often can’t see the wood for the trees in their tendency to focus on detail. We’ve all done that.
But so often they seem incompetent even in the details. Laws are drafted badly, procedures are not followed and the constitution is ignored as a politically annoying irrelevance. No-one protests at the most egregious abuses of power, with the odd honourable exception such as Elizabeth Wilmshurst. It’s a government lawyer’s job to uphold the law, not collude in a plot to subvert it.
There has to be an explanation for their enabling of such an ongoing, deliberate deconstruction of our precious legal system – because if not incompetent, then these civil servants must be blind ideologues or just plain evil.
Tags: UK Legal UK Constitution Blair Falconer Enron 3 Victim’s rights Amnesty International Torture Extradition Guantanamo Human Rights
