Precedent Carta
‘The good name of human rights has sometimes become distorted and devalued,’ says David Cameron as he takes to the Runnymede podium, standing not only in the shadows of John the King and John the President, but also a one-time school for ‘disturbed girls’ that has retrospectively presented a considerable challenge to the liberties of which the PM lyrically waxes. The good name of human rights has indeed become distorted and devalued; but by whom?
As far as I’m aware, the anglers of England are safe – for now. They can take their tackle to a weir and dip it in without fear of arrest. Similarly, the nation’s remaining monks have no need to devote an inordinate amount of their precious time to worrying about the width of the cloth from which their robes are made. Careless tailoring will not land them behind bars. In truth, the vast majority of the stipulations in a certain scroll signed by King John 800 years ago gradually slid into irrelevance as the centuries progressed; it’s possible few of the more obscure clauses were ever examined in much detail until they finally began to be repealed in the nineteenth century.
The fact that only three of the clauses remain on the statute book in England and Wales may possibly come as a surprise to many, but since the thirteenth century, Magna Carta has always symbolised more than it actually says; it genuinely is one of those few objects of which it can be said that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. What it represents is more significant than any specific issues relating to fishermen or friars. It is as much an idea as a series of concessions scrawled on a decaying document. Routinely cited by the oppressed, particularly in the USA, as the foundation stone for a brand of democratic law that resists the subjugation of the common people by a higher (earthbound) power, Magna Carter may not have declared that all men are equal, but its reputation has taken on a life of its own that long ago transcended the demands of England’s aggrieved Barons.
But Magna Carta has not just been apprehended by those fighting for their rights and freedoms; it has also been apprehended by those denying them. For David Cameron to stand at Runnymede and announce his befuddled belief that extricating Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights is somehow being true to the spirit of Magna Carta is indicative of the manner in which its symbolism can be played upon. Because so many of the clauses are cloaked in the culture of the time, it has acquired the ambiguity of a religious text; the ignorance that most beyond scholarly chambers have of its finer details leaves it open to interpretation, and all can use it to support their own agenda – including politicians.
The Prime Minister says ‘The limits of executive power, guaranteed access to justice, the belief that there should be something called the rule of law, that there shouldn’t be imprisonment without trial – Magna Carta introduced the idea that we should write these things down and live by them.’
Guaranteed access to justice – an interesting point to make at a time when severe cuts to Legal Aid threaten to deny many who can’t stump-up solicitor’s fees access to justice, not to mention charging people for the privilege of appearing before a magistrate’s court. One of the three clauses in Magna Carta that remain on the statute book forbids ‘the sale of justice’, yet it increasingly seems that only those who can afford to buy representation in court will have access to justice. That Dave should mention ‘imprisonment without trial’ in his sermon is also telling when many within his party were all for the Blair administration’s plans to extend the detention period of terrorist suspects from 28 days to 42. Six weeks being effectively imprisoned without trial. Just as well Magna Carta doesn’t specify the length of imprisonment without trial.
Trial by jury was secured in Magna Carta, but predates it in English law; that said, the right is often attributed to Magna Carta and tentative moves to abolish it in certain cases, primarily fraud trials, were greeted with a barrage of references to Magna Carta. Nevertheless, 2009 saw the approval of the first criminal trial in a jury-free crown court – though it must be remembered that the ‘Diplock Courts’ of Northern Ireland operated without juries for over thirty years.
As well as promising to maintain the freedom of the Church of England, and not forgetting the customs and liberties of London, the other surviving clause not only forbids the sale of justice; it also forbids arbitrary arrest. As ‘arbitrary’ is defined by the dictionary as ‘Based on one’s whim’ and ‘Absolute; despotic’, this would suggest in the context of Magna Carta that arbitrary arrest would constitute arrest without sufficient cause or evidence. I think we’ve all seen in recent years that this particular clause has been somewhat ignored, especially in two areas.
Terrorist and sexual abuse suspects are often apprehended at home when police have received a tip-off that a crime is either poised to be committed or was allegedly committed several decades previously. The evidence upon which the police base their actions in such cases is hardly cast-iron. If they were planning to catch a drug dealer in the act, he or she could only be arrested for possession or intent to supply if there is no evidence of supply having taken place; observe the handover, however, and the crime (as well as the sentence) is far greater. And while it’s understandable that nobody would wait for a bomb to be detonated or a child to be molested before nabbing the suspect, we’re talking largely about the presumption of intent. If the suspect’s home contains explosive materials, the likelihood is he’s planning to use them; if it contains child pornography, does that mean he’s a veteran abuser himself – or does he simply like looking at the pictures?
The anticipation of a crime rather than its execution appears to have become more important now; I suppose it’s what those in the business would call ‘prevention of crime’. But there’s a world of difference between how this phrase is implemented by police and simply ensuring one locks one’s doors and windows when leaving the house to deter burglars. Imprisonment without trial, the sale of justice and arbitrary arrest – hmmm, it would certainly seem Clause 29 (from the 1297 remix) is now with us in name-only, reduced to one of those bizarre, anachronistic old privileges rarely evoked, such as being able to steer sheep across London Bridge.
All Prime Ministers in office for more than one term eventually reach the stage where they begin to consider their ‘legacy’. Five years into the job, David Cameron has the look of a man determined to leave his mark, even if it’s little more than a skid on the landscape. Shamelessly using yesterday’s ceremony as a platform to launch his own legal agenda, he apparently expects the British public to believe him when he declares that scrapping the Human Rights Act and replacing it with one of his own concoction will be honouring the memory of Magna Carta; presumably, this will include the ‘snooper’s charter’ (and how King John would’ve loved that). To paraphrase Nye Bevan, if David Cameron is sincere in what he is saying, and he may be, then he is too stupid to be a Prime Minister.
Petunia Winegum
-
June 16, 2015 at 9:08 am -
If nothing else, the posting’s title has to be a “Title of the Month” on someone’s list.
-
June 16, 2015 at 9:32 am -
You beat me to it ! Cracking post, and as for the title – I am in awe. I’m proud of you Grasshopper. xxx
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 9:33 am -
“As far as I’m aware, the anglers of England are safe – for now. They can take their tackle to a weir and dip it in without fear of arrest.”
Don’t bank on it. After the ban on hunting the “animal rights” lobby have set their sights on anglers, with several fishing contests being targeted by disruption. Although I’m told that the new government is talking about reversing the hunting ban. So, no doubt, many valuable hours will once again be wasted discussing a trivial matter with time being rationed on more serious subjects.
As for Magna Carta, Tony Blair was determined to drive a coach and horses through “due process”. The number of long held and fought for rights that the last Labour government swept away was scandalous – a Tory government would never have dared to propose some of the things that were done under Blair’s administration. I think it’s unlikely that any of the draconian measures introduced between 1997 and 2010 will ever be repealed now. Governments of all colours love control – by nature politicians are control freaks – and terrorism, child protection and the EU are three very convenient hooks on which to hang any old bollocks they choose. The mantra of “if it saves one life it’s worth it” will be repeated ad nauseam by those wishing to curb our increasingly small number of civil liberties – poor old King John must be turning in his grave – as I live near Worcester I might just go and have a look at his tomb to see if I can detect any signs of movement.
-
June 16, 2015 at 11:39 am -
“if it saves one life it’s worth it” – and to which is added “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear”. And then we have no law, no freedom and now nothing to worry about ever again, and “Pass the TV remote and a slice because it’s time for Strictly”. The ECHR is not the problem. The problem is the Court that stands behind it. The proposed rearrangement is more about the encroachment of supranational jurisdiction, the mission creep of our federal learned friends across the water.
If even Magna Carta’s authors couldn’t resist meddling with fish weirs and monkish cloth widths, how can we expect the EU’s lawyers to stick to their knitting? And there is already enough law, isn’t there? Do we need any more? I think that we really need somewhat less.
-
June 16, 2015 at 12:34 pm -
“If even Magna Carta’s authors couldn’t resist meddling with fish weirs and monkish cloth widths, how can we expect the EU’s lawyers to stick to their knitting? And there is already enough law, isn’t there? Do we need any more? I think that we really need somewhat less.”
Absolutely agree. I seem to recall various governments promising a “root and branch” review of our statutes and to repeal a lot of out-dated laws. I didn’t realise that meant the scrapping of trial by jury and other very serious cchanges to our legal system.
-
June 16, 2015 at 12:45 pm -
Interesting that the Freddie Starr case just now is being tried without a jury.
When are Juries Used in Civil Cases
The county Courts Act 1984 has set out the following guidelines on when a jury should be used for a civil trial:
Defamation: including cases involving:
Liable or slander
False imprisonment
Malicious prosecution
Fraud.
All these cases will include either damage to a person’s character or reputation. A case involving the above matters may still be refused a trial by jury if the judge believes the case, evidence or other matters are too complicated for a trial by jury.-
June 16, 2015 at 12:45 pm -
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:57 pm -
Very interesting that he had to face a jury but she doesn’t. I can’t decide whether he stands more or less chance of winning or not. I’ve been eagerly awaiting this trial, and hope he gets some justice at last, not holding my breath though.
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:59 pm -
Sorry, I’d forgotten that although Freddie Starr was treated badly he didn’t actually stand trial.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 10:30 am -
I’m puzzled how “Human Rights law”, which has it’s root in the “Victims law” post-Holocaust is somehow on the same historical level as Magna Carta or English Common Law, which evolved out of it. English Common Law has rudely been shouldered aside by the New Humans and quite frankly, I’ll be glad to see the back of “Think Tank Law”, regardless of how misguided Cameron’s grasp of history is. Another case of the ends justifying the means maybe, which is a common aspect of the laws of Britain as currently being implemented to the left of us, as well as to the right of us.
Another way of putting it is that the law has become a political football, but what is the law if not an expression of human politics?
-
June 16, 2015 at 11:01 am -
“If David Cameron is sincere in what he’s saying…” Hahaha, great joke!
This empty vessel, this vacuous mouthpiece, this media apparatchik is without thoughts or beliefs. Look at the shadowy people behind him pulling his strings to search in vain for sincerity.
-
June 16, 2015 at 11:04 am -
* Look at the shadowy people behind him *
Who?-
June 16, 2015 at 6:44 pm -
SamCam, greenpiss, windmill loobby, gay lobby, muslim lobby, obama, EU………….should I continue?
-
June 16, 2015 at 6:58 pm -
There again, we do have one force on our side – revolting back-benchers. Governments can only impose as far as the revolting back-benchers allow – which makes governments with small majorities something that is often in the interests of us plebs.
-
June 16, 2015 at 8:08 pm -
My own local MP is one of the most ‘revolting’ – no ambition of ministerial office, quite immune to the whips’ evil works, intent on delivering what he promised to his constituents. He assures me that he will stay ‘revolting’ as long as the voters keep him there and, with a government majority so thin, he knows where the power now lies.
-
-
-
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 11:14 am -
Two paragraphs airbrushed from history 10. If one who has borrowed from the Jews any sum, great or small, die before that loan be repaid, the debt shall not bear interest while the heir is under age, of whomsoever he may hold; and if the debt fall into our hands, we will not take anything except the principal sum contained in the bond.
11. And if anyone die indebted to the Jews, his wife shall have her dower and pay nothing of that debt; and if any children of the deceased are left under age, necessaries shall be provided for them in keeping with the holding of the deceased; and out of the residue the debt shall be paid, reserving, however, service due to feudal lords; in like manner let it be done touching debts due to others than Jews.
-
June 16, 2015 at 8:32 pm -
Replace the word “Jews” with the word “Bank”, and the clause makes more sense.
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 11:36 am -
I’m no Legal Eagle, still less a historian of matters legal, but I seem to vaguely recall that the English Common Law tradition can be traced back to Anglo-Saxon roots. There was something of a major hiatus when the Normans rather rudely trampled on many English traditions, and perhaps Magna Carta could be seen as the beginning of a return to the Common Law.
Perhaps a Bill of Rights replacing the ECHR might be a Good Thing. One big advantage of the Common Law is that it evolves as it goes along; when inadequacies are found, Parliament can debate the matter and ammend legislation. Thus, the Law is based on experience rather than theory. We have found inadequacies with the practice of ECHR rulings, but are virtually powerless to do anything to ammend matters. With a Bill of Rights, there is more chance of matters being ammended in years rather than decades if failings show up in practice. Thus, the power of judges to wander off where it suits them can be held better to account through Parliament should that need arise.When I hear opposition expressed to replacing the ECHR by a Bill of Rights, I sometimes hear people thinking that human rights legislation is to be abolished altogether. I can’t imagine why they would think this; perhaps they see lucrative careers (often at the taxpayers’ expense) for some of the more cynical in the legal profession being curtailed. If that’s the case, the sooner we have our Bill of Rights, the better.
-
June 16, 2015 at 11:59 am -
I rather fear that the ‘rights’ which our current brood of our morally superior, authoritarian, politicos – left and right – might deign to ascribe to you may be of somewhat less scope than you might wish, given their recent track record in trying to restrict the rights of UK citizens to a lesser level than the UDHR and EHCR presently envisage, or which some of our continental cousins seem to enjoy.
If you are happy to have a Bill of Rights that has been drawn up by the current Justice Department and Home Office, best of luck.
-
June 16, 2015 at 12:19 pm -
That should, of course, have been ‘ECHR’….
-
June 16, 2015 at 12:34 pm -
So we should stick with the ECHR because there’s a chance that a Bill of Rights might be slightly flawed? What chance do we have to put right the decisions of theECHR if we find them flawed or offensive to our sense of natural justice (it’s happened – that’s why we have this debate now!)? Would we not have more chance to correct such failings with a Bill of Rights?
-
June 16, 2015 at 1:28 pm -
Not in the present climate
I’m quite surprised people really think this would be a great idea, seeing that those who would be drawing it up will be much the same type of people as those who immersed us in the mass of illiberal legislation foisted on us over the last 20 years or so, which the great unwashed have lapped up under the ‘Nothing to Hide, Nothing to Fear’ mantra
Any bill of ‘rights’ drawn up by the same cohort, working under the same sort of ethos, as well as under pressure from the same sort of groups that got much of the current legislation in place, is more than likely to produce something almost akin to some form of Napoleonic Code, where what’s included is allowed and everything outside is forbidden. In fact, I’d almost bet on a series of formal exclusions also being listed, a bit like the EHCR derogations ‘just for clarity’, and as sops to every pressure group that you can imagine. The prospect of freedoms being enshrined that encompassed ‘out of favour’ minority groups would be very bleak. And, throughout the process, and into the future, the Mailite and Guardianista support will be chanting, in unison, ‘My right to be different is OK, your’s isn’t’
A bit depressing a vision, I agree, but not one that can be altogether dismissed, unless, of course, you can show some good reason why we can trust our political masters to do otherwise
-
June 16, 2015 at 2:21 pm -
Isn’t the idea of democracy that we let the politicians do what they do and then we vote them out if we don’t like it?
Stopping them doing anything because Super Nanny knows best seems to be exactly why we ended up in this nursery where Daddy abuses us and Mummy looks the other way, but we tell all the neighbour’s we are a respectable family who never argue with the neighbours and the kids are doing ever so well at school thanks to Nanny State. -
June 16, 2015 at 2:26 pm -
If a Bill was presented to Parliament along the lines you suggest, do you really think it would receive the assent of both Commons and Lords? The thing would be ripped to shreds in both places! The whole tradition of English law and British democracy works on the principle of everything being permitted unless it it specifically legislated against, in direct contrast to the Roman or Napoleonic tradition; of the major political groupings we have had in Parliament of late, I’d trust the current lot to uphold that principle far more than – for example – Blair’s lot, who despite their protestations to the contrary, were all too willing to impose their whims abitrarily in the face of evidence (Hunting Act, for example).
Why would a UK-based Bill of Rights be worse than a Universal Declaration of Human Rights imposed by a Court in no way accountable to the UK Parliament, and thus in no way accountable to the British people?
-
June 16, 2015 at 3:00 pm -
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is exactly what it says – a declaration, a guide to how peoples and countries should ideally conduct themselves; it’s not a law that can be imposed on any state. And it has nothing to do with Europe either; its a UN declaration.
As for the European Court and the ECHR, British judges can and regularly do overrule Strasbourg court rulings; they have the final say in interpreting the law. Bring in a British Bill of Rights won’t make any difference in practice – you’ll still get whole chambers of lawyers making a good living off nit-picking legal word-by-word interpretations, and our Supreme Court will still have the final say.-
June 16, 2015 at 3:20 pm -
No, our Parliament will have the final say, because if the nit-pickers are doing what the democracy doesn’t agree with, then the law will be changed. This notion seems to reflect an idea that “Magna Carte” was like Moses’ tablets of stone from God. This is the game the lawyers play and try to pretend that the law is above politics somehow. The law should be what we want it to be, and collectively have made so. This is what the “‘uman rights” brigade cannot comprehend. If Russia democratically doesn’t agree with some statute devised by some body in New York in 1946, then that is Russia’s prerogative, just like it is China’s prerogative. This is all about the historical decision over whether sovereign states have the right to do what the hell they like and providing they stay within their borders, then they can jolly well do it. The blowing up of the Middle East by neo-cons, neo-libs or whatever the hell sort of green tablet/red tablet neo’s they were has challenged a fundamental order of societies. We cannot turn the clock back but we can eject supra-national NGO’s or whatever the heck they are, from a position of control over individual states.
-
June 16, 2015 at 3:42 pm -
Hell, would I want to live anywhere where the law is that of Moor and The Engineer. Or you, the law according to Ho Hum?
If the law isn’t to some extent above politics, neither will be justice. I thought that that was a major concern of all here? Otherwise we might as well just greet our Savilating Overlords nicely and bow down before them
-
June 16, 2015 at 3:56 pm -
How can the law be above politics, when it is from politicians – Parliament – that the law comes?
Our safeguard? Politicians are elected by us to represent our interests. If they don’t, we elect them out and let somebody else have a go. Can’t do that with Strasbourg ‘lawyers’, can we?
-
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 3:24 pm -
I thought the idea was that the Bill of Rights took precedence over Strasbourg rulings. At the moment, we have judges in European courts imposing rulings on Britain that most British people find distasteful – votes for prisoners, for example.
We can’t deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes because they have ‘a right to family life’ (don’t their victims, then?).A UK Bill of Rights is one we can ammend through Parliament if it’s shown to be deficient. Some of the law being imposed on us at the moment we have no ability to ammend, it seems. Time that changed.
-
June 16, 2015 at 3:39 pm -
We can’t deport illegal immigrants who commit crimes because they have ‘a right to family life’
As a self confessed EUphile I take great comfort from every hook handed ,cat loving terrorist or illegal who can’t be deported. Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it unto one of these my brethren, even these least, ye did it unto me. as it sayeth in the Good Book.
If the ‘EU’ is prepared to stand up for the supposed rights of some terrorist shite then surely they will stand up for mine and yours…cos one thing is sure, no one else will protect us from those we elected.
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:23 pm -
But the ECHR has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU, they are completely separate beasts, albeit both despicably undemocratic beasts.
Therefore I would welcome leaving both behind at the earliest possible date and returning to making all our own UK laws, through our own UK elected representatives, whom we are able to un-elect at each UK general election. Neither the EU nor the ECHR provides us with that democratic opportunity, nor ever will, therefore I shall remain a committed OUT voter (as I already was in 1975). -
June 16, 2015 at 4:30 pm -
How is the the ECHR “undemocractic”? We don’t get to vote on judges in UK courts.
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:42 pm -
But we do get to tell UK judges what the law is if it’s made through the UK Parliament. We can’t do anything very much about odd interpretations of whatever laws by the ECHR, neither do we have any control over who becomes an ECHR judge – we can set requirements for competence to become a UK judge (doesn’t always work, but at least we can try!).
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:54 pm -
But the ECHR has nothing whatsoever to do with the EU-Muddy
Which is why I put ‘EU’ in speech marks, then to the average Daily Xenophobe reader they are merely two backs of the same beast…to mix metaphors. “EU to force UK to let MURDERERS have vote” etc
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 5:56 pm -
“we have judges in European courts imposing rulings on Britain”
You do know that 8 of those judges have been British judges sitting in Strasbourg don’t you?
-
June 16, 2015 at 6:14 pm -
Eight out of how many judges in total, Anna?
-
-
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 3:38 pm -
Er, we actually signed up, albeit a bit tardily, to the UDHR and ECHR, large parts of which were drafted by us in the UK. The UK only lands up in court because some of its citizens have to go there to plead for justice, when the rights that they believe that they are supposed to have are denied to them.
As for ‘akin (note the ‘akin’) to some form of Napoleonic Code’, – and there may be better examples – what would you bet that whatever might eventually appear could include something like ‘Everyone shall have the right to breathe clean air’? With no matching equivalent, or exception, to the effect that ‘Everyone shall have the right to smoke’? ‘Ah’, would say our pious, and even naive, lawmakers, as they pass it through the parliamentary process, ‘of course that doesn’t mean that people don’t have the right to smoke’. And 10 years later ASH, or the equivalent, start to use the law to suppress the smokers, who have no rights…..
They said the same sort of thing as that on RIPA. They said the same again on the Anti Terrorist legislation. And so on, on other matters too. All live on HoC TV. Would you believe them once more? I’m too old to fall for that.
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:03 pm -
So the UK managed to draft large parts of the UDHR, but it couldn’t manage a reasonable Bill of Rights? Seems a tad contradictory.
-
-
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:19 pm -
“What chance do we have to put right the decisions of theECHR if we find them flawed or offensive to our sense of natural justice (it’s happened – that’s why we have this debate now!)?”
Could you contrast some examplse of such “flawed or offensive” decisions against some that are not?
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:37 pm -
Votes for prisoners? Prolonged battle to deport Abu Quatada (think that was his name) to Jordan to face trial?
-
-
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 12:29 pm -
I can imagine George III saying much the same about those damned Colonial boyos. Strange how so many in this country believe we’re incapable of ruling ourselves in a democratic manner and have to be supervised by a “higher power”.
-
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 2:22 pm -
If King John were alive today and he could see how the Commoners treat and tax their fellow Commoners (villein-on-villein crime?) then not only would his jaw hit the floor but his big, red, india-rubber ball too ! No matter how evil King John may have been (and I’m betting he was another DickyIII ) he would have been appalled at the loss of liberty of all Freemen and at how barons and commoners alike accepted levels of taxation that would have made the Sheriff Of Nottingham need to change his cod piece.
The Bestes Frau In The World likes to watch some inane TV Series called ‘Sleepy Hollow’ whose main character is a ripvanwinkelesque “Ichabod Crane” who has returned to life in our times having slept through the centuries since the War Of Independence . He is partnered with a black female (of course) detective, Mz. Mills, as a foil for his Bon-Mots. For all it’s faults, sometimes the repartee between Crane and Mills can be enlightening:
Ichabod Crane: [about the cost of the doughnuts he just ate] What’s insane is a ten-percent levy on baked goods. You do realize the Revolutionary War began on less than two percent? How is the public not flocking to the streets in outrage? We must do something.-
June 16, 2015 at 2:24 pm -
Sounds a bit like Adam Adamant.
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:21 pm -
Nobody ever said American TV was original.
-
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 4:59 pm -
Ultimately, human rights across Europe will be as uniform as the metric system, as will everything else from toilet paper perforations to Golden Delicious diameters. What a lovely idea harmonisation is. So many things in the Europe project to occupy the pointy heads.
Look at how the how the introduction of the euro has turned so much of Europe into a closely coordinated economic machine; purring like a well oiled clock.
A bright future awaits us all.
Yes I know the ECHR is not the EU -
June 16, 2015 at 5:50 pm -
In the UK a man is presumed innocent until proved guilty
Under Napoleonic law a man is judged guilty unless he can prove his innocence.A world of difference and one that is steadily being eroded. What’s all this nonsense about “the victim must be believed” if not Napoleonic Law by the back door?
Someone once pointed out that in the UK everything is allowed except those things that have been banned.
Over there everything is banned except those things that are permitted.My understanding. I’m happy to be contradicted/educated/put right.
-
June 16, 2015 at 6:11 pm -
In the UK a man is presumed innocent until proved guilty
My, how quaint. I think I recall something about the ‘Presumption Of Innocence’ in my O level History class…wasn’t that the one Chartist demand never fulfilled ?
Most European justice systems emphasis the ” In dubio pro reo” perhaps more than “Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat ” (respectively “in doubt for the Accused” and ” The DA must prove, not the Accused disprove”-and yes my Latin sucks). Or as my German Public Defender put it to me “You can claim you were on the moon at the time the crime was committed, if the DA can’t prove beyond reasonable doubt otherwise then the court MUST believe & acquit you…even if they damn well know you’re lying through your teeth”.
-
June 16, 2015 at 8:14 pm -
I believe the still-unfulfilled Chartist demands included equal electoral districts and annual parliaments. I don’t recall any relating to presumption of innocence.
-
-
-
June 16, 2015 at 6:35 pm -
June 16, 2015 at 6:39 pm -
June 16, 2015 at 6:52 pm -
Not that high a ratio, then. Is there any guarantee that British judges rule on matters affecting the UK? (At least with a UK Bill of Rights we’d have that guanantee – they may be crusty old duffers, but at least they’d be OUR duffers!)
-
June 16, 2015 at 7:42 pm -
At least with a UK Bill of Rights
I thought we had a Bill Of Rights and successive politicians have spent the last 300+ years ignoring it/destroying it piecemeal?
{ 53 comments… read them below or add one }