Criminal Injustice

Change the law that means that someone who damages an old book gets a longer prison sentence than a real criminal one who commits unprovoked GBH on a defenceless woman and murders her husband

Why is this idea important?

Change the law that means that someone who damages an old book gets a longer prison sentence than a real criminal one who commits unprovoked GBH on a defenceless woman and murders her husband

MAKE IT EASIER TO PROSECUTE POLICE AND JUDGES

It should be that the law applies to all equally, but it doesn't. Too often we see the police and those within the judiciary get away with doing wrong. In the UK there appears to be a prevalent perception, or rather a misconception under which many people labour, and that is that the police and the judiciary do not make mistakes or do not do so deliberately. That those who enforce the law are actually above it, simply because they work within it. I am constantly amazed by how much the police get away with. Just look at the Menendes shooting or the Stephen Lawrence case – or if you want to go further back, look at those very high profile miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and so on. In each of those cases no police officers were ever prosecuted, even though they had fabricated confessions, beat the accused into giving false confessions and deliberately put innocent people in prison.

And it is not only infamous cases of miscarriages of justice that highlight police failings, miscarriages continue to this day; occurring because the police and even the courts are allowed to ignored vital pieces of information that begin in the police station. The system is not perfect but it does little to prevent miscarriages of justice happening in the first place.

Why is this idea important?

It should be that the law applies to all equally, but it doesn't. Too often we see the police and those within the judiciary get away with doing wrong. In the UK there appears to be a prevalent perception, or rather a misconception under which many people labour, and that is that the police and the judiciary do not make mistakes or do not do so deliberately. That those who enforce the law are actually above it, simply because they work within it. I am constantly amazed by how much the police get away with. Just look at the Menendes shooting or the Stephen Lawrence case – or if you want to go further back, look at those very high profile miscarriages of justice like the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and so on. In each of those cases no police officers were ever prosecuted, even though they had fabricated confessions, beat the accused into giving false confessions and deliberately put innocent people in prison.

And it is not only infamous cases of miscarriages of justice that highlight police failings, miscarriages continue to this day; occurring because the police and even the courts are allowed to ignored vital pieces of information that begin in the police station. The system is not perfect but it does little to prevent miscarriages of justice happening in the first place.

contempt of court review

Review the use of judiciary's use of contempt of court powers in substitution for a proper trial.

On 5 July at Reading Crown Court, Mr John Affleck was sentenced within 3 hours of the alleged offence to 12 months imprisonment for contempt of court — he had a barrister who could not have had sufficient time to defend him and there was no deferral of sentencing pending a pschyiatric report.

The proper course would have been for Mr Affleck to have been arrested for the alleged offence, interviewed under caution and with legal representaion, witness statements to be taken and for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide if a prosecution should be brought.  Like all other defendants he would have then had the opportunity to engage a properly briefed barister and had a fair trial by jury.

Why is this idea important?

Review the use of judiciary's use of contempt of court powers in substitution for a proper trial.

On 5 July at Reading Crown Court, Mr John Affleck was sentenced within 3 hours of the alleged offence to 12 months imprisonment for contempt of court — he had a barrister who could not have had sufficient time to defend him and there was no deferral of sentencing pending a pschyiatric report.

The proper course would have been for Mr Affleck to have been arrested for the alleged offence, interviewed under caution and with legal representaion, witness statements to be taken and for the Crown Prosecution Service to decide if a prosecution should be brought.  Like all other defendants he would have then had the opportunity to engage a properly briefed barister and had a fair trial by jury.

Politicians – hands off Judicial Inquiries: Repeal The Inquiries Act 2005

This Act applies to judicial inquiries such as the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday.

It allows ministers to ban publication of evidence and restrict media attendance at an inquiry to save money. If all else fails, the minister may bring the inquiry to a premature end. 

Government can require sections from the report of findings of an inquiry to be removed or redrafted or to be altered, if the government believe that it is necessary and expedient to do so under under the wide discretionary powers under section 25 of the Act.

Under this law, independent judicial inquires no longer exist in UK.

Why is this idea important?

This Act applies to judicial inquiries such as the Saville inquiry into Bloody Sunday.

It allows ministers to ban publication of evidence and restrict media attendance at an inquiry to save money. If all else fails, the minister may bring the inquiry to a premature end. 

Government can require sections from the report of findings of an inquiry to be removed or redrafted or to be altered, if the government believe that it is necessary and expedient to do so under under the wide discretionary powers under section 25 of the Act.

Under this law, independent judicial inquires no longer exist in UK.

Set sentence for certain offences e.g. Life means Life

If a Judge passes a sentence then a judgment was made on all facts available. The ruling sentence should be apt and proportionate. We need set sentences for such things as knife crime, rape ,murder etc.

Why is this idea important?

If a Judge passes a sentence then a judgment was made on all facts available. The ruling sentence should be apt and proportionate. We need set sentences for such things as knife crime, rape ,murder etc.

Change the Security Industry Authority appeal process.

Under current rules applicants have a 14 day window for a written appeal, and if still unhappy are given 14 days to apply to iether a magistrates or crown court. When my legal team applied to courts they were told that Magistrates and Judges are under strict rukes to uphold the SIA get licensed booklet, and as result of this are basically just rubber stamping the SIA decisions. With the Judges hands tied by SIA rules there is no unbiased, fully independant body an applicant can appeal to. It is totally against civil liberties, and an individualals right to work. The Judges and Magistrates should hear all appeals without being controlled by the Security Industry Authority.

Why is this idea important?

Under current rules applicants have a 14 day window for a written appeal, and if still unhappy are given 14 days to apply to iether a magistrates or crown court. When my legal team applied to courts they were told that Magistrates and Judges are under strict rukes to uphold the SIA get licensed booklet, and as result of this are basically just rubber stamping the SIA decisions. With the Judges hands tied by SIA rules there is no unbiased, fully independant body an applicant can appeal to. It is totally against civil liberties, and an individualals right to work. The Judges and Magistrates should hear all appeals without being controlled by the Security Industry Authority.