Sunday, 24 February 2013

UK ‘stoop to the level of repressive regimes’


Secret courts ‘unjust’ warns Law Society

The Law Society, Chancery Lane
Thursday 24 January 2013 by A Gazette reporter

Extending secret courts to ordinary civil justice cases would see the UK ‘stoop to the level of repressive regimes’, the Law Society warns today.
In a letter to members of the Public Bill Committee for the Justice and Security Bill, Chancery Lane says the plans could fatally undermine the courtroom, ‘which should be an independent and objective forum in which allegations of wrongdoing can be fairly tested, and where the government and others can be transparently held to account’.
President Lucy Scott-Moncrieff outlines the Society’s concerns about Part 2 of the bill, which includes proposals to extend the use of closed material procedures (CMPs) to ordinary civil law cases.
She warns that CMPs undermine an essential principle of justice, which is that all parties are entitled to see and challenge all of the evidence relied upon before the court, and to combat that evidence by calling evidence of their own. Procedures will weaken fair trial guarantees and the principle of equality of arms, which are essential concepts of the rule of law, she adds.
She said: ‘Secret trials and non-disclosure of evidence are characteristics most commonly associated with repressive regimes and undemocratic societies. Whilst the government rightly takes a strong stance in respect of the importance of the rule of law globally, we fear that if passed, this bill will adversely affect the UK’s international reputation for fair justice.
‘British justice should not be seen to stoop to the level of repressive regimes.’
The Society insists that the government has failed to make a national security case for extending CMPs to ordinary civil litigation.
Scott-Moncrieff added: ‘These procedures are simply not required in ordinary civil claims, such as claims for damages in relation to negligence or breach of contract, actions for injunctive relief, and claims for judicial review, in order to enable the government to take measures necessary to combat threats to national security.’
She said: ‘The government has also failed to address the wider implications of introducing CMPs on the relationship between lawyer and clients. It will be impossible for lawyers to advise their clients in their best interests if they are not privy to the information being used against them in court and are able to discuss this with those clients.
‘This breaches a fundamental right of claimants in a just society.’
The Society will submit a detailed memorandum to the committee.
Subscribe to the daily email news update from Gazette Online Subscribe to the daily email news update from Gazette Online
Linkedin Group Join our group Follow us on Twitter Follow us on Twitter Facebook Group Like our page

News

Comments

SECRET CIVIL TRIALS - THEY'RE ALREADY HERE

Submitted by ejcowper on Thu, 24/01/2013 - 17:21.
They're here not by government decree, but by many -and I mean many -solicitors failing to make true disclosure of documents. That has exactly the same effect -the trial takes place on the case documents the defendant or claimant choose to produce on disclosure, knowing there are crucial documents undisclosed, or which they refuse to produce. The other party can apply for specific disclosure (including documents known to exist but which are unlisted)
The guilty party then alleges that they are irrelevant to the case (frequent untrue allegation) or that the woolf principles apply and disclosure would be disproportionate.The court often agrees. So their deliberate flouting of the rules and dishonesty is rewarded.
A friend of mine has told me of this exact scenario. It did not involve some solicitors firm with a murky reputation, but a large east midlands unitary authority. The court even ordered, says my friend, specific production of a document which the council had failed to produce. The council eventually produced it, I'm told, after a further court direction.But not until the afternoon of the last day of the trial when it could not longer be used to discredit the evidence of the Council's witnesses.
This story is not a one-off. It is an everyday occurrence say solicitors dealing with such matters.

secret justice is the antithesis of natural justice

Submitted by Rosemary Cantwell on Fri, 25/01/2013 - 21:11.
25 January 2013
Dear Ms Scott-Moncrieff,
"Secret justice" is the antithesis of natural justice.
Thank you so much for fighting to protect our very hard-won Human Rights of fairness in our Justice system.
I am concerned to read ejcowper's response above regarding non-disclosure of documents. How widespread is such practice as the ordinary citizen simply believes that all disclosure will be done in all cases whether they be in Family Courts, Mental Health Tribunals, Employment Tribunals, County Courts, Crown Courts and any other court systems currently used in England, the UK and European Union and Strasbourg.
Is it time for a national debate to reassert Truth at the heart of all Justice systems and that full disclosure should always be there so that the Truth be found wherever that may be?
To me, that is what Liberty is about. Truth.
Truth gives freedom.
Thank you so much for being a wonderful President of the Law Society and for upholding the major tenets of the Law of the Land.
Yours sincerely,
Rosemary Cantwell

NO Minister !

Submitted by Anonymous on Fri, 25/01/2013 - 15:51.
The above non-disclosure tactics might be legitimate depending on the context or equally might amount to contempt of Court but they are nothing as compared to the introduction of secrecy in a previous public forum as official Government policy.
The Law Society is right to object to this despicable development aimed at preserving politicians and civil servants from embarrassment by means of the magic mantra "National Security". In conjunction with other abysmal developments aimed at entrenching the powerful against the powerless, anyone of conscience and awareness of the issues must be starting to ask themselves whether the time has long passed for hand-wringing and the time for hitting the Government where it hurts -providing the legal services that they take for granted- has arrived.

British Justice must be OPEN AND TRANSPARENT

Submitted by Rosemary Cantwell on Mon, 28/01/2013 - 00:03.
27 January 2013
Dear anonymous and Ms Scott-Moncrieff
I am very concerned that our country has been split into several court systems and we now have no uniformity of processes and procedures.
I come from a traditional background where we were brought up to believe in helping other people and do as you would be done by.
Much of the current court system seems to be determined to determine that one person or party must be "guilty or wrong" and the other person "innocent or right".
But surely this needs to be swept away.
There is innocence and the innocent must be protected by having all courts having total democracy and transparency and the truth must prevail.
Thank you so much for championing innocence and truth.
Yours sincerely,
Rosemary Cantwell

I've been in a court where

Submitted by Fletcher on Fri, 25/01/2013 - 19:36.
I've been in a court where they attempted to stop the public entering. It wasn't until someone asked if a starchamber court was still a valid method of trial in this country that they finaly realised they just can't do that. Justice has to be seen to be done.
But you can see the intent.
If your challenging anything to do with government, councils, police, the judiciary, lawyers and the like don't expect a fair trial.
You can be bathed in the light of the law and the judges on the bench will lie to find against you if they don't like the particular law your standing under.
Try the Bills of Exchange act 1882. when they can't find a flaw in your case, they make up some bullshit and find against you.
The system already stinks to high heaven, rancid with lawlesness, private courts, like the coucil tax scam.
Are you all aware that these courts are not law courts, they are administrative tribunals, private afairs run buy the Bar association, thats the monoply that stacks the deck by having your lawyer swear an oath of loyalty to them and the court before any obligation to you and does your lawyer disclose this fact? Not on your life.
Law, real lawful courts didn't make any money so the judges set up this administrative "system" and man o man does it make money, caching, caching £££££££££££££££££££££££££
So if you rock the money boat, they don't lke it.

secret courts

Submitted by dai on Sat, 26/01/2013 - 10:43.
strange for the law society to object - we already have secret courts - the corrupt family courts.
We have enough problems within the justice system withh adding the potential for further corruption and miscarriages of justice.
""She said: ‘Secret trials and non-disclosure of evidence are characteristics most commonly associated with repressive regimes and undemocratic societies. Whilst the government rightly takes a strong stance in respect of the importance of the rule of law globally, we fear that if passed, this bill will adversely affect the UK’s international reputation for fair justice.""
As always the politicos in UK are behind the curve. Never mind what happens globally look at what already happens in UK - and are the politico's not aware of the extensive use of bench memoranda within the UK courts - the secret that the lawyers won't tell you about.
""British justice should not be seen to stoop to the level of repressive regimes.’""
already there I'm afraid - British justice may have stooped even lower.

"Secret Justice" is not Justice at all

Submitted by Rosemary Cantwell on Sun, 27/01/2013 - 23:31.
27 January 2013
Dear dai and Ms Scott-Moncrieff,
I am very concerned to read dai's response here. I have not been in the "Family Court" system myself, but have read Christopher Booker in the Sunday Telegraph where I have read of horrific stories.
Is it not time to review the entire legal system and have just ONE system for the whole country, based on openness, transparency and full disclosure of all materials so that the Innocent may be protected whether it be in the Family Courts, Mental Health Tribunals, Courts Martial, Crown Courts, County Courts, Employment Tribunals, Magistrates Courts and a plethora of laws which are so complex that it can take years to understand them.
Prime Minister Peel reformed the legal system in the 19th Century.
We need a new reformer and urgently, in my view.
The innocent must be protected at all times from hostile forces. Better that 99 guilty people go free than 1 innocent person be wrongly found "guilty" because material evidence has been withheld and disallowed by the judiciary.
That is my own opinion.
Thank you very much for sticking up for Innocence.
Yours sincerely
Rosemary Cantwell
Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)