The Law Lords are right to resist the government
Lord Lloyd of Berwick says that the government’s emergency legislation to overturn their lordships’ ruling on witness anonymity is part of a ‘gradual usurpation’ of our liberties
On 18 June 2008 the Law Lords gave judgment in the case of R. v. Davis. The defendant was charged with murder. The prosecution case was that he had shot and killed two men after an all-night party. There were three witnesses — and three only — who identified the defendant as the gunman. All three gave their evidence behind screens under pseudonyms. Their voices were artificially distorted so that they could not be recognised by the defendant. The defendant’s counsel was not allowed to ask any question in cross-examination which might enable them to be identified
The Law Lords held unanimously that Davis had not had a fair trial. Since he did not know who his accusers were, his counsel could not mount an effective cross-examination. The Law Lords reaffirmed the long-established principle of the common law that in a criminal trial the defendant should be confronted by his accusers. Any conviction which depended wholly, or to a decisive extent, on the evidence of anonymous witnesses could not be safe. Accordingly they quashed the conviction.
The reaction of the police was predictable. John Yates, assistant commissioner of the Met, described the decision as a cause for grave concern. Bob Quick, the head of counter-terrorism, said that the implications were catastrophic: ‘There is too much principle in the criminal justice system, and not enough pragmatism.’ They called for urgent ‘corrective’ legislation.
The government has, equally predictably, acceded to that request. So Parliament is being asked to pass emergency legislation before the recess on 22 July. This is not the best way to legislate, as we have learnt from much recent experience.
More articles from: Lord Lloyd of Berwick | this section
Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit
Advertisement
Thank goodness we can have a run on the pound when we need one
Martin Vander WeyerMartin Vander Weyer looks ahead to next week’s Pre-Budget Report and reflects on George Osborne’s contentious remarks about the devaluation of sterling. It looks like Gordon Brown is getting away with his borrowing binge — leaving the Tories isolated
I loved Oliver Stone’s Bush film — and I know why the critics hated it
Rod LiddleThe movie W. did not provide the crude anti-Bush agitprop that the reviewers craved, says Rod Liddle. This was precisely its strength: we need to get inside the minds even of those we most deplore
The great Tory tax and spend battle: seconds out...
Fraser Nelson and Daniel FinkelsteinIn the wake of Cameron’s decision to drop his pledge to match Labour spending, Fraser Nelson and Daniel Fin kelstein of the Times trade rhetorical blows over the issue that is gripping and troubling the Conservative party as it adjusts to the transformed economic context
Where is our inspiration when we most need it?
Bryan ForbesBryan Forbes remembers listening to Churchill as a 14-year-old evacuee and now looks with envy at Obama’s capacity to galvanise hope. Where are his UK counterparts?
For a bit of perspective, try thinking Jurassic
Christopher LloydThe first takeaways originated about 150 million years ago, says Christopher Lloyd; global travel is pretty ancient, too. And as for democracy...
And Another Thing
Paul Johnson
Books do furnish a room; overfurnish it too
The loss of health visitors is a true scandal
Susan HillSusan Hill recalls how much she relied on her health visitor and bemoans the decline of this once-universal service: the victim of bureaucratic ‘targeting’ and government ignorance
Enemies within
Michael HendersonFifty People Who Buggered Up Britain, by Quentin Letts
What is freedom?
Kate ChisholmKate Chisholm on the latest radio broadcasts
What Harman calls a ‘distraction’, the rest of us call debate
Rod LiddleRod Liddle is dismayed by the messy debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, its hopeless fudge of secular and religious positions, and the cynical suppression of all attempts to raise the issue of abortion
Latest blog posts
sponsored links
Free Sky Digital Offer - Order Now
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be amongst the first to have it - order now.
Free Sky Digital Offer - Order Now
Subscribe to Sky from £16 a month. Get free equipment and free broadband - Join Now. Sky HD - be...
ROME CENTRE
PORTA METRONIA, ROME Standing high on the top of one of the seven hills of Rome- the Coelian- this unique
City Breaks. ROME and PARIS
ROME and PARIS: over 350 holiday rentals apartments listed: visit www.romanreference.com and www.parisreference.com or call +39 0648 903612.
Jewellery. RUFFS (Estd. 1904).
Goldsmiths by Design Welcome to Ruffs! You have found a company of Goldsmiths that specialises in the manufacture, amongst other
Spectator Business | Apollo Magazine
Corporate | Advertising | Privacy | Terms
Spectator, 22 Old Queen Street, London, SW1H 9HP
All Articles and Content Copyright ©2008 by The Spectator | All Rights Reserved
John Bull
July 4th, 2008 12:36pmThis unscrupulous government is guilty of listening to that part of the Civil Service who find it unreasonable that their views can ever be challenged.
Ours is still ( but only just ) a Democracy which has stood the tests of and evolved within the framework of History.
I can but pray their Lordships continue to rebuff all attempts to strangle our Judicial System and replace it with Corpus Juris ( the continental - EU - system ) a much more politicised and fragile set of regulations governing how we interact with the State - or rather how our actions in defending ourselves from the excesses of the State are very effectively curtailed.
Our 'glorious leaders' would much prefer that the State was not required to actually 'prove' any case it brings against the citizenry ; on the contrary, the defendant should be required to 'prove' his / her innocence ( from the confines of a police cell - remember ? ).
The governments proposals are very far from any concept of 'Fairness & Justice' - in every way compatible with the EU concept of 'Post Democracy' where 'the electorate' no longer exists other than as the butt of humour in Brussellian circles.
Our continued 'freedom' is at stake, and is worth fighting for Your Lordships.
cuffleyburgers
July 4th, 2008 5:35pmThe same incremental approach is at work in the EU integration process and indeed the socialization of the economy - Labour might have abandoned clause 4 but that has not stopped the public sector absorbing a greater and greater share of GDP. Much has been made of Blair's adoption of the market based approach to managing the economy but in reality the few market facing reforms he instigated were blocked by G Brown and the only reason private sector companies were involved was so that state spending could be hidden off-balance sheet.
As for the EU, had anyone been asked in the fateful referendum, the last time we were asked, "do you want an EU super state, with EU legislation enacted by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels accounting for 80% of the laws enacted in this country and this same bureaucracy having the right to extent their powers at will with no further consultation?", I suspect the answer might well have been No.