Murderer loses appeal over right to vote
By Stephen Howard, PA
Friday, 17 December 2010
A man serving a life sentence for raping and murdering his niece lost his appeal today over the right to vote while in jail.
Peter Chester went to the Court of Appeal, where three judges unanimously dismissed his case and refused permission to go to the Supreme Court, the highest in the land.
Chester, 55, is serving life for raping and strangling seven-year-old Donna Marie Gillbanks in Blackpool in 1977.
The appeal court hearing last month came the day after the Government admitted it had no choice but to give "some prisoners" the vote because of a European court ruling that the blanket ban on serving prisoners going to the polls was incompatible with the European Convention on Human Rights.
Chester's lawyers argued at the Court of Appeal that the serious nature of his offence did not justify disenfranchising him and to do so was "disproportionate" and violated his human rights.
Chester, also known as Peter Chester Speakman, has served 33 years in jail.
The High Court rejected his claim over voting last year.
Lord Justice Laws, giving the appeal court ruling, said: "There are deep philosophical differences of view between reasonable people upon the question of prisoners' suffrage."
He said Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke had stated that those who commit offences with aggravating features which lead to a jail sentence and who have previous criminal records forfeit their right to have a say in the way the country is governed for that period.
"Opponents of this view would say, with some force, that it is unconstitutional to regard disfranchisement as part of a criminal's punishment."
Lord Justice Laws said others believe that a person convicted of a very grave crime has so far distanced himself from the values of civil society that it would be a travesty of justice to allow him to participate in its governance.
He said the decision was a political one and the law is that a blanket ban is impermissible and there must be a link between the sanction and the conduct and circumstances of the individual concerned.
"The Government will no doubt consider carefully whether compliance with these standards requires a decision-making role in specific cases to be accorded to the judiciary."
He and Lord Justice Carnwath and the Master of the Rolls, Lord Neuberger, dismissed the appeal.
Comment: I will criticise this when I get the full judgment. However, Chivers (solicitos) and Hugh Southey (Tooks Chambers) should never, ever, be allowed anywhere near a prisoners rights case again. They are both so incompetent they should be struck off! As for LLJs Law and Carnwath, and Lord Neuberger MR, you would be hard pressed to find 3 more corrupt judges in totalitarian regimes worse than the one we have in this country.
Chester CofA judgment just in here.
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
Site Meter
Friday, December 17, 2010
Killer Kearney claims Royal Mail breached human rights
Killer Kearney claims Royal Mail breached human rights
A man jailed for killing his married lover has claimed his employers breached his human rights when they sacked him after he was charged.
Roger Kearney, 57, was convicted in June of killing Paula Poolton and hiding her body in her car near Swanwick station in Hampshire in 2008.
He claims Royal Mail was wrong to sack him as a driver in January before he had been found guilty.
The company denies Kearney was unlawfully dismissed.
Kearney, of Sarisbury Green, was jailed for life with a 15-year minimum tariff.
He is claiming £8,225 in lost earnings from the January date until he was convicted.
Kearney was not present at the hearing in Reading but was represented by his daughter.
'Loyal service'
In a statement, he said: "I believe Royal Mail decided that I was guilty of the crime and wanted to get rid of me as soon as possible.
"If Royal Mail felt that they could no longer trust me, they must have believed that the allegations against me were true.
"After 34 years of loyal service, a clear conduct record and no previous convictions, I am extremely disappointed that they came to this conclusion as it had no affect on my ability to perform my job and is a clear breach of my human rights.
"Anyone can be accused of a crime at any time and it should follow that they are presumed innocent until found guilty.
"I accept that after my conviction on June 11, 2010 I would have no longer been able to fulfil my duties."
Keith Finch, mail centre manager, told the hearing he sacked Kearney because he felt there could be a "risk" to the public because the murder of Mrs Poolton was "particularly violent".
He was also on bail and unable to enter Hampshire but his place of work was at the Southampton Mail Centre.
Mr Finch said it was not a realistic option to allow Kearney to be suspended and stay at home when, at the time, there was no trial date and Royal Mail was struggling financially.
He added that the publicity of the trial would damage Royal Mail's reputation and although Kearney had not been convicted, he felt that the authorities must have had good reason to charge him.
He said: "I lost my trust in him. I believe we could have lost business in the local area."
During his murder trial it was heard that Mrs Poolton, 40, and Kearney had been having an affair in the summer of 2008.
Kearney stabbed her to death when she started putting pressure on him to leave his partner, the court was told.
He then fabricated an alibi to cover his tracks.
Kearney had worked with Mrs Poolton when they were stewards at Southampton Football Club but her husband and his partner were unaware of the affair.
The hearing continues.
Comment: Now it makes more sense when we find out that he was on bail following being charged when he was sacked. It does appear as though the Royal Mail were a bit quick to sack him. Especially, given that coppers only get suspended on full pay!
A man jailed for killing his married lover has claimed his employers breached his human rights when they sacked him after he was charged.
Roger Kearney, 57, was convicted in June of killing Paula Poolton and hiding her body in her car near Swanwick station in Hampshire in 2008.
He claims Royal Mail was wrong to sack him as a driver in January before he had been found guilty.
The company denies Kearney was unlawfully dismissed.
Kearney, of Sarisbury Green, was jailed for life with a 15-year minimum tariff.
He is claiming £8,225 in lost earnings from the January date until he was convicted.
Kearney was not present at the hearing in Reading but was represented by his daughter.
'Loyal service'
In a statement, he said: "I believe Royal Mail decided that I was guilty of the crime and wanted to get rid of me as soon as possible.
"If Royal Mail felt that they could no longer trust me, they must have believed that the allegations against me were true.
"After 34 years of loyal service, a clear conduct record and no previous convictions, I am extremely disappointed that they came to this conclusion as it had no affect on my ability to perform my job and is a clear breach of my human rights.
"Anyone can be accused of a crime at any time and it should follow that they are presumed innocent until found guilty.
"I accept that after my conviction on June 11, 2010 I would have no longer been able to fulfil my duties."
Keith Finch, mail centre manager, told the hearing he sacked Kearney because he felt there could be a "risk" to the public because the murder of Mrs Poolton was "particularly violent".
He was also on bail and unable to enter Hampshire but his place of work was at the Southampton Mail Centre.
Mr Finch said it was not a realistic option to allow Kearney to be suspended and stay at home when, at the time, there was no trial date and Royal Mail was struggling financially.
He added that the publicity of the trial would damage Royal Mail's reputation and although Kearney had not been convicted, he felt that the authorities must have had good reason to charge him.
He said: "I lost my trust in him. I believe we could have lost business in the local area."
During his murder trial it was heard that Mrs Poolton, 40, and Kearney had been having an affair in the summer of 2008.
Kearney stabbed her to death when she started putting pressure on him to leave his partner, the court was told.
He then fabricated an alibi to cover his tracks.
Kearney had worked with Mrs Poolton when they were stewards at Southampton Football Club but her husband and his partner were unaware of the affair.
The hearing continues.
Comment: Now it makes more sense when we find out that he was on bail following being charged when he was sacked. It does appear as though the Royal Mail were a bit quick to sack him. Especially, given that coppers only get suspended on full pay!
Prisoners votes: Daily Mail gets it so wrong and so have the government legal advisers
Prisoners votes: Daily Mail gets it so wrong and so have the government legal advisers
Killers and rapists will NOT get vote: Right is restricted to terms of less than four years
By James Chapman, Political Editor
Last updated at 11:41 PM on 16th December 2010
Murderers, rapists and other offenders serving sentences of four years or more will not get the vote in general elections despite a European court ruling, it emerged last night.
Cabinet sources told the Daily Mail that government legal advisers believe a threshold can be introduced so those given longer jail terms remain disenfranchised.
It would limit potential for rebellion among Tory MPs outraged over the decision to acquiesce to a European Court of Human Rights ruling that gives prisoners the vote for the first time in 140 years.
Some Tories are threatening to join forces with Labour to try to block the move.
There had been fears that all 70,000 British inmates would be enfranchised.
But a four-year threshold will mean the most notorious criminals – murderers and other ‘lifers’ – will remain banned.
‘The legal advice that has come back is better than expected,’ said one source.
‘Clearly, we don’t want to give any inmate the vote, but this isn’t now a choice, it is a legal obligation.
‘But we are confident that we can withhold the vote from the most serious offenders.’
Lawyers have warned that the taxpayer will be hit with a bill up to £50 million in compensation if prisoners are not allowed to take part in ballots. The latest compromise follows six years of government attempts to dodge the issue.
Prisoners were originally denied the right to take part in ballots under the 1870 Forfeiture Act, and the ban was reinforced in the Representation of the People Act of 1983. Those on remand awaiting trial, fine defaulters and people jailed for contempt of court can vote.
In 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Britain’s blanket ban was discriminatory. It followed a legal challenge by John Hirst, who was jailed for manslaughter for hacking his landlady to death with an axe in 1979.
One rebel MP, Philip Hollobone, said about 40 Tories could defy party whips, enough to defeat the Government on the issue. The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, have campaigned for prisoners’ votes as an issue of basic human rights.
Comment: On 8 April 2010, in Frodl v Austria, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a convicted murderer had his human rights breached by denying him the franchise. This decision is binding on the UK. Therefore, the Committee of Ministers which supervises execution of the ECtHR's judgments will not accept a blanket ban on murderers not getting the vote. Such a ban is too arbitrary and fails to meet the twin tests of legitimacy and proportionality set by the Court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that any disenfranchisement must be decided by a judge and not by the Executive or Parliament. The Court was very clear that disinfranchisement must be very limited, for example, only in the cases of someone convicted of electoral fraud or abuse of a public office.
On 23 November 2010, in the case of Greens and MT v UK, the ECtHR ruled that a rapist was denied his human right to vote. This judgment is still not final for another 3 months to allow both sides the opportunity to appeal to the Grand Chamber. However, given that the Grand Chamber refused to allow the Austrian government to appeal in Frodl it is very unlikely to succeed in this case. I am aware that the lawyer acting for Greens and MT is considering an appeal for damages and possibly on the lack of effective remedy point.
On 6 October 2005, in Hirst v UK (No2), the Grand Chamber rejected the UK appeal and upheld the Chamber judgment that I, convicted of manslaughter, had my human right to the vote breached.
In my case, the Court warned the UK "It is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention". The UK does not discharge its obligation by attempting to get away with only a partial compliance. The UK is required to fully comply with my judgment. That is, all convicted prisoners must get the vote. The UK can only decide whether to allow convicted prisoners to vote by putting polling booths in prison, or the cheaper option of allowing postal votes.
Having shown that killers serving life and rapists are entitled to vote, it follows that those convicted of manslaughter and paedophiles serving less than 4 years will also be allowed to vote even if the Daily Mail story had a grain of truth in relation to the 4 year cut off point.
I note that neither the MoJ nor Cabinet Office has made any official announcement in Parliament nor on their websites. Is this democracy in action whereby anonymous sources leak the news to the Daily Mail? I trust that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will also respond to the UK with its view via the media? This is also a weapon in their armoury.
Any government legal adviser who believes that the line can be held at 4 years and over is not fit for purpose. Perhaps, they should be named and shamed? How much of the taxpayers money has been wasted on such flawed legal advice? I know that far better legal advice would have come from yours truly, my being the foremost legal authority on this case in the country, and a darned sight cheaper at that!
What part of Hirst v UK (No2) do the rebel Tory MPs not understand? It is my case, the Individual v the State. These MPs are my prisoners, and they were captured when I defeated the 3 arms of the State. They will only be released from their chains when they do exactly as they are told. The ECtHR and Committee of Ministers and Council of Europe do not care what the 1922 Committee has to say in defiance of the highest court in Europe's judgments. They had their chance to speak out when they let Labour get away with doing nothing for 5 years. As far as the Council of Europe is concerned, it is the responsibility of the MoJ to ensure that all citizens in the UK get their human rights under the European Convention. Poor old Kenneth Clarke is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. "Catch 22". As for Nick Clegg, the Council of Europe is not interested in Ken Clarke passing the ball from the MoJ to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. It all comes under the UK and that means collective responsibility. The public, not being part of the State, remain free. The Court excluded public opinion as a ground for denying the franchise to all convicted prisoners, when it was argued by the UK.
It makes no odds if all of the Tories join forces with Labour because it will not block the move. If the Tories had a policy on Europe before the election instead of a black hole in their knowledge, they might have learned that as a result of the Lisbon Treaty, particularly Protocol 14, the UK has no option but to fully comply with Hirst v UK (No2) and Frodl v Austria. The European Union, as with the Council of Europe, requires all its Member States to abide by the Convention and Court decisions. Recently, the United Nations also joined forces with the Council of Europe and European Union to tackle human rights abuses. These powerful institutions will not let the UK get away with this any longer. Either the UK fully complies within 6 months or face sanctions under the Interlaken process. Ultimately, the UK can face suspension or expulsion from both the Council of Europe and EU. Meanwhile, the UK can have its vote suspended and/or face tough economic sanctions. It's either in or out, and neither the Council of Europe nor EU are prepared to tolerate the antics of a rogue or pariah State.
It beggars belief that in a so-called liberal democratic country in 2010, with a Human Rights Act, that there were fears that over 70,000 human beings would be given the human rights that they are legally entitled to! This is not the time to let irrational fears overrule common sense. This is the time to do the right thing.
The Daily Mail has not appeared to notice that the 4 year threshold was something that Labour had suggested in its first consultation exercise, and it was rejected by 47% of the public who favoured full enfranchisement. Only 4 people, not even 4 %, supported the Labour government's view. So, both the Tory rebels and Labour are out of touch with public opinion. Not that, as already said, public opinion counts for anything on the issue of the Individual v the State. It's the State abuse of convicted prisoners human rights which has to stop. The 4 year threshold is contrary to both Hirst No2 and Frodl. It's a non-starter. Time for these Tory rebels to use their heads for thinking, rather than knee-jerking to their gut reactions caused by excessive wind.
Far from the legal advice being better than expected, it is as pathetic as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Or should that be SS Brittania attempting to waive the rules and sinking in the process upon hitting the rocks in Strasbourg?
It is not a question of what the losers in this fight want, and any choice was removed when I claimed victory. The legal obligation upon the UK is to fully comply with my judgment.
A murderer and a manslaughter and a rapist (and possibly a paedophile MT?) all serious offenders have already won the human right to vote, and the Tory rebels are saying that they are confident that the UK can withhold the vote from serious offenders? Perhaps, by serious offenders they mean Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe? It is debateable whether those two would qualify anyway being in Broadmoor. I hope that the Daily Mail has its photographers outside prison gates in the run up to the next election to catch these Tory rebels sneaking in to canvass votes from all convicted prisoners, including murderers, rapists and paedophiles.
Only £50m? Must be a Conservative estimate. Already, convicted prisoners are in line to get £135m for being denied the vote in last year's European election and this year's general election. Once again, it shows that the government's lawyers haven't got a clue! As for compromise, the Council of Europe is in no mood for compromise. There is no such thing as partial compliance with a ECtHR judgment, only the uncompromising full compliance.
In 2004, the ECtHR did not rule that the ban was discriminatory. My judgment was clear that there was no discrimination, all convicted prisoners were denied the franchise. However, if the UK tries to discriminate, for example, by attempting to deny all those serving over 4 years from voting then the UK is in danger of falling foul of Article 14 of the Convention which prohibits discrimination! The Courts have stated only discrimination for electoral fraud and abusers of public office will be legitimate under the Convention. It is worth pointing out that the autopsy report does not refer to any hacking in relation to my landlady's death. It is impossible to hack with a blunt instrument, this requires a sharp instrument. Once again the Daily Mail has got it wrong. It would be better if a newspaper stuck to the facts rather than write fiction.
This rebel Tory MP, Philip Hollowbrain, has missed the point that I have already defeated the government on this issue when I challenged the Executive, Judiciary and Parliament, the 3 arms of the State within the UK which follows the case bearing my name Hirst v UK (No2). Whilst this idiot boasts of 40 rebel Tory MPs (why does he not name them all?) supporting him, I have 46 Member States in the Council of Europe backing me against the UK, and 26 Member States in the EU with 800m EU citizens. Whilst Charles Kennedy did support all convicted prisoners getting the vote, and the LibDems did vote in support of this policy, Nick Clegg only supported some prisoners getting the vote which makes him not only a Tory and not a LibDem, but also makes him wrong. So, I don't agree with Nick on this one. Given that he is a former MEP he should have known better than to try and pick a fight against their game on their pitch with their rules. I am European. That's why I am on the winning side. Even Russia saw sense in February to give in to the Council of Europe. The UK needs to see which way the wind is blowing, and get up to scratch on the shift in power in Europe. All the UK has achieved is to be sidelined. If the UK wants to play it must abide by the rules.
Killers and rapists will NOT get vote: Right is restricted to terms of less than four years
By James Chapman, Political Editor
Last updated at 11:41 PM on 16th December 2010
Murderers, rapists and other offenders serving sentences of four years or more will not get the vote in general elections despite a European court ruling, it emerged last night.
Cabinet sources told the Daily Mail that government legal advisers believe a threshold can be introduced so those given longer jail terms remain disenfranchised.
It would limit potential for rebellion among Tory MPs outraged over the decision to acquiesce to a European Court of Human Rights ruling that gives prisoners the vote for the first time in 140 years.
Some Tories are threatening to join forces with Labour to try to block the move.
There had been fears that all 70,000 British inmates would be enfranchised.
But a four-year threshold will mean the most notorious criminals – murderers and other ‘lifers’ – will remain banned.
‘The legal advice that has come back is better than expected,’ said one source.
‘Clearly, we don’t want to give any inmate the vote, but this isn’t now a choice, it is a legal obligation.
‘But we are confident that we can withhold the vote from the most serious offenders.’
Lawyers have warned that the taxpayer will be hit with a bill up to £50 million in compensation if prisoners are not allowed to take part in ballots. The latest compromise follows six years of government attempts to dodge the issue.
Prisoners were originally denied the right to take part in ballots under the 1870 Forfeiture Act, and the ban was reinforced in the Representation of the People Act of 1983. Those on remand awaiting trial, fine defaulters and people jailed for contempt of court can vote.
In 2004, the European Court of Human Rights ruled Britain’s blanket ban was discriminatory. It followed a legal challenge by John Hirst, who was jailed for manslaughter for hacking his landlady to death with an axe in 1979.
One rebel MP, Philip Hollobone, said about 40 Tories could defy party whips, enough to defeat the Government on the issue. The Liberal Democrats, by contrast, have campaigned for prisoners’ votes as an issue of basic human rights.
Comment: On 8 April 2010, in Frodl v Austria, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that a convicted murderer had his human rights breached by denying him the franchise. This decision is binding on the UK. Therefore, the Committee of Ministers which supervises execution of the ECtHR's judgments will not accept a blanket ban on murderers not getting the vote. Such a ban is too arbitrary and fails to meet the twin tests of legitimacy and proportionality set by the Court. Furthermore, the Court ruled that any disenfranchisement must be decided by a judge and not by the Executive or Parliament. The Court was very clear that disinfranchisement must be very limited, for example, only in the cases of someone convicted of electoral fraud or abuse of a public office.
On 23 November 2010, in the case of Greens and MT v UK, the ECtHR ruled that a rapist was denied his human right to vote. This judgment is still not final for another 3 months to allow both sides the opportunity to appeal to the Grand Chamber. However, given that the Grand Chamber refused to allow the Austrian government to appeal in Frodl it is very unlikely to succeed in this case. I am aware that the lawyer acting for Greens and MT is considering an appeal for damages and possibly on the lack of effective remedy point.
On 6 October 2005, in Hirst v UK (No2), the Grand Chamber rejected the UK appeal and upheld the Chamber judgment that I, convicted of manslaughter, had my human right to the vote breached.
In my case, the Court warned the UK "It is primarily for the State concerned to choose, subject to supervision by the Committee of Ministers, the means to be used in its domestic legal order in order to discharge its obligation under Article 46 of the Convention". The UK does not discharge its obligation by attempting to get away with only a partial compliance. The UK is required to fully comply with my judgment. That is, all convicted prisoners must get the vote. The UK can only decide whether to allow convicted prisoners to vote by putting polling booths in prison, or the cheaper option of allowing postal votes.
Having shown that killers serving life and rapists are entitled to vote, it follows that those convicted of manslaughter and paedophiles serving less than 4 years will also be allowed to vote even if the Daily Mail story had a grain of truth in relation to the 4 year cut off point.
I note that neither the MoJ nor Cabinet Office has made any official announcement in Parliament nor on their websites. Is this democracy in action whereby anonymous sources leak the news to the Daily Mail? I trust that the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe will also respond to the UK with its view via the media? This is also a weapon in their armoury.
Any government legal adviser who believes that the line can be held at 4 years and over is not fit for purpose. Perhaps, they should be named and shamed? How much of the taxpayers money has been wasted on such flawed legal advice? I know that far better legal advice would have come from yours truly, my being the foremost legal authority on this case in the country, and a darned sight cheaper at that!
What part of Hirst v UK (No2) do the rebel Tory MPs not understand? It is my case, the Individual v the State. These MPs are my prisoners, and they were captured when I defeated the 3 arms of the State. They will only be released from their chains when they do exactly as they are told. The ECtHR and Committee of Ministers and Council of Europe do not care what the 1922 Committee has to say in defiance of the highest court in Europe's judgments. They had their chance to speak out when they let Labour get away with doing nothing for 5 years. As far as the Council of Europe is concerned, it is the responsibility of the MoJ to ensure that all citizens in the UK get their human rights under the European Convention. Poor old Kenneth Clarke is damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. "Catch 22". As for Nick Clegg, the Council of Europe is not interested in Ken Clarke passing the ball from the MoJ to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Cabinet Office. It all comes under the UK and that means collective responsibility. The public, not being part of the State, remain free. The Court excluded public opinion as a ground for denying the franchise to all convicted prisoners, when it was argued by the UK.
It makes no odds if all of the Tories join forces with Labour because it will not block the move. If the Tories had a policy on Europe before the election instead of a black hole in their knowledge, they might have learned that as a result of the Lisbon Treaty, particularly Protocol 14, the UK has no option but to fully comply with Hirst v UK (No2) and Frodl v Austria. The European Union, as with the Council of Europe, requires all its Member States to abide by the Convention and Court decisions. Recently, the United Nations also joined forces with the Council of Europe and European Union to tackle human rights abuses. These powerful institutions will not let the UK get away with this any longer. Either the UK fully complies within 6 months or face sanctions under the Interlaken process. Ultimately, the UK can face suspension or expulsion from both the Council of Europe and EU. Meanwhile, the UK can have its vote suspended and/or face tough economic sanctions. It's either in or out, and neither the Council of Europe nor EU are prepared to tolerate the antics of a rogue or pariah State.
It beggars belief that in a so-called liberal democratic country in 2010, with a Human Rights Act, that there were fears that over 70,000 human beings would be given the human rights that they are legally entitled to! This is not the time to let irrational fears overrule common sense. This is the time to do the right thing.
The Daily Mail has not appeared to notice that the 4 year threshold was something that Labour had suggested in its first consultation exercise, and it was rejected by 47% of the public who favoured full enfranchisement. Only 4 people, not even 4 %, supported the Labour government's view. So, both the Tory rebels and Labour are out of touch with public opinion. Not that, as already said, public opinion counts for anything on the issue of the Individual v the State. It's the State abuse of convicted prisoners human rights which has to stop. The 4 year threshold is contrary to both Hirst No2 and Frodl. It's a non-starter. Time for these Tory rebels to use their heads for thinking, rather than knee-jerking to their gut reactions caused by excessive wind.
Far from the legal advice being better than expected, it is as pathetic as rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic. Or should that be SS Brittania attempting to waive the rules and sinking in the process upon hitting the rocks in Strasbourg?
It is not a question of what the losers in this fight want, and any choice was removed when I claimed victory. The legal obligation upon the UK is to fully comply with my judgment.
A murderer and a manslaughter and a rapist (and possibly a paedophile MT?) all serious offenders have already won the human right to vote, and the Tory rebels are saying that they are confident that the UK can withhold the vote from serious offenders? Perhaps, by serious offenders they mean Ian Brady and Peter Sutcliffe? It is debateable whether those two would qualify anyway being in Broadmoor. I hope that the Daily Mail has its photographers outside prison gates in the run up to the next election to catch these Tory rebels sneaking in to canvass votes from all convicted prisoners, including murderers, rapists and paedophiles.
Only £50m? Must be a Conservative estimate. Already, convicted prisoners are in line to get £135m for being denied the vote in last year's European election and this year's general election. Once again, it shows that the government's lawyers haven't got a clue! As for compromise, the Council of Europe is in no mood for compromise. There is no such thing as partial compliance with a ECtHR judgment, only the uncompromising full compliance.
In 2004, the ECtHR did not rule that the ban was discriminatory. My judgment was clear that there was no discrimination, all convicted prisoners were denied the franchise. However, if the UK tries to discriminate, for example, by attempting to deny all those serving over 4 years from voting then the UK is in danger of falling foul of Article 14 of the Convention which prohibits discrimination! The Courts have stated only discrimination for electoral fraud and abusers of public office will be legitimate under the Convention. It is worth pointing out that the autopsy report does not refer to any hacking in relation to my landlady's death. It is impossible to hack with a blunt instrument, this requires a sharp instrument. Once again the Daily Mail has got it wrong. It would be better if a newspaper stuck to the facts rather than write fiction.
This rebel Tory MP, Philip Hollowbrain, has missed the point that I have already defeated the government on this issue when I challenged the Executive, Judiciary and Parliament, the 3 arms of the State within the UK which follows the case bearing my name Hirst v UK (No2). Whilst this idiot boasts of 40 rebel Tory MPs (why does he not name them all?) supporting him, I have 46 Member States in the Council of Europe backing me against the UK, and 26 Member States in the EU with 800m EU citizens. Whilst Charles Kennedy did support all convicted prisoners getting the vote, and the LibDems did vote in support of this policy, Nick Clegg only supported some prisoners getting the vote which makes him not only a Tory and not a LibDem, but also makes him wrong. So, I don't agree with Nick on this one. Given that he is a former MEP he should have known better than to try and pick a fight against their game on their pitch with their rules. I am European. That's why I am on the winning side. Even Russia saw sense in February to give in to the Council of Europe. The UK needs to see which way the wind is blowing, and get up to scratch on the shift in power in Europe. All the UK has achieved is to be sidelined. If the UK wants to play it must abide by the rules.
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Justice review of 2010: Sentencing reform shakes Tory traditionalists
Justice review of 2010: Sentencing reform shakes Tory traditionalists
Kenneth Clarke will be the first to admit he was as surprised as anyone when he was handed the job of Justice Secretary in David Cameron's Coalition Government.
Kenneth Clarke determination to send fewer people to prison has put him on a collision course with more traditional Tory MPs Photo: GETTY
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor 1:39PM GMT 16 Dec 2010
And there will have been times in recent weeks when the Prime Minister may have wondered if he made the right choice.
Reform of sentencing has dominated the justice agenda this year and paved the way for the biggest shake-up of the system for almost a decade.
But it also put Mr Clarke on a collision course with backbench MPs and landed him in hot water with No10 after unveiling a package that cut at the very heart of the traditional Tory stance on law and order.
Suspicions of a dramatic shift in policy began within weeks of the election when Mr Clarke delivered his first keynote speech and signalled, as far as he was concerned, prison did not work for some offenders, especially those on short term sentences.
He echoed the Conservative's manifesto pledge of a "rehabilitation revolution" but this, in contrast with many of his predecessors, was to entail sending thousands of fewer people to prison and more community punishments.
It sparked a long debate on where the rehabilitation of offenders should be heading including some thought-provoking comments from Andrew Bridges, the chief inspector of probation.
But others were unimpressed, including the former Tory home secretary Lord Howard, who famously insisted "prison works".
When the Green Paper was finally published in early December it effectively proposed a watering down down of punishments at almost every level.
Critics immediately leapt on it as nothing more than a bid to save money while party whips have warned Downing Street that concerns over the proposals could turn the issue into a "Conservative tuition fees", in reference to the damaging eduction row that is threatening to tear apart the Liberal Democrats.
No10 was already understood to be nervous about what signal the reforms would send out and that concern became very public when Mr Clarke announced a review of the statutory minimum terms that guide judges on how to sentence on murder.
He suggested freeing judges to have total discretion when setting tariffs for killers, sparking an instant backlash amid fears it would lead to murderers spending less time behind bars.
Downing Street issued a humiliating rebuke to Mr Clarke within 24 hours and insisted there were no plans to bin the laws.
An interesting year ahead.
Comment: As Ken Clarke is legally responsible to Parliament for carrying out his duty, why is Downing Street, which is not legally responsible to Parliament for Ken Clarke carrying out his duties, dictating to him what he can and cannot do in a so-called liberal democracy? Perhaps, the UK will now wake up to what the prisoners votes case has shown that we live in a totalitarian state?
Kenneth Clarke will be the first to admit he was as surprised as anyone when he was handed the job of Justice Secretary in David Cameron's Coalition Government.
Kenneth Clarke determination to send fewer people to prison has put him on a collision course with more traditional Tory MPs Photo: GETTYBy Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor 1:39PM GMT 16 Dec 2010
And there will have been times in recent weeks when the Prime Minister may have wondered if he made the right choice.
Reform of sentencing has dominated the justice agenda this year and paved the way for the biggest shake-up of the system for almost a decade.
But it also put Mr Clarke on a collision course with backbench MPs and landed him in hot water with No10 after unveiling a package that cut at the very heart of the traditional Tory stance on law and order.
Suspicions of a dramatic shift in policy began within weeks of the election when Mr Clarke delivered his first keynote speech and signalled, as far as he was concerned, prison did not work for some offenders, especially those on short term sentences.
He echoed the Conservative's manifesto pledge of a "rehabilitation revolution" but this, in contrast with many of his predecessors, was to entail sending thousands of fewer people to prison and more community punishments.
It sparked a long debate on where the rehabilitation of offenders should be heading including some thought-provoking comments from Andrew Bridges, the chief inspector of probation.
But others were unimpressed, including the former Tory home secretary Lord Howard, who famously insisted "prison works".
When the Green Paper was finally published in early December it effectively proposed a watering down down of punishments at almost every level.
Critics immediately leapt on it as nothing more than a bid to save money while party whips have warned Downing Street that concerns over the proposals could turn the issue into a "Conservative tuition fees", in reference to the damaging eduction row that is threatening to tear apart the Liberal Democrats.
No10 was already understood to be nervous about what signal the reforms would send out and that concern became very public when Mr Clarke announced a review of the statutory minimum terms that guide judges on how to sentence on murder.
He suggested freeing judges to have total discretion when setting tariffs for killers, sparking an instant backlash amid fears it would lead to murderers spending less time behind bars.
Downing Street issued a humiliating rebuke to Mr Clarke within 24 hours and insisted there were no plans to bin the laws.
An interesting year ahead.
Comment: As Ken Clarke is legally responsible to Parliament for carrying out his duty, why is Downing Street, which is not legally responsible to Parliament for Ken Clarke carrying out his duties, dictating to him what he can and cannot do in a so-called liberal democracy? Perhaps, the UK will now wake up to what the prisoners votes case has shown that we live in a totalitarian state?
Golden Eagle surrenders meal to White Tailed Eagle
Golden Eagle surrenders meal to White Tailed Eagle
The Golden Eagle is known as the king of birds but its reputation has taken a dent after one of the species was forced to surrender its dinner to a rival.
Golden Eagle and a White Tailed Eagle fight over a dead fox Photo: National News and Pictures / Richard Costin
British wildlife photographer Richard Costin spent five days in freezing conditions in northern Norway to capture the pictures.
They show the Golden Eagle arriving at the carcass of a fox amid a blizzard only for a White Tailed Eagle to muscle in on the action.
After tussling claw to claw, the White Tailed Eagle was victorious and chased away the crows to claim its prize.
Mr Costin, from Kent, said: "To take these images I spent nine hours a day for five days in a small wooden hide on a remote hill in Norway.
"The temperature outside was approximately -10 and I was well wrapped up in several sleeping bags as I wasn't able to move much to keep warm.
"The wait needed to be 9 hours straight as it was essential to be in before sunrise and out after sunset so the eagles did not associate the hide with humans.
"Some of the days I would only get a few moments with an eagle outside and others several hours.
"The blizzard images were taken on several occasions, these blizzards were short lived, usually no more than 20 minutes at a time but were intense.
"The eagles were unfazed by these and it is a testament as to how incredible these hardy birds are.
"The moment I captured a Golden and White Tailed eagle together in the blizzard made all the waiting worth-while.
"It was simply astounding to see these two squabble just metres from me.
"The White Tailed Eagle was the winner in all the confrontations.
"Each time there was a fight neither bird seemed to get injured but Golden Eagle knew when it was time to leave.
"I had to remain as still as possible even within the hide, as these wild eagles are very sensitive to disturbance and any movements or noise detected would ruin any further chances of sightings for that day.
"Blasting away with the camera on a first sighting would almost certainly result in scaring them away, so I had to keep my trigger finger in check to ensure a good session."
Richard added: "I have seen these birds in captivity many times, but each and every time I saw these wild raptors it was an amazing privilege.
"I will never forget the first sighting I had after several hours of waiting.
"It was a truly magical experience and I was honoured to have been able to capture this beauty to share with others."
The Golden Eagle is known as the king of birds but its reputation has taken a dent after one of the species was forced to surrender its dinner to a rival.
Golden Eagle and a White Tailed Eagle fight over a dead fox Photo: National News and Pictures / Richard CostinBritish wildlife photographer Richard Costin spent five days in freezing conditions in northern Norway to capture the pictures.
They show the Golden Eagle arriving at the carcass of a fox amid a blizzard only for a White Tailed Eagle to muscle in on the action.
After tussling claw to claw, the White Tailed Eagle was victorious and chased away the crows to claim its prize.
Mr Costin, from Kent, said: "To take these images I spent nine hours a day for five days in a small wooden hide on a remote hill in Norway.
"The temperature outside was approximately -10 and I was well wrapped up in several sleeping bags as I wasn't able to move much to keep warm.
"The wait needed to be 9 hours straight as it was essential to be in before sunrise and out after sunset so the eagles did not associate the hide with humans.
"Some of the days I would only get a few moments with an eagle outside and others several hours.
"The blizzard images were taken on several occasions, these blizzards were short lived, usually no more than 20 minutes at a time but were intense.
"The eagles were unfazed by these and it is a testament as to how incredible these hardy birds are.
"The moment I captured a Golden and White Tailed eagle together in the blizzard made all the waiting worth-while.
"It was simply astounding to see these two squabble just metres from me.
"The White Tailed Eagle was the winner in all the confrontations.
"Each time there was a fight neither bird seemed to get injured but Golden Eagle knew when it was time to leave.
"I had to remain as still as possible even within the hide, as these wild eagles are very sensitive to disturbance and any movements or noise detected would ruin any further chances of sightings for that day.
"Blasting away with the camera on a first sighting would almost certainly result in scaring them away, so I had to keep my trigger finger in check to ensure a good session."
Richard added: "I have seen these birds in captivity many times, but each and every time I saw these wild raptors it was an amazing privilege.
"I will never forget the first sighting I had after several hours of waiting.
"It was a truly magical experience and I was honoured to have been able to capture this beauty to share with others."
Killer wants to buy victim’s family a goat
Killer wants to buy victim’s family a goat
Perhaps, Learco Chindamo could have escaped a life sentence for murder had he offered to buy Frances Lawrence a goat in reparation for killing headteacher Philip Lawrence?
Hat-Tip to Charles Cowling for Tweeting this story from Africa.
Perhaps, Learco Chindamo could have escaped a life sentence for murder had he offered to buy Frances Lawrence a goat in reparation for killing headteacher Philip Lawrence?
Hat-Tip to Charles Cowling for Tweeting this story from Africa.
New MPs’ expenses system anti-family, says Cameron
New MPs’ expenses system anti-family, says Cameron
Old MPs' expenses pro-family, says Derek Conway
Old MPs' expenses pro-family, says Derek Conway
Top judge slams 'impenetrable' laws
Top judge slams 'impenetrable' laws
Press Association, Thursday December 16 2010
England's top judge has criticised "impenetrable" criminal justice legislation which is placing a "continuing burden" on the courts.
In a report, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge wrote that the difficulties of trying to comprehend and apply such legislation is causing cases waiting trial to be delayed.
This is to the "disadvantage of the defendants awaiting trial, the witnesses to the events which bring the defendants to court and the victims of those alleged crimes", he said.
He pointed out that grappling with the legislation is a problem which applies not just to the Court of Appeal but to the workings of every Crown Court and magistrates' court in England and Wales.
In his introduction to the second annual review of the work of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal since his appointment as Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge said: "It has been another year of unremitting commitment to the administration of criminal justice. That is as it should be.
"What remains less tolerable is the continuing burden of comprehending and applying impenetrable legislation, primarily but not exclusively in relation to sentencing."
He added: "The search for the legislative intention in the context of criminal justice legislation makes unreasonable demands on the intellectual efforts of judges and lawyers. It all takes time, very much more time than it took even a decade ago, to grapple with the difficulties."
Lord Judge said: "It would be comforting to believe that the problems have now been solved and that we can look forward to a year of quiet application of well understood and established principles. That will not happen.
"It is, for example, inevitable that some extremely vexing questions will arise as we struggle to follow the legislative intention which removed the former partial defence to murder, provocation, and replaced it with the new concept of loss of control, with its qualifying triggers."
The report, which covers the period from October 2009 to September this year, also shows that the criminal division of the Court of Appeal has faced an increasing number of appeals against both sentence and conviction, as well as more applications for leave to appeal against sentence and conviction.
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2010, All Rights Reserved.
Press Association, Thursday December 16 2010
England's top judge has criticised "impenetrable" criminal justice legislation which is placing a "continuing burden" on the courts.
In a report, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge wrote that the difficulties of trying to comprehend and apply such legislation is causing cases waiting trial to be delayed.
This is to the "disadvantage of the defendants awaiting trial, the witnesses to the events which bring the defendants to court and the victims of those alleged crimes", he said.
He pointed out that grappling with the legislation is a problem which applies not just to the Court of Appeal but to the workings of every Crown Court and magistrates' court in England and Wales.
In his introduction to the second annual review of the work of the criminal division of the Court of Appeal since his appointment as Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge said: "It has been another year of unremitting commitment to the administration of criminal justice. That is as it should be.
"What remains less tolerable is the continuing burden of comprehending and applying impenetrable legislation, primarily but not exclusively in relation to sentencing."
He added: "The search for the legislative intention in the context of criminal justice legislation makes unreasonable demands on the intellectual efforts of judges and lawyers. It all takes time, very much more time than it took even a decade ago, to grapple with the difficulties."
Lord Judge said: "It would be comforting to believe that the problems have now been solved and that we can look forward to a year of quiet application of well understood and established principles. That will not happen.
"It is, for example, inevitable that some extremely vexing questions will arise as we struggle to follow the legislative intention which removed the former partial defence to murder, provocation, and replaced it with the new concept of loss of control, with its qualifying triggers."
The report, which covers the period from October 2009 to September this year, also shows that the criminal division of the Court of Appeal has faced an increasing number of appeals against both sentence and conviction, as well as more applications for leave to appeal against sentence and conviction.
Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2010, All Rights Reserved.
Why is IPSA saying one thing to the public and David Cameron saying another to Tory backbench MPs?
Why is IPSA saying one thing to the public and David Cameron saying another to Tory backbench MPs?
The IPSA website states "Last updated: 15 December 2010".
"The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is the independent organisation created to bring a fresh approach to the system of paying MPs’ expenses.
IPSA’s rules mean a change from the old system of allowances; establishing clear guidelines setting out what MPs can and cannot claim for. The rules, which apply to all MPs, are a break from what went before and are fair, workable and transparent. IPSA will publish on its website every claim made by every MP.
IPSA is entirely independent of Parliament, Government and all political parties. In all it does, IPSA will keep at the front of its mind its main duty – to serve the interests of the public".
David Cameron said that he sympathised with MPs complaints about new expenses system Photo: GETTY
Yesterday, 15 December 2010, in the evening David Cameron met with Tory rebels.
"Addressing the meeting of the backbench 1922 committee, Mr Cameron told his MPs that they should be “proud” of the achievements of the Coalition as they head home to their constituencies.
He agreed that the new expenses system, which limits MPs to claiming for small apartments rather than the lavish residences that many maintained under the old regime, was “anti-family”.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) would have to relax its grip by April 1, or face being reformed, he said.
A spokesman said: “The Prime Minister said he understood that Ipsa had caused pain and difficulty for colleagues. It is anti-family and it is not acceptable.
“There needs to be a better system in place by April 1 otherwise it will have to change. That can be through Ipsa recognising its shortcomings, or it can be it being changed. Either way, it will have to change.”
A Downing Street spokesman later added that Mr Cameron was concerned about the administrative burden on MPs of having to abide by the new rules.
He was also concerned that there were limits on the number of times MPs' children could travel with them to their constituencies at taxpayers' expense".
It was only yesterday that the expenses scandal has raised its head again...
MPs’ failure to provide evidence to support nearly £14 million in claims has led the nation’s official auditor to refuse to sign off the accounts of the House of Commons.
The IPSA website states "Last updated: 15 December 2010".
"The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) is the independent organisation created to bring a fresh approach to the system of paying MPs’ expenses.
IPSA’s rules mean a change from the old system of allowances; establishing clear guidelines setting out what MPs can and cannot claim for. The rules, which apply to all MPs, are a break from what went before and are fair, workable and transparent. IPSA will publish on its website every claim made by every MP.
IPSA is entirely independent of Parliament, Government and all political parties. In all it does, IPSA will keep at the front of its mind its main duty – to serve the interests of the public".
David Cameron said that he sympathised with MPs complaints about new expenses system Photo: GETTYYesterday, 15 December 2010, in the evening David Cameron met with Tory rebels.
"Addressing the meeting of the backbench 1922 committee, Mr Cameron told his MPs that they should be “proud” of the achievements of the Coalition as they head home to their constituencies.
He agreed that the new expenses system, which limits MPs to claiming for small apartments rather than the lavish residences that many maintained under the old regime, was “anti-family”.
The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) would have to relax its grip by April 1, or face being reformed, he said.
A spokesman said: “The Prime Minister said he understood that Ipsa had caused pain and difficulty for colleagues. It is anti-family and it is not acceptable.
“There needs to be a better system in place by April 1 otherwise it will have to change. That can be through Ipsa recognising its shortcomings, or it can be it being changed. Either way, it will have to change.”
A Downing Street spokesman later added that Mr Cameron was concerned about the administrative burden on MPs of having to abide by the new rules.
He was also concerned that there were limits on the number of times MPs' children could travel with them to their constituencies at taxpayers' expense".
It was only yesterday that the expenses scandal has raised its head again...
MPs’ failure to provide evidence to support nearly £14 million in claims has led the nation’s official auditor to refuse to sign off the accounts of the House of Commons.
Offenders will escape jail because of cuts, Clarke admits
Offenders will escape jail because of cuts, Clarke admits
By Richard Ford, The Times(£)
Thousands of offenders will be spared a custodial sentence because the Government can no longer afford an increasing prison population, Kenneth Clarke admitted yesterday.
The Justice Secretary said that sweeping sentencing reforms were needed because of the financial cost of holding a record number of criminals in jails.
Mr Clarke insisted that there was no Cabinet rift over his proposals to overhaul sentencing and cut the jail population by 3,000 over the next three years.
“The policy is not based on some general object or target of reducing the number of people in prison,” he told MPs on the Commons Justice Select Committee.
But he said that the “explosion in prison numbers” had to be “stopped and contained for financial reasons”.
Mr Clarke confirmed that as numbers fell he wanted to close a number of older and uneconomic jails. Prisons that governors believe are under threat include Shepton Mallet, Shrewsbury, North Sea Camp and Dartmoor. The prison population has almost doubled to 84,800 since Mr Clarke was Home Secretary in 1993 and it now costs almost £3 billion a year to run jails.
Mr Clarke’s admission that financial reasons are behind the drive to halt the rise in prison numbers is likely to cause further concern among Conservative backbenchers. They are already unhappy at plans under which many more offenders will be given community punishments, fewer offenders returned to jail, and judges given greater discretion over how many years murderers should serve before being eligible for parole.
David Green, of the think-tank Civitas, said that Mr Clarke’s policy would be a false economy. He said that with fewer offenders being sent to jail and fewer police on the streets it was likely that crime would increase.
Mr Green added: “If Kenneth Clarke releases criminals he will be adding to the Home Office bill [for the police] and his own department’s bill [for the courts].”
The Justice Secretary defended his policies and said he was used to tough times and had never “had a popular policy to implement in all my life”.
He insisted that there was no conflict between him and the Prime Minister or Theresa May, the Home Secretary, over the sentencing proposals.
Mr Clarke, who has come under attack from Lord Howard of Lympne, the former Tory leader, and Conservative backbenchers, said he had “total cross-Cabinet support” for his policies.
He said: “All the policy, including documents, I am consulting on, including announcements of court changes, changes to legal aid and on sentencing, have been cleared by all my colleagues. Discussed in Cabinet committee, discussed with the Prime Minister, all of them.”
He added: “There is no dissent. I have not been producing this from the isolation of the Ministry of Justice. This is a collective approach.”
Mr Clarke said that the main stream of the policy was not attracting “any great resistance” and he was not aware of “any great criticism” of his focus on cutting reoffending.
The Justice Secretary admitted that there was criticism of parts of the policy but that it tended to be rather “theoretical”.
However, Downing Street is concerned that the sentencing proposals and plans to close prisons are sending a message that the Government is soft on crime.
On Tuesday Mrs May echoed the mantra of Lord Howard when she told MPs: “Prison works but it must be made to work better.”
Mr Clarke said: “I looked at what she said, and she said exactly the same things. Prison is the right punishment for serious criminals. Prison does give some relief from crime while they’re inside.
“Prison at the moment is not succeeding in getting reoffending rates down from where they are, which is why we have rehabilitation. There isn’t actually any disagreement.”
By Richard Ford, The Times(£)
Thousands of offenders will be spared a custodial sentence because the Government can no longer afford an increasing prison population, Kenneth Clarke admitted yesterday.
The Justice Secretary said that sweeping sentencing reforms were needed because of the financial cost of holding a record number of criminals in jails.
Mr Clarke insisted that there was no Cabinet rift over his proposals to overhaul sentencing and cut the jail population by 3,000 over the next three years.
“The policy is not based on some general object or target of reducing the number of people in prison,” he told MPs on the Commons Justice Select Committee.
But he said that the “explosion in prison numbers” had to be “stopped and contained for financial reasons”.
Mr Clarke confirmed that as numbers fell he wanted to close a number of older and uneconomic jails. Prisons that governors believe are under threat include Shepton Mallet, Shrewsbury, North Sea Camp and Dartmoor. The prison population has almost doubled to 84,800 since Mr Clarke was Home Secretary in 1993 and it now costs almost £3 billion a year to run jails.
Mr Clarke’s admission that financial reasons are behind the drive to halt the rise in prison numbers is likely to cause further concern among Conservative backbenchers. They are already unhappy at plans under which many more offenders will be given community punishments, fewer offenders returned to jail, and judges given greater discretion over how many years murderers should serve before being eligible for parole.
David Green, of the think-tank Civitas, said that Mr Clarke’s policy would be a false economy. He said that with fewer offenders being sent to jail and fewer police on the streets it was likely that crime would increase.
Mr Green added: “If Kenneth Clarke releases criminals he will be adding to the Home Office bill [for the police] and his own department’s bill [for the courts].”
The Justice Secretary defended his policies and said he was used to tough times and had never “had a popular policy to implement in all my life”.
He insisted that there was no conflict between him and the Prime Minister or Theresa May, the Home Secretary, over the sentencing proposals.
Mr Clarke, who has come under attack from Lord Howard of Lympne, the former Tory leader, and Conservative backbenchers, said he had “total cross-Cabinet support” for his policies.
He said: “All the policy, including documents, I am consulting on, including announcements of court changes, changes to legal aid and on sentencing, have been cleared by all my colleagues. Discussed in Cabinet committee, discussed with the Prime Minister, all of them.”
He added: “There is no dissent. I have not been producing this from the isolation of the Ministry of Justice. This is a collective approach.”
Mr Clarke said that the main stream of the policy was not attracting “any great resistance” and he was not aware of “any great criticism” of his focus on cutting reoffending.
The Justice Secretary admitted that there was criticism of parts of the policy but that it tended to be rather “theoretical”.
However, Downing Street is concerned that the sentencing proposals and plans to close prisons are sending a message that the Government is soft on crime.
On Tuesday Mrs May echoed the mantra of Lord Howard when she told MPs: “Prison works but it must be made to work better.”
Mr Clarke said: “I looked at what she said, and she said exactly the same things. Prison is the right punishment for serious criminals. Prison does give some relief from crime while they’re inside.
“Prison at the moment is not succeeding in getting reoffending rates down from where they are, which is why we have rehabilitation. There isn’t actually any disagreement.”
Wednesday, December 15, 2010
Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks' Alleged Leaker, 'Very Annoyed' At Solitary Confinement
Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks' Alleged Leaker, 'Very Annoyed' At Solitary Confinement
By Marcus Baram, The Huffington Post
NEW YORK — Detained U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning's supporters went public with their concerns about the harsh conditions of his imprisonment — he has no access to exercise or even a pillow and bedsheets during his solitary confinement — only after their complaints to the military over several months went unheeded.
As Salon's Glenn Greenwald reported on Wednesday, Manning, who has been accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of any crime but has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico "under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture."
"We were aware of those situations and we were hoping that they would improve without applying public pressure through the media," Jeff Paterson, who runs Manning's legal defense fund, told The Huffington Post. "His attorney and supporters were hoping that this could be taken care of through the appropriate channels."
Paterson says that Manning is "very annoyed" at the conditions of his confinement, adding that he is primarily upset at his inability to exercise. "He sits in this small box, for the most part only to take a shower - he just sits and eats and four months have gone by."
According to Paterson, Manning has been examined by Quantico's mental health officials, who declared that he is not a suicide risk - yet he continues to be held in solitary confinement due to a suicide watch. His overall mental health evaluation, which was begun in September, is still ongoing and should be wrapped up in a few weeks, says Paterson. Manning's attorney, David Coombs did not return calls for comment. A spokesperson for the Pentagon did not return calls for comment.
Paterson said that despite WikiLeaks' promise to help fund Manning's legal defense, the organization has not forwarded any funds. CBS News reported last week that WikiLeaks had promised $20,000. But Paterson says that he recently received a brief message from the Wau Holland Foundation in Germany, the main fundraising platform for WikiLeaks, stating that the foundation faces a possible audit by German authorities and that it cannot promise any funds at this time.
As of last week, the defense fund had raised $95,000 from 1,350 people — Paterson said it is difficult to tell if any of those donations come from active members of the U.S. military.
By Marcus Baram, The Huffington Post
NEW YORK — Detained U.S. Army Private Bradley Manning's supporters went public with their concerns about the harsh conditions of his imprisonment — he has no access to exercise or even a pillow and bedsheets during his solitary confinement — only after their complaints to the military over several months went unheeded.
As Salon's Glenn Greenwald reported on Wednesday, Manning, who has been accused of leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks, has never been convicted of any crime but has been detained at the U.S. Marine brig in Quantico "under conditions that constitute cruel and inhumane treatment and, by the standards of many nations, even torture."
"We were aware of those situations and we were hoping that they would improve without applying public pressure through the media," Jeff Paterson, who runs Manning's legal defense fund, told The Huffington Post. "His attorney and supporters were hoping that this could be taken care of through the appropriate channels."
Paterson says that Manning is "very annoyed" at the conditions of his confinement, adding that he is primarily upset at his inability to exercise. "He sits in this small box, for the most part only to take a shower - he just sits and eats and four months have gone by."
According to Paterson, Manning has been examined by Quantico's mental health officials, who declared that he is not a suicide risk - yet he continues to be held in solitary confinement due to a suicide watch. His overall mental health evaluation, which was begun in September, is still ongoing and should be wrapped up in a few weeks, says Paterson. Manning's attorney, David Coombs did not return calls for comment. A spokesperson for the Pentagon did not return calls for comment.
Paterson said that despite WikiLeaks' promise to help fund Manning's legal defense, the organization has not forwarded any funds. CBS News reported last week that WikiLeaks had promised $20,000. But Paterson says that he recently received a brief message from the Wau Holland Foundation in Germany, the main fundraising platform for WikiLeaks, stating that the foundation faces a possible audit by German authorities and that it cannot promise any funds at this time.
As of last week, the defense fund had raised $95,000 from 1,350 people — Paterson said it is difficult to tell if any of those donations come from active members of the U.S. military.
David Cameron faces Tory rebellion over prisoner voting
David Cameron faces Tory rebellion over prisoner voting
By Craig Woodhouse
15.12.10
Restless Tory MPs could join forces with Labour to express their anger over prisoner voting, David Cameron was warned today.
Plans to give prisoners the vote could even see enough backbenchers rebel to defeat the Government, one MP suggested.
Around 40 Tories would need to defy their whips for that to happen, but Philip Hollobone said that would be “achievable”.
It adds to growing disquiet on the Conservative benches which the Prime Minister will seek to quell when he addresses his party tonight.
Labour are understood to be seeking out an issue that would unite sufficient Tories to vote against the Government.
They are looking at the possibility of using one of their “opposition day” debates to discuss prisoner voting, in the hope that it could lead to defeat for the coalition in the same way that Gurkha settlement rules brought a shock loss for Gordon Brown.
Conservative MPs told the Standard they would back such a bid.
One said: “I would certainly be happy to work with Labour on that one because literally over my dead body would I go through the lobbies to give prisoners the vote.
“There would be a significant number of us who would be prepared to vote against the Government on that.”
Mr Hollobone said: “There are lots of backbenchers who feel in their gut that it is the wrong thing to do.
“If 40 Tory backbenchers voted against it then that would put the Government in danger, and I would have thought on something like votes for prisoners that would be achievable.”
And another backbencher said: “I have been saying for weeks that is the best chance Labour have got to bring down the Government.”
The comments came as Mr Cameron was urged not to take his party for granted.
Many MPs are unhappy at what they see as concessions to Liberal Democrats over the tuition fees vote, as well the Government's direction on europe and its handling of the new parliamentary expenses system.
Nadine Dorries told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: “It would not be wise to take Conservative backbenchers for granted in the way that they have been.
“We have mainstream core Conservative principles that for the good of the coalition and the country we have been suppressing.
“But it would not be wise to think that is a position that we would want to continue in the long term,”
Wellingborough MP Peter Bone even called for a fresh election once the economy has recovered, telling Today: “I don't think anyone voted for a coalition.”
Related content...
Disgruntled Conservative backbenchers issue warning to David Cameron
Prime minister should not take rank and file MPs for granted, they say, in signs of discontent with coalition
By Craig Woodhouse
15.12.10
Restless Tory MPs could join forces with Labour to express their anger over prisoner voting, David Cameron was warned today.
Plans to give prisoners the vote could even see enough backbenchers rebel to defeat the Government, one MP suggested.
Around 40 Tories would need to defy their whips for that to happen, but Philip Hollobone said that would be “achievable”.
It adds to growing disquiet on the Conservative benches which the Prime Minister will seek to quell when he addresses his party tonight.
Labour are understood to be seeking out an issue that would unite sufficient Tories to vote against the Government.
They are looking at the possibility of using one of their “opposition day” debates to discuss prisoner voting, in the hope that it could lead to defeat for the coalition in the same way that Gurkha settlement rules brought a shock loss for Gordon Brown.
Conservative MPs told the Standard they would back such a bid.
One said: “I would certainly be happy to work with Labour on that one because literally over my dead body would I go through the lobbies to give prisoners the vote.
“There would be a significant number of us who would be prepared to vote against the Government on that.”
Mr Hollobone said: “There are lots of backbenchers who feel in their gut that it is the wrong thing to do.
“If 40 Tory backbenchers voted against it then that would put the Government in danger, and I would have thought on something like votes for prisoners that would be achievable.”
And another backbencher said: “I have been saying for weeks that is the best chance Labour have got to bring down the Government.”
The comments came as Mr Cameron was urged not to take his party for granted.
Many MPs are unhappy at what they see as concessions to Liberal Democrats over the tuition fees vote, as well the Government's direction on europe and its handling of the new parliamentary expenses system.
Nadine Dorries told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: “It would not be wise to take Conservative backbenchers for granted in the way that they have been.
“We have mainstream core Conservative principles that for the good of the coalition and the country we have been suppressing.
“But it would not be wise to think that is a position that we would want to continue in the long term,”
Wellingborough MP Peter Bone even called for a fresh election once the economy has recovered, telling Today: “I don't think anyone voted for a coalition.”
Related content...
Disgruntled Conservative backbenchers issue warning to David Cameron
Prime minister should not take rank and file MPs for granted, they say, in signs of discontent with coalition
Christmas Cracker joke
Christmas Cracker joke
Killer Roger Kearney claims Royal Mail sacking 'unfair'
A man jailed for killing his married lover is to take his former employers to tribunal after he was sacked following his conviction.
"Roger Kearney, 57, was found guilty of killing Paula Poolton and hiding her body in the boot of her car near Swanwick station in Hampshire in 2008.
He claims he was unfairly dismissed from his postman job. The case will be heard in Southampton on Thursday".
If Roger Kearney can explain to me how he is able to deliver letters from his cell and fulfill his employment contract...
...otherwise ho, ho, ho!
Killer Roger Kearney claims Royal Mail sacking 'unfair'
A man jailed for killing his married lover is to take his former employers to tribunal after he was sacked following his conviction.
"Roger Kearney, 57, was found guilty of killing Paula Poolton and hiding her body in the boot of her car near Swanwick station in Hampshire in 2008.
He claims he was unfairly dismissed from his postman job. The case will be heard in Southampton on Thursday".
If Roger Kearney can explain to me how he is able to deliver letters from his cell and fulfill his employment contract...
...otherwise ho, ho, ho!
Lord Gill as the pantomime dame!
Lord Gill as the pantomime dame!
I think he looks more like a pantomime dame than a Lord Justice. WTF dressing up like an idiot has to do with delivering justice is beyond me.
I think he looks more like a pantomime dame than a Lord Justice. WTF dressing up like an idiot has to do with delivering justice is beyond me.
Teresa May shows Tories in disarray
Teresa May shows Tories in disarray
Prison works, says Home Secretary
Theresa May declared "prison works" yesterday in another blow to Kenneth Clarke's plans to put fewer criminals behind bars.
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor, Daily Telegraph 6:50AM GMT 15 Dec 2010
Since 9 May 2007 when the Ministry of Justice was created and took over responsibility for prisons they were no longer the responsibility of the Home Secretary and the Home Office. Therefore, Teresa May should jolly well mind her own business.
Prison either works or it doesn't work. That prison does not rehabilitate the vast majority of prisoners and that they go on to reoffend shows that prison does not work. Michael Howard was wrong when he made the "prison works" statement way back when, and he is still wrong now. We need to change that. We can no longer afford to adopt the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' mentality. Because this is the equivalent of continuing digging the big hole we are in even deeper. Stop digging.
Speaking in the Commons last week, Mr Clarke said:
"I regard prison, first and foremost, as a place of punishment where people lose their liberty as reparation for what they have done. But on top of that, prison can't continue to be simply an expensive way of giving communities a break."
Kenneth Clarke is wrong to say that prison is a place of punishment. The court which passes sentence is the place of punishment. That is, prisoners are sent to prison as a punishment and not for punishment!
Unless this position is reinstated it only confuses people into believing that they can all stick the boot into prisoners and kick them when they are down by adding their own private punishments to the state sanction.
Human warehouses benefit nobody.
UPDATE: Is it any wonder that Ken Clarke is in trouble when he keeps blundering?
Today Clarke told MPs: "Prison works as a place for sentencing people".
Er, Ken, judges in court sentence people, and prison is the place where sentences are carried out!
Prison works, says Home Secretary
Theresa May declared "prison works" yesterday in another blow to Kenneth Clarke's plans to put fewer criminals behind bars.
By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor, Daily Telegraph 6:50AM GMT 15 Dec 2010
Since 9 May 2007 when the Ministry of Justice was created and took over responsibility for prisons they were no longer the responsibility of the Home Secretary and the Home Office. Therefore, Teresa May should jolly well mind her own business.
Prison either works or it doesn't work. That prison does not rehabilitate the vast majority of prisoners and that they go on to reoffend shows that prison does not work. Michael Howard was wrong when he made the "prison works" statement way back when, and he is still wrong now. We need to change that. We can no longer afford to adopt the 'lock 'em up and throw away the key' mentality. Because this is the equivalent of continuing digging the big hole we are in even deeper. Stop digging.
Speaking in the Commons last week, Mr Clarke said:
"I regard prison, first and foremost, as a place of punishment where people lose their liberty as reparation for what they have done. But on top of that, prison can't continue to be simply an expensive way of giving communities a break."
Kenneth Clarke is wrong to say that prison is a place of punishment. The court which passes sentence is the place of punishment. That is, prisoners are sent to prison as a punishment and not for punishment!
Unless this position is reinstated it only confuses people into believing that they can all stick the boot into prisoners and kick them when they are down by adding their own private punishments to the state sanction.
Human warehouses benefit nobody.
UPDATE: Is it any wonder that Ken Clarke is in trouble when he keeps blundering?
Today Clarke told MPs: "Prison works as a place for sentencing people".
Er, Ken, judges in court sentence people, and prison is the place where sentences are carried out!
News feature: UK prisoners and the right to vote
News feature: UK prisoners and the right to vote
December 2010
Matthew Evans, managing solicitor at the Prisoners’ Advice Service, writes:
As things stand, the UK’s 85,393-strong prison population (all avowed Conservative party voters, according to some media reports) are barred from voting in elections under Representation of the People Act 1983 s3. In Hirst v UK (No 2) App No 74025/01, 30 March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled unanimously that the maintenance of an absolute bar on convicted prisoners voting was in breach of article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (right to free and fair elections).
The UK government appealed the decision unsuccessfully before the ECtHR Grand Chamber. Following the appeal, the then Labour government commenced – without much enthusiasm – two consultations (in December 2006 and April 2009) over whether or not to give prisoners the vote. Eventually, Jack Straw, the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, proposed that the right be granted to all prisoners except those convicted of serious violent and sexual offences.
In 2009, a post-tariff mandatory life sentence prisoner applied for judicial review of a decision to refuse to register him on the electoral register in order to be able to vote in the June 2009 European elections (R (Chester) v (1) Secretary of State for Justice (2) Wakefield MDC [2009] EWHC 2923 (Admin), 28 October 2009). The application was dismissed. According to the court, the enfranchisement of post-tariff life sentence prisoners was a matter for parliament; as the shape and nature of the proposed legislation is as yet undecided, it would be inappropriate for the court to interfere with the parliamentary process. The court added that any proposal for electoral reform would have to be consistent with the ECtHRs’ decision in Hirst concerning the blanket ban on the right of prisoners to vote.
Currently, therefore, domestic proceedings are bound to fail in light of Chester (an appeal is to be heard next month). A number of prisoners have issued compensation claims in the ECtHR and in the UK courts. Strasbourg has a strict six-month time limit; as a consequence, an application must be lodged within six months of the UK’s general election. Those who have sued in the UK have met various responses: some courts have refused to issue decisions and the government is seeking to strike out Greens and MT v UK App Nos 60041/08 and 60054/08, 23 November 2010, the lead case, which is listed to be heard on 9 February 2011 (ie, after Chester is heard in the Court of Appeal).
Meanwhile, the ECtHR has hundreds (now possibly thousands) of cases pending. The court has named three lead cases to be heard next year, and it is staying all other cases. The Committee of Ministers, which oversees ECtHRs’ judgments, has spoken in ever-increasing frustration of the UK’s failure to amend its system; however, at its last meeting, the committee also expressed concern that the ECtHR was now being swamped with applications, which also puts pressure on the UK to comply with Hirst. Kenneth Clarke, the present Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, said in response to questions that there is no suggestion that all prisoners will have the right to vote but consideration is being given to how to implement the ECtHRs’ ruling to avoid a deluge of compensation claims.
However, for the supporters of prisoners’ right to vote, the matter has little to do with compensation and is more a question of moral conscience. They argue that if prisoners are excluded from voting we do not have a democratic society, we are just paying lip service to one.
December 2010
Matthew Evans, managing solicitor at the Prisoners’ Advice Service, writes:
As things stand, the UK’s 85,393-strong prison population (all avowed Conservative party voters, according to some media reports) are barred from voting in elections under Representation of the People Act 1983 s3. In Hirst v UK (No 2) App No 74025/01, 30 March 2004, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled unanimously that the maintenance of an absolute bar on convicted prisoners voting was in breach of article 3 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights (right to free and fair elections).
The UK government appealed the decision unsuccessfully before the ECtHR Grand Chamber. Following the appeal, the then Labour government commenced – without much enthusiasm – two consultations (in December 2006 and April 2009) over whether or not to give prisoners the vote. Eventually, Jack Straw, the then Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, proposed that the right be granted to all prisoners except those convicted of serious violent and sexual offences.
In 2009, a post-tariff mandatory life sentence prisoner applied for judicial review of a decision to refuse to register him on the electoral register in order to be able to vote in the June 2009 European elections (R (Chester) v (1) Secretary of State for Justice (2) Wakefield MDC [2009] EWHC 2923 (Admin), 28 October 2009). The application was dismissed. According to the court, the enfranchisement of post-tariff life sentence prisoners was a matter for parliament; as the shape and nature of the proposed legislation is as yet undecided, it would be inappropriate for the court to interfere with the parliamentary process. The court added that any proposal for electoral reform would have to be consistent with the ECtHRs’ decision in Hirst concerning the blanket ban on the right of prisoners to vote.
Currently, therefore, domestic proceedings are bound to fail in light of Chester (an appeal is to be heard next month). A number of prisoners have issued compensation claims in the ECtHR and in the UK courts. Strasbourg has a strict six-month time limit; as a consequence, an application must be lodged within six months of the UK’s general election. Those who have sued in the UK have met various responses: some courts have refused to issue decisions and the government is seeking to strike out Greens and MT v UK App Nos 60041/08 and 60054/08, 23 November 2010, the lead case, which is listed to be heard on 9 February 2011 (ie, after Chester is heard in the Court of Appeal).
Meanwhile, the ECtHR has hundreds (now possibly thousands) of cases pending. The court has named three lead cases to be heard next year, and it is staying all other cases. The Committee of Ministers, which oversees ECtHRs’ judgments, has spoken in ever-increasing frustration of the UK’s failure to amend its system; however, at its last meeting, the committee also expressed concern that the ECtHR was now being swamped with applications, which also puts pressure on the UK to comply with Hirst. Kenneth Clarke, the present Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice, said in response to questions that there is no suggestion that all prisoners will have the right to vote but consideration is being given to how to implement the ECtHRs’ ruling to avoid a deluge of compensation claims.
However, for the supporters of prisoners’ right to vote, the matter has little to do with compensation and is more a question of moral conscience. They argue that if prisoners are excluded from voting we do not have a democratic society, we are just paying lip service to one.
Tuesday, December 14, 2010
Georgia inmates use cellphones to stage historic nonviolent strike
Georgia inmates use cellphones to stage historic nonviolent strike
By David Edwards
Tuesday, December 14th, 2010 -- 1:45 pm
Using cellphones, inmates in as many of 10 of Georgia's correctional facilities have successfully organized a peaceful protest against what they see as cruel and unusual punishment.
The prisoners acquired phones from guards, enabling them to plan their grassroots demonstration.
"The protest began Thursday, but inmates said that organizers had spent months building a web of disparate factions and gangs — groups not known to cooperate — into a unified coalition using text messaging and word of mouth," The New York Times reported.
In what was intended to be a one-day strike but has lasted six, prisoners vowed to stay in their cells, refused work assignments and other activities. The Georgia Department of Corrections has not publicly acknowledged the strike.
"This is a groundbreaking event not only because inmates are standing up for themselves and their own human rights, but because prisoners are setting an example by reaching across racial boundaries which, in prisons, have historically been used to pit oppressed communities against each other," Bruce A. Dixon noted, writing for the Black Agenda Report.
"We have unconfirmed reports that authorities at Macon State prison have aggressively responded to the strike by sending tactical squads in to rough up and menace inmates," Dixon wrote.
The strikers' list of demands include getting paid for their work, better nutrition, better medical care and more educational opportunities.
"They took the cigarettes away in August or September, and a bunch of us just got to talking, and that was a big factor," one inmate named Mike told the Times.
Inmates described the strike more like Congressional vote whipping via social networking than a prison revolt.
After setting a date for the strike, organizers began contacting influential prisoners by text message. "Anybody that has some sort of dictatorship or leadership amongst the crowds," Mike said. "We have to come together and set aside all differences, whites, blacks, those of us that are affiliated in gangs."
There was at least one point man with a cellphone in each participating dormitory.
Another inmate, Miguel, estimated that as many as 10 percent of inmates have phones. "We try and keep up with what’s going on in the news and what’s going on at other facilities," he said.
Miguel paid a guard $400 for a cellphone that would sale for about $20 on the street.
Advocate Elaine Brown is one of the strikers' closest advisers. Her son is being held at Macon State Prison. Brown spoke to Democracy Now's Amy Goodman Tuesday.
"These men created what is effectively a spontaneous decision by networking with each other and by saying, you know, we're tired of all of the abuse we've been suffering here," Brown said.
"They are in day six and they are still holding out and saying they will not come out and work unless they can sit down at the table and begin to get their demands met and their issues dealt with."
By David Edwards
Tuesday, December 14th, 2010 -- 1:45 pm
Using cellphones, inmates in as many of 10 of Georgia's correctional facilities have successfully organized a peaceful protest against what they see as cruel and unusual punishment.
The prisoners acquired phones from guards, enabling them to plan their grassroots demonstration.
"The protest began Thursday, but inmates said that organizers had spent months building a web of disparate factions and gangs — groups not known to cooperate — into a unified coalition using text messaging and word of mouth," The New York Times reported.
In what was intended to be a one-day strike but has lasted six, prisoners vowed to stay in their cells, refused work assignments and other activities. The Georgia Department of Corrections has not publicly acknowledged the strike.
"This is a groundbreaking event not only because inmates are standing up for themselves and their own human rights, but because prisoners are setting an example by reaching across racial boundaries which, in prisons, have historically been used to pit oppressed communities against each other," Bruce A. Dixon noted, writing for the Black Agenda Report.
"We have unconfirmed reports that authorities at Macon State prison have aggressively responded to the strike by sending tactical squads in to rough up and menace inmates," Dixon wrote.
The strikers' list of demands include getting paid for their work, better nutrition, better medical care and more educational opportunities.
"They took the cigarettes away in August or September, and a bunch of us just got to talking, and that was a big factor," one inmate named Mike told the Times.
Inmates described the strike more like Congressional vote whipping via social networking than a prison revolt.
After setting a date for the strike, organizers began contacting influential prisoners by text message. "Anybody that has some sort of dictatorship or leadership amongst the crowds," Mike said. "We have to come together and set aside all differences, whites, blacks, those of us that are affiliated in gangs."
There was at least one point man with a cellphone in each participating dormitory.
Another inmate, Miguel, estimated that as many as 10 percent of inmates have phones. "We try and keep up with what’s going on in the news and what’s going on at other facilities," he said.
Miguel paid a guard $400 for a cellphone that would sale for about $20 on the street.
Advocate Elaine Brown is one of the strikers' closest advisers. Her son is being held at Macon State Prison. Brown spoke to Democracy Now's Amy Goodman Tuesday.
"These men created what is effectively a spontaneous decision by networking with each other and by saying, you know, we're tired of all of the abuse we've been suffering here," Brown said.
"They are in day six and they are still holding out and saying they will not come out and work unless they can sit down at the table and begin to get their demands met and their issues dealt with."
One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you...
One of these days these boots are gonna walk all over you...
The first person to face a second murder trial following the removal of the double jeopardy rule was today convicted of battering a woman to death in 1995.
Mark Weston, 35, from the Oxfordshire village of Ascott-under-Wychwood, was acquitted of the murder of 30-year-old Vikki Thompson, a married mother of two children, in 1996, but a new trial was held after forensic scientists discovered specks of her blood on Weston's boots when the case was reopened.
The law was changed in 2005 to allow for retrials for serious offences in the light of new evidence.
Regardless of whether I think Mark Weston did or did not murder Vikki Thompson, I would question the legitimacy of this second trial on the ground that old evidence which existed at the original trial but was overlooked hardly constitutes new evidence.
A Crown Prosecution Service spokeswoman said: "There has to be new evidence which was not available at the time of the original trial".
"After reopening the case and re-examining Weston's boots, which had been retained following the original trial, forensic scientists discovered two specks of Thompson's blood, which had been deposited on the footwear when wet but had been previously overlooked".
Why was Mark Weston's property retained by the police and not returned to him following him being found not guilty? My property was returned to me and I was guilty!
It might be argued that there was new forensic techniques, but this is not the same as new evidence. In my view, the police conducted an unlawful search of private property without the owner's consent.
Perhaps, Mark Weston's lawyers should consider an appeal?
The first person to face a second murder trial following the removal of the double jeopardy rule was today convicted of battering a woman to death in 1995.
Mark Weston, 35, from the Oxfordshire village of Ascott-under-Wychwood, was acquitted of the murder of 30-year-old Vikki Thompson, a married mother of two children, in 1996, but a new trial was held after forensic scientists discovered specks of her blood on Weston's boots when the case was reopened.
The law was changed in 2005 to allow for retrials for serious offences in the light of new evidence.
Regardless of whether I think Mark Weston did or did not murder Vikki Thompson, I would question the legitimacy of this second trial on the ground that old evidence which existed at the original trial but was overlooked hardly constitutes new evidence.
A Crown Prosecution Service spokeswoman said: "There has to be new evidence which was not available at the time of the original trial".
"After reopening the case and re-examining Weston's boots, which had been retained following the original trial, forensic scientists discovered two specks of Thompson's blood, which had been deposited on the footwear when wet but had been previously overlooked".
Why was Mark Weston's property retained by the police and not returned to him following him being found not guilty? My property was returned to me and I was guilty!
It might be argued that there was new forensic techniques, but this is not the same as new evidence. In my view, the police conducted an unlawful search of private property without the owner's consent.
Perhaps, Mark Weston's lawyers should consider an appeal?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)