David Threlfall
David Threlfall with his Bosnian wife Brana Bajic
Pauline McLynnBackground from the grim reaper blog
Law Report for ETK - and - News Group Newspapers Ltd
Ryan Giggs v (1) News Group Newspapers and (2) Imogen Thomas
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
Tuesday, May 17, 2011
David Threlfall v News Group Newspapers Ltd
David Threlfall v News Group Newspapers Ltd
David Threlfall
David Threlfall with his Bosnian wife Brana Bajic
Pauline McLynn
Background from the grim reaper blog
Law Report for ETK - and - News Group Newspapers Ltd
Ryan Giggs v (1) News Group Newspapers and (2) Imogen Thomas
David ThrelfallDavid Threlfall with his Bosnian wife Brana BajicPauline McLynnBackground from the grim reaper blog
Law Report for ETK - and - News Group Newspapers Ltd
Ryan Giggs v (1) News Group Newspapers and (2) Imogen Thomas
Monday, May 16, 2011
Lord Hanningfield 'on plane at time of expenses claim'
Lord Hanningfield 'on plane at time of expenses claim'
PA
Monday, 16 May 2011
A Tory peer accused of fiddling his House of Lords expenses was on a plane to India when he claimed for overnight accommodation in London, a court heard today.
Lord Hanningfield, who is being tried under his name Paul White, made various claims for accommodation expenses incurred after performing his duties in the House of Lords between March 2006 and April 2009 but he did not stay at hotels in the capital, Chelmsford Crown Court was told.
The former leader of Essex County Council would claim for hotel costs but travel back to his home in West Hanningfield, near Chelmsford, Essex, said prosecutor Clare Montgomery QC.
She said: "We will call evidence to establish that each one of Lord Hanningfield's claims for night subsistence was false.
"He never stayed overnight in London at any stage during the period in the charges.
"On the vast majority of nights he went home to Hanningfield.
"On the few occasions he did not, he was not in London. He was variously on an airplane bound for India or at hotels outside London all paid for by someone else, mainly Essex County Council."
The 70-year-old denies six counts of false accounting.
Miss Montgomery suggested that, on some occasions, White would make false claims for travelling expenses to mask dishonest claims for overnight subsistence.
She told jurors: "You will need to consider whether the false travel claims were deliberately designed by Lord Hanningfield to hide the fact that he returned home to Hanningfield every night, normally by car.
"Was this because Lord Hanningfield knew that if he had accurately reported his journey home, it would have been obvious that he was not entitled to be paid overnight subsistence since he would not have had, or needed to have, any overnight accommodation in London?"
Miss Montgomery highlighted some of the instances when White was said to have made false claims for travel costs.
She said that in March 2006, White made claims for travel every Friday of the month, when the Lords rarely sit on Fridays.
He also claimed for a 15-mile journey from Chelmsford railway station to his home in West Hanningfield when the journey was actually only 7.5 miles, jurors were told.
Miss Montgomery said the finance department of the House of Lords, which authorised expense claims, operated largely on a "system of trust".
She added: "The prosecution case is that Lord Hanningfield took advantage of the system of trust to make false claims for travel and overnight accommodation in the six monthly claim forms with which he is charged."
The trial judge, Mr Justice Saunders, allowed White to sit behind his team of lawyers instead of in the dock because of hearing difficulties.
White, wearing a dark suit, a white stripped shirt and a grey patterned tie, listened intently as Miss Montgomery addressed the jury of three men and nine women.
The judge earlier told the press they could use the micro-blogging site Twitter from inside the courtroom to report the case as it progressed.
White was charged with the offences in February last year.
He was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative Party and stood down as a frontbench business spokesman in the Lords and as leader of Essex County Council.
He was the leader of the council for about 10 years. White was first elected as an Essex county councillor in 1970.
He was made a life peer in 1998, during a spell on the Conservative Party board from 1997 to 2001.
White became a spokesman for the party in the Lords from 2003, shadowing variously local government, education, transport and finally business.
The peer has been a vigorous campaigner against post office closures and the expansion of Stansted airport.
PA
Monday, 16 May 2011
A Tory peer accused of fiddling his House of Lords expenses was on a plane to India when he claimed for overnight accommodation in London, a court heard today.
Lord Hanningfield, who is being tried under his name Paul White, made various claims for accommodation expenses incurred after performing his duties in the House of Lords between March 2006 and April 2009 but he did not stay at hotels in the capital, Chelmsford Crown Court was told.
The former leader of Essex County Council would claim for hotel costs but travel back to his home in West Hanningfield, near Chelmsford, Essex, said prosecutor Clare Montgomery QC.
She said: "We will call evidence to establish that each one of Lord Hanningfield's claims for night subsistence was false.
"He never stayed overnight in London at any stage during the period in the charges.
"On the vast majority of nights he went home to Hanningfield.
"On the few occasions he did not, he was not in London. He was variously on an airplane bound for India or at hotels outside London all paid for by someone else, mainly Essex County Council."
The 70-year-old denies six counts of false accounting.
Miss Montgomery suggested that, on some occasions, White would make false claims for travelling expenses to mask dishonest claims for overnight subsistence.
She told jurors: "You will need to consider whether the false travel claims were deliberately designed by Lord Hanningfield to hide the fact that he returned home to Hanningfield every night, normally by car.
"Was this because Lord Hanningfield knew that if he had accurately reported his journey home, it would have been obvious that he was not entitled to be paid overnight subsistence since he would not have had, or needed to have, any overnight accommodation in London?"
Miss Montgomery highlighted some of the instances when White was said to have made false claims for travel costs.
She said that in March 2006, White made claims for travel every Friday of the month, when the Lords rarely sit on Fridays.
He also claimed for a 15-mile journey from Chelmsford railway station to his home in West Hanningfield when the journey was actually only 7.5 miles, jurors were told.
Miss Montgomery said the finance department of the House of Lords, which authorised expense claims, operated largely on a "system of trust".
She added: "The prosecution case is that Lord Hanningfield took advantage of the system of trust to make false claims for travel and overnight accommodation in the six monthly claim forms with which he is charged."
The trial judge, Mr Justice Saunders, allowed White to sit behind his team of lawyers instead of in the dock because of hearing difficulties.
White, wearing a dark suit, a white stripped shirt and a grey patterned tie, listened intently as Miss Montgomery addressed the jury of three men and nine women.
The judge earlier told the press they could use the micro-blogging site Twitter from inside the courtroom to report the case as it progressed.
White was charged with the offences in February last year.
He was suspended from the parliamentary Conservative Party and stood down as a frontbench business spokesman in the Lords and as leader of Essex County Council.
He was the leader of the council for about 10 years. White was first elected as an Essex county councillor in 1970.
He was made a life peer in 1998, during a spell on the Conservative Party board from 1997 to 2001.
White became a spokesman for the party in the Lords from 2003, shadowing variously local government, education, transport and finally business.
The peer has been a vigorous campaigner against post office closures and the expansion of Stansted airport.
Sky News launches live Supreme Court coverage
Sky News launches live Supreme Court coverage
Monday 16 May 2011 by Catherine Baksi
Sky News has today launched live coverage of proceedings in the UK’s Supreme Court.
The court’s hearings and judgments can now be watched live over the internet.
The Supreme Court is exempt from the prohibition on filming court proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and has four cameras installed in each of its three court rooms, but until now use of footage has generally been limited to news coverage and occasional documentaries.
The move means that legal professionals, students and members of the public interested in the work of the Supreme Court do not have to travel to London to see proceedings.
However, there will be occasions where the nature of the case means that live streaming is suspended.
The court’s chief executive Jenny Rowe said: ‘We hope that making available live video of the court’s hearings and judgments will help the legal profession, and inspire and educate the next generation.
‘We are grateful to Sky News for taking the initiative in developing this service, which will be welcomed by all those who are concerned [about] seeing justice being done.’
Monday 16 May 2011 by Catherine Baksi
Sky News has today launched live coverage of proceedings in the UK’s Supreme Court.
The court’s hearings and judgments can now be watched live over the internet.
The Supreme Court is exempt from the prohibition on filming court proceedings in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and has four cameras installed in each of its three court rooms, but until now use of footage has generally been limited to news coverage and occasional documentaries.
The move means that legal professionals, students and members of the public interested in the work of the Supreme Court do not have to travel to London to see proceedings.
However, there will be occasions where the nature of the case means that live streaming is suspended.
The court’s chief executive Jenny Rowe said: ‘We hope that making available live video of the court’s hearings and judgments will help the legal profession, and inspire and educate the next generation.
‘We are grateful to Sky News for taking the initiative in developing this service, which will be welcomed by all those who are concerned [about] seeing justice being done.’
Injunction prohibits naming Ryan Giggs
Injunction prohibits naming Ryan Giggs
Publication of any report as to the subject-matter of these proceedings or the identity of the Claimant is limited to what is contained in this judgment and in the order of the court dated 21 April 2011.
Law Report
Imogen Thomas
The Sun newspaper lost its bid to get the super-injunction lifted today.
Super-injunction footballer 'blackmailed' over affair with Big Brother contestant
A premiership footballer who has taken out a gagging order over his alleged affair with Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas sought the injunction after she tried to blackmail him for £100,000, a court heard yesterday.
Latest news for 22 May Ryan Giggs named in Scottish press.
Publication of any report as to the subject-matter of these proceedings or the identity of the Claimant is limited to what is contained in this judgment and in the order of the court dated 21 April 2011.
Law Report
Imogen ThomasThe Sun newspaper lost its bid to get the super-injunction lifted today.
Super-injunction footballer 'blackmailed' over affair with Big Brother contestant
A premiership footballer who has taken out a gagging order over his alleged affair with Big Brother contestant Imogen Thomas sought the injunction after she tried to blackmail him for £100,000, a court heard yesterday.
Latest news for 22 May Ryan Giggs named in Scottish press.
European Convention on Human Rights: Public Finance
European Convention on Human Rights: Public Finance
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the public purse of implementing the judgments of the European Convention on Human Rights since 1998. [54546]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Ministry of Justice has not made an estimate of the cost to the public purse of implementing the judgments since 1998 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The implementation of judgments issued by the ECtHR is the responsibility of the Government Department responsible for the policy area concerned.
The measures taken to implement judgments, and the costs and benefits of such measures, can vary considerably depending on the circumstances of the case, and some can be included in wider changes to policy or legislation. The provision of accurate estimates of the total costs associated with the implementation of the judgments of the ECtHR since 1998 would be extremely challenging and could not be done without incurring disproportionate cost.
Comment: Is Kenneth Clarke stating it is too expensive to discover how much the UK's breaches of human rights are costing the taxpayers?
Philip Davies: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the public purse of implementing the judgments of the European Convention on Human Rights since 1998. [54546]
Mr Kenneth Clarke: The Ministry of Justice has not made an estimate of the cost to the public purse of implementing the judgments since 1998 of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The implementation of judgments issued by the ECtHR is the responsibility of the Government Department responsible for the policy area concerned.
The measures taken to implement judgments, and the costs and benefits of such measures, can vary considerably depending on the circumstances of the case, and some can be included in wider changes to policy or legislation. The provision of accurate estimates of the total costs associated with the implementation of the judgments of the ECtHR since 1998 would be extremely challenging and could not be done without incurring disproportionate cost.
Comment: Is Kenneth Clarke stating it is too expensive to discover how much the UK's breaches of human rights are costing the taxpayers?
Dimbleby’s prison visit is a step in the right direction
Dimbleby’s prison visit is a step in the right direction
By Sarah Foster
Published on Monday 16 May 2011 10:03
David Dimbelby
Furious backlash, outrage, uproar. Just four of the words I’ve seen levelled at the BBC for its decision to film this week’s Question Time in a prison.
What a great idea. Four more words – and this time they are mine.
Whether you like it or not, the UK has until October to reverse an age-old ban on refusing prisoners the vote.
As much as David Cameron might like to put his head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening, it is.
So there really is no better time to let David Dimbleby into Wormwood Scrubs and invite up to 10 serving prisoners to join the audience.
Shock horror, they’ll even be allowed to ask a question. But the baying public should be placated a little when they know the offenders won’t be serving time for violent crimes.
I can see why some small-minded people might feel outraged at the idea of treating those in prison like human beings with voices of their own and a part to play in democracy.
But the predicted uproar ahead of Thursday’s programme doesn’t make sense.
People who break the law deserve to be punished and sometimes that means they go to prison.
What hope do we have as a society, though, if we don’t aim to let them back out as reformed, respectful characters at some point in their lives?
Losing their liberty is their punishment. You can debate the conditions they face while they are doing time – and the daft sentencing guidelines that exist – until the cows come home. But neither of those things have anything to do with democracy.
There are plenty of people I disagree with, who do things I don’t like, things that I actually find deplorable.
We can’t go around taking the vote off them. Of course, it would be a handy way to get rid of idiots like the BNP, but the point is people can exercise their democratic right to vote for whoever they want.
Why is it any different for prisoners and what do we have to fear from giving them the vote anyway?
You either believe in democracy or you don’t. It’s quite simple really, there aren’t any grey areas.
By Sarah Foster
Published on Monday 16 May 2011 10:03
David DimbelbyFurious backlash, outrage, uproar. Just four of the words I’ve seen levelled at the BBC for its decision to film this week’s Question Time in a prison.
What a great idea. Four more words – and this time they are mine.
Whether you like it or not, the UK has until October to reverse an age-old ban on refusing prisoners the vote.
As much as David Cameron might like to put his head in the sand and pretend it’s not happening, it is.
So there really is no better time to let David Dimbleby into Wormwood Scrubs and invite up to 10 serving prisoners to join the audience.
Shock horror, they’ll even be allowed to ask a question. But the baying public should be placated a little when they know the offenders won’t be serving time for violent crimes.
I can see why some small-minded people might feel outraged at the idea of treating those in prison like human beings with voices of their own and a part to play in democracy.
But the predicted uproar ahead of Thursday’s programme doesn’t make sense.
People who break the law deserve to be punished and sometimes that means they go to prison.
What hope do we have as a society, though, if we don’t aim to let them back out as reformed, respectful characters at some point in their lives?
Losing their liberty is their punishment. You can debate the conditions they face while they are doing time – and the daft sentencing guidelines that exist – until the cows come home. But neither of those things have anything to do with democracy.
There are plenty of people I disagree with, who do things I don’t like, things that I actually find deplorable.
We can’t go around taking the vote off them. Of course, it would be a handy way to get rid of idiots like the BNP, but the point is people can exercise their democratic right to vote for whoever they want.
Why is it any different for prisoners and what do we have to fear from giving them the vote anyway?
You either believe in democracy or you don’t. It’s quite simple really, there aren’t any grey areas.
The not so transparent UK on Europe!
The not so transparent UK on Europe!
At the 6th WORKING MEETING OF THE CDDH INFORMAL WORKING GROUP ON THE ACCESSION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH-UE) WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION the UK was represented by Mr Rob LINHAM, Head of Litigation, Legislation and European Institutions, Human Rights Division, Ministry of Justice, London.
Why am I discovering that this department within the MoJ exists via the Council of Europe website and not via the MoJ website? So much for transparency in the Coalition Government!
Given that this is such an important issue in relations between Europe and the UK, why wasn't the UK represented instead by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, William Hague, or the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke, or the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve?
At the 6th WORKING MEETING OF THE CDDH INFORMAL WORKING GROUP ON THE ACCESSION OF THE EUROPEAN UNION TO THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (CDDH-UE) WITH THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION the UK was represented by Mr Rob LINHAM, Head of Litigation, Legislation and European Institutions, Human Rights Division, Ministry of Justice, London.
Why am I discovering that this department within the MoJ exists via the Council of Europe website and not via the MoJ website? So much for transparency in the Coalition Government!
Given that this is such an important issue in relations between Europe and the UK, why wasn't the UK represented instead by the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, William Hague, or the Secretary of State for Justice, Kenneth Clarke, or the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve?
Fat Cat Nigel Farage smoking a fat cigar
Fat Cat Nigel Farage smoking a fat cigar
Hardly a good advert for RallyAgainstDebt!
Hardly a good advert for RallyAgainstDebt!
Tory peer Lord Hanningfield to face trial over expenses
Tory peer Lord Hanningfield to face trial over expenses
A Conservative peer is due to go on trial accused of fiddling his parliamentary expenses.
BBC News Politics 16 May 2011 Last updated at 09:05
Lord Hanningfield has said he made the claims in good faith
Lord Hanningfield, 70, faces six charges of false accounting between March 2006 and May 2009.
He is accused of claiming overnight allowances for London accommodation when records allegedly show he was driven home to Chelmsford, Essex.
The former leader of Essex County Council will appear before Chelmsford Crown Court under his name Paul White.
Lord Hanningfield was charged in February last year.
He was suspended from the Parliamentary Conservative Party and stood down as a frontbench business spokesman in the House of Lords and as leader of Essex County Council.
He said at the time that the accommodation claims had been made in good faith.
A Conservative peer is due to go on trial accused of fiddling his parliamentary expenses.
BBC News Politics 16 May 2011 Last updated at 09:05
Lord Hanningfield has said he made the claims in good faithLord Hanningfield, 70, faces six charges of false accounting between March 2006 and May 2009.
He is accused of claiming overnight allowances for London accommodation when records allegedly show he was driven home to Chelmsford, Essex.
The former leader of Essex County Council will appear before Chelmsford Crown Court under his name Paul White.
Lord Hanningfield was charged in February last year.
He was suspended from the Parliamentary Conservative Party and stood down as a frontbench business spokesman in the House of Lords and as leader of Essex County Council.
He said at the time that the accommodation claims had been made in good faith.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
Jailhouselawyer becomes a net warrior over super-injunctions
Jailhouselawyer becomes a net warrior over super-injunctions
Net warriors fight gagging culture
By Richard Woods and Robin Henry, Sunday Times, 15 May 2011
"...As if to ram the point home, a British blogger raised the stakes on Friday. The man, who lives in Hull, published on his website a draconian injunction involving a wealthy family who are not celebrities. The document was supposed to be confidential and to keep secret the names of the parties involved.
The blogger declared that the law is an ass and told the Sunday Times: "Someone described what I've done as historic. Maybe. I didn't really think about it".
Though he risks prosecution, he said: "Obviously I'm worried, but I think justice should manifestly be seen to be done. It is either out in the open or it is closed".
By yesterday, 8,000 people had read the super-injunction on his site and many more may have been sent links to it".
Net warriors fight gagging culture
By Richard Woods and Robin Henry, Sunday Times, 15 May 2011
"...As if to ram the point home, a British blogger raised the stakes on Friday. The man, who lives in Hull, published on his website a draconian injunction involving a wealthy family who are not celebrities. The document was supposed to be confidential and to keep secret the names of the parties involved.
The blogger declared that the law is an ass and told the Sunday Times: "Someone described what I've done as historic. Maybe. I didn't really think about it".
Though he risks prosecution, he said: "Obviously I'm worried, but I think justice should manifestly be seen to be done. It is either out in the open or it is closed".
By yesterday, 8,000 people had read the super-injunction on his site and many more may have been sent links to it".
Madeleine probe 'a ludicrous waste'
Madeleine probe 'a ludicrous waste'
By Katie Hodge, PA
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Scotland Yard's review of the Madeleine McCann case is a "ludicrous" waste of money, a senior member of the its governing body has claimed.
Jenny Jones hit out at David Cameron's controversial decision to involve the Metropolitan Police and said the move would deny other victims of crime the chance of justice while using up valuable police resources.
The review has already sparked faced fierce criticism amid suggestion the intervention could undermine the independence of the force.
Ms Jones, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Assembly, told The Mail on Sunday: "The police should not take this case up in this way.
"It is ludicrous. This could take years and will cost millions. It is very unusual for police to step in like this and it is not an appropriate use of police resources."
She said the MPA would now be asking tough questions of the move, adding: "The Government is closing down the Forensic Science Service because there are not enough funds. This is a crucial part of police work.
"Although it is tragic and I feel for the McCanns, how can the Prime Minister justify spending millions of pounds on one case?"
Her comments echo remarks made by fellow Metropolitan Police Authority member Lord Harris last week.
Writing on his blog, he said: "Whilst no one doubts the desirability of doing what can sensibly be done to find out what has happened to Madeleine McCann, I can imagine that the senior leadership of the Metropolitan Police are not exactly happy about this.
"It again embroils their officers in a high-profile investigation, where the chances of success are unclear, and which will divert limited investigative resources away from other matters."
However Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, have welcomed the move.
They have said Prime Minister David Cameron gave assurances that all funds for the case review would come from central Government and would not eat into the force's budget.
Madeleine went missing from her family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on May 3 2007, shortly before her fourth birthday.
Portuguese police, helped by officers from Leicestershire Police, carried out a massive investigation into her disappearance but the official inquiry was formally shelved in July 2008.
Since then no police force has been actively looking for the missing child.
The review will be led Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command (HSCC).
He has previously conducted an investigation which snared murderer Miguel da Silva after a cold case review.
The killer, who went on the run for 15 years after strangling mother-of-two Susan Martin, 44, in 1994, was jailed for life at the Old Bailey last November and told he must serve at least 16 years behind bars.
Mr Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, HSCC operational command unit commander, and the senior officer in overall charge of the HSCC, Commander Simon Foy.
By Katie Hodge, PA
Sunday, 15 May 2011
Scotland Yard's review of the Madeleine McCann case is a "ludicrous" waste of money, a senior member of the its governing body has claimed.
Jenny Jones hit out at David Cameron's controversial decision to involve the Metropolitan Police and said the move would deny other victims of crime the chance of justice while using up valuable police resources.
The review has already sparked faced fierce criticism amid suggestion the intervention could undermine the independence of the force.
Ms Jones, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority and the London Assembly, told The Mail on Sunday: "The police should not take this case up in this way.
"It is ludicrous. This could take years and will cost millions. It is very unusual for police to step in like this and it is not an appropriate use of police resources."
She said the MPA would now be asking tough questions of the move, adding: "The Government is closing down the Forensic Science Service because there are not enough funds. This is a crucial part of police work.
"Although it is tragic and I feel for the McCanns, how can the Prime Minister justify spending millions of pounds on one case?"
Her comments echo remarks made by fellow Metropolitan Police Authority member Lord Harris last week.
Writing on his blog, he said: "Whilst no one doubts the desirability of doing what can sensibly be done to find out what has happened to Madeleine McCann, I can imagine that the senior leadership of the Metropolitan Police are not exactly happy about this.
"It again embroils their officers in a high-profile investigation, where the chances of success are unclear, and which will divert limited investigative resources away from other matters."
However Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, have welcomed the move.
They have said Prime Minister David Cameron gave assurances that all funds for the case review would come from central Government and would not eat into the force's budget.
Madeleine went missing from her family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on May 3 2007, shortly before her fourth birthday.
Portuguese police, helped by officers from Leicestershire Police, carried out a massive investigation into her disappearance but the official inquiry was formally shelved in July 2008.
Since then no police force has been actively looking for the missing child.
The review will be led Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, from the Homicide and Serious Crime Command (HSCC).
He has previously conducted an investigation which snared murderer Miguel da Silva after a cold case review.
The killer, who went on the run for 15 years after strangling mother-of-two Susan Martin, 44, in 1994, was jailed for life at the Old Bailey last November and told he must serve at least 16 years behind bars.
Mr Redwood will report to Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, HSCC operational command unit commander, and the senior officer in overall charge of the HSCC, Commander Simon Foy.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Officer held in corruption probe
Officer held in corruption probe
By Mike Hornby, Press Association
Saturday, 14 May 2011
A senior police officer has been suspended from duty following a corruption investigation, police said today.
Greater Manchester Police inspector Mohammed Razaq, 51, was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in a public office.
The officer, who heads GMP's Bolton West neighbourhood division, was questioned by his force's professional standards branch earlier this week.
Another man, aged 52, was also arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as part of the same probe.
Both have been bailed pending further inquiries.
A GMP spokesman said: "Two men have been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
"One of them, a 51-year-old man who is also a serving officer from Bolton, was also arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office.
"He and a 52-year-old man have been bailed pending further inquiries.
"Inquiries into the incident are ongoing."
By Mike Hornby, Press Association
Saturday, 14 May 2011
A senior police officer has been suspended from duty following a corruption investigation, police said today.
Greater Manchester Police inspector Mohammed Razaq, 51, was arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice and misconduct in a public office.
The officer, who heads GMP's Bolton West neighbourhood division, was questioned by his force's professional standards branch earlier this week.
Another man, aged 52, was also arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice as part of the same probe.
Both have been bailed pending further inquiries.
A GMP spokesman said: "Two men have been arrested on suspicion of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.
"One of them, a 51-year-old man who is also a serving officer from Bolton, was also arrested on suspicion of misconduct in a public office.
"He and a 52-year-old man have been bailed pending further inquiries.
"Inquiries into the incident are ongoing."
PrisonerBen has trouble at t' mill!
PrisonerBen has trouble at t' mill!
A little birdie tells me that PrisonerBen has been charged with the unauthorised possession of a mobile phone found in his laptop.
The Coalition has recently introduced a criminal offence for possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner, with a penalty of upto 2 years imprisonment.
Of course simple possession of the mobile phone is insufficient for a guilty verdict, the charge also requires knowledge of the possession. For example, Ben's property was waiting to be collected to be X-Rayed before transfer, and may well not have been aware if another prisoner had inserted the mobile phone in the word processor in Ben's cell in his absence.
A little birdie tells me that PrisonerBen has been charged with the unauthorised possession of a mobile phone found in his laptop.
The Coalition has recently introduced a criminal offence for possession of a mobile phone by a prisoner, with a penalty of upto 2 years imprisonment.
Of course simple possession of the mobile phone is insufficient for a guilty verdict, the charge also requires knowledge of the possession. For example, Ben's property was waiting to be collected to be X-Rayed before transfer, and may well not have been aware if another prisoner had inserted the mobile phone in the word processor in Ben's cell in his absence.
So secret it cannot even mention my name or my blog!
So secret it cannot even mention my name or my blog!
Courts issue 80 gagging orders in six years
Courts issue 80 gagging orders in six years
The rich and the famous have obtained almost 80 gagging orders in British courts in six years, blocking the publication of intimate details about their private lives, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Mr Justice Eady, whose rulings have been credited with 'creating a privacy law by the back door'
By Steven Swinford, and Holly Watt 10:54PM BST 13 May 2011
Judges are issuing privacy injunctions at an increasing rate, with a total of 18 orders granted already this year compared with just five in the whole of 2005.
They have also issued 12 super-injunctions, which ban the media from referring to their existence.
The Daily Telegraph analysed all secrecy orders and injunctions issued in the past six years, prompted by suggestions that the orders are increasingly being used by the courts to enforce a “privacy law by the backdoor”.
No government department has kept track of the use of injunctions.
In the past week, the debate about gagging orders has reached the highest levels of government, with David Cameron ordering senior ministers to hold an emergency meeting to discuss the possibility of introducing a privacy law in Britain.
Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, has also said that regular breaches of injunctions on the internet are now “making a mockery” of the court orders. Earlier this week, the alleged identities of many of the famous figures who have recently obtained injunctions were published on Twitter without any apparent sanction.
The Daily Telegraph’s audit found:
• Nine footballers, nine actors, four pop stars, six wealthy businessmen and women, a senior civil servant and an MP have obtained injunctions;
• Just three High Court judges have granted more than a third of the injunctions between them;
• Schillings, the media law firm, has obtained more than 20 of the orders and been paid an estimated £2 million;
• One super-injunction is so binding that even the name of the judge has been kept secret. He can be referred to only as Mr Justice [xxxx];
• A raft of previously unpublished injunctions has been uncovered, including an international pop star who obtained a gagging order to prevent a former employee revealing details about her private life.
John Hemming, the back-bench Liberal Democrat MP who is campaigning against the excessive use of super-injunctions, said: “It’s scandalous, far too many of these injunctions have been granted, creating a dangerous culture of secrecy in British courts. These injunctions should be reserved for cases of national security and serious matters, but they are instead being used to stop rich men from getting red faces.”
The Daily Telegraph’s survey includes all 77 injunctions received by this newspaper since 2002. The secretive nature of the gagging orders, however, means there are likely to be many more.
In the past week alone there have been three applications for privacy injunctions. Two of the hearings were held in secret while the third application was granted to a Premiership footballer who had an affair.
Mr Justice Eady, whose rulings have been credited with “creating a privacy law by the back door”, has granted at least 11 privacy injunctions. Mr Justice Tugendhat has granted 10 injunctions while Mrs Justice Sharp has issued seven.
• A Premier League footballer has become the latest high-profile celebrity to gain an injunction to prevent details of an extra-marital affair becoming public. Unusually, both the player, who is a father as well as a husband, and his mistress applied to block publication in a joint move. In other recent cases, the woman has been identified while the cheating husband has been granted anonymity by the courts.
The rich and the famous have obtained almost 80 gagging orders in British courts in six years, blocking the publication of intimate details about their private lives, The Daily Telegraph can disclose.
Mr Justice Eady, whose rulings have been credited with 'creating a privacy law by the back door'By Steven Swinford, and Holly Watt 10:54PM BST 13 May 2011
Judges are issuing privacy injunctions at an increasing rate, with a total of 18 orders granted already this year compared with just five in the whole of 2005.
They have also issued 12 super-injunctions, which ban the media from referring to their existence.
The Daily Telegraph analysed all secrecy orders and injunctions issued in the past six years, prompted by suggestions that the orders are increasingly being used by the courts to enforce a “privacy law by the backdoor”.
No government department has kept track of the use of injunctions.
In the past week, the debate about gagging orders has reached the highest levels of government, with David Cameron ordering senior ministers to hold an emergency meeting to discuss the possibility of introducing a privacy law in Britain.
Jeremy Hunt, the Culture Secretary, has also said that regular breaches of injunctions on the internet are now “making a mockery” of the court orders. Earlier this week, the alleged identities of many of the famous figures who have recently obtained injunctions were published on Twitter without any apparent sanction.
The Daily Telegraph’s audit found:
• Nine footballers, nine actors, four pop stars, six wealthy businessmen and women, a senior civil servant and an MP have obtained injunctions;
• Just three High Court judges have granted more than a third of the injunctions between them;
• Schillings, the media law firm, has obtained more than 20 of the orders and been paid an estimated £2 million;
• One super-injunction is so binding that even the name of the judge has been kept secret. He can be referred to only as Mr Justice [xxxx];
• A raft of previously unpublished injunctions has been uncovered, including an international pop star who obtained a gagging order to prevent a former employee revealing details about her private life.
John Hemming, the back-bench Liberal Democrat MP who is campaigning against the excessive use of super-injunctions, said: “It’s scandalous, far too many of these injunctions have been granted, creating a dangerous culture of secrecy in British courts. These injunctions should be reserved for cases of national security and serious matters, but they are instead being used to stop rich men from getting red faces.”
The Daily Telegraph’s survey includes all 77 injunctions received by this newspaper since 2002. The secretive nature of the gagging orders, however, means there are likely to be many more.
In the past week alone there have been three applications for privacy injunctions. Two of the hearings were held in secret while the third application was granted to a Premiership footballer who had an affair.
Mr Justice Eady, whose rulings have been credited with “creating a privacy law by the back door”, has granted at least 11 privacy injunctions. Mr Justice Tugendhat has granted 10 injunctions while Mrs Justice Sharp has issued seven.
• A Premier League footballer has become the latest high-profile celebrity to gain an injunction to prevent details of an extra-marital affair becoming public. Unusually, both the player, who is a father as well as a husband, and his mistress applied to block publication in a joint move. In other recent cases, the woman has been identified while the cheating husband has been granted anonymity by the courts.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Wednesday, May 11, 2011
Government will go humbly down on bended knee on prisoners votes!
Government will go humbly down on bended knee on prisoners votes!
Mr Hollobone: On 10 February, this House voted overwhelmingly, by a majority of 10:1, to continue the ban on giving prisoners the vote, since which time the European Court of Human Rights has effectively ignored the will of this House. It still insists that the law be changed and has given the Government until October to bring forward proposals. Will Her Majesty’s Government bend their knee to the European Court or will they stand up and insist that on this issue Britain will not budge?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely clear that the House of Commons has given a very clear view that prisoners should not have the vote and my own view is that prisoners should not have the vote. I think that we should do two things. First, we should be trying to reform the European Court, as we are doing; my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary is leading this charge to make sure that it does pay more attention to national judgments and national Parliaments. But at the same time we will have to consider our response to this issue, and I want it to be as close as possible to the clearly expressed will of the House of Commons.
Source: Hansard
Comment: On 6 October 2005 the ECtHR ruled the UK guilty of a breach of convicted prisoners human right to vote. Since then the UK has ignored the Court ruling. The House of Commons did not vote overwhelmingly on this issue, in fact the vast majority of MPs abstained from voting. So, a minority of MPs are in favour of continuing this breach of human rights in spite of the UK's obligations under the Convention. Because HMG is not bound to follow the views of a minority of MPs, but is bound to follow the Court judgment HMG will humbly go down on bended knee.
Has David Cameron not heard of the saying parents have for demanding children? I want never gets! He will do as he is told or else!
Mr Hollobone: On 10 February, this House voted overwhelmingly, by a majority of 10:1, to continue the ban on giving prisoners the vote, since which time the European Court of Human Rights has effectively ignored the will of this House. It still insists that the law be changed and has given the Government until October to bring forward proposals. Will Her Majesty’s Government bend their knee to the European Court or will they stand up and insist that on this issue Britain will not budge?
The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is absolutely clear that the House of Commons has given a very clear view that prisoners should not have the vote and my own view is that prisoners should not have the vote. I think that we should do two things. First, we should be trying to reform the European Court, as we are doing; my right hon. and learned Friend the Justice Secretary is leading this charge to make sure that it does pay more attention to national judgments and national Parliaments. But at the same time we will have to consider our response to this issue, and I want it to be as close as possible to the clearly expressed will of the House of Commons.
Source: Hansard
Comment: On 6 October 2005 the ECtHR ruled the UK guilty of a breach of convicted prisoners human right to vote. Since then the UK has ignored the Court ruling. The House of Commons did not vote overwhelmingly on this issue, in fact the vast majority of MPs abstained from voting. So, a minority of MPs are in favour of continuing this breach of human rights in spite of the UK's obligations under the Convention. Because HMG is not bound to follow the views of a minority of MPs, but is bound to follow the Court judgment HMG will humbly go down on bended knee.
Has David Cameron not heard of the saying parents have for demanding children? I want never gets! He will do as he is told or else!
Glenochil Prison officer arrested over mail theft
Glenochil Prison officer arrested over mail theft
BBC News 11 May 2011 Last updated at 13:25
A senior officer at a prison near Stirling has been arrested after being accused of stealing inmates' mail.
Craig Renton, 42, has been charged with theft by Central Scotland Police. It is understood he was stopped and searched as he entered Glenochil Prison.
Mr Renton was suspended from his post at the prison after his arrest at the end of April.
A police spokeswoman said: "Inquiries are ongoing in relation to possible further postal offences."
The Scottish Prison Service said it would not comment on the matter, but confirmed a member of staff at the prison had been suspended.
BBC News 11 May 2011 Last updated at 13:25
A senior officer at a prison near Stirling has been arrested after being accused of stealing inmates' mail.
Craig Renton, 42, has been charged with theft by Central Scotland Police. It is understood he was stopped and searched as he entered Glenochil Prison.
Mr Renton was suspended from his post at the prison after his arrest at the end of April.
A police spokeswoman said: "Inquiries are ongoing in relation to possible further postal offences."
The Scottish Prison Service said it would not comment on the matter, but confirmed a member of staff at the prison had been suspended.
Emails reveal prison swaps that hid inmates from inspectors
Emails reveal prison swaps that hid inmates from inspectors
Calls for fresh investigation into suicide of vulnerable man moved between jails
By Paul Cahalan
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Christopher Wardally was a suicide risk and hanged himself soon after being sent back to Wandsworth
Prison charities and the prison officers' union have attacked an "astonishing" and "shocking" decision not to re-investigate two of the country's leading prison governors after emails implicated them in the transfer of a vulnerable prisoner – who later killed himself – in order to avoid inspections.
Ian Mulholland, the former governor of Wandsworth – the largest prison in Britain – and Nick Leader, the former governor of Pentonville, were cleared of gross misconduct after it was alleged they helped each other to evade inspectors by swapping 11 self-harming and vulnerable prisoners in May and June 2009. But a draft report – leaked to The Independent – into the suicide of 25-year-old Christopher Wardally recommended authorities re-visit the governors' conduct after the emails were discovered.
The messages showed the pair agreeing to hold Mr Wardally at Pentonville – despite his attempted suicide there a month earlier – until the day after an inspection at Wandsworth had finished. A draft report into his death by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) revealed massive failings in his care and, through the emails, tied his case to the "prisoner chess" transfer scandal unearthed in October 2009 by Dame Anne Owers, then the chief inspector of prisons.
The PPO's report revealed that after a court appearance on 26 May 2009, Mr Wardally, from south London, was taken to Pentonville despite his suicide attempt on 22 April which required him to be hospitalised for a week. In an email to Mr Mulholland a day later, Mr Leader – who is now director of the privately run Peterborough Prison – said: "We took him back with others you kindly held during our inspection. The only request I have is that post your inspection if you could take Mr Wardally back."
Mr Mulholland – now head of custody in Wales and is conducting the Prison Service's review into the riot at the Ford Prison on 1 January this year – replied two minutes later: "Happy to take him back any time from 6 June [the day after the Wandsworth inspection finished]."
Mr Wardally was returned to Wandsworth on 9 June. He was found hanged three days later.
The PPO report concludes: "The content of Mr Leader's exchange in particular leaves the reader with the impression that the forthcoming inspection certainly influenced Mr Wardally's movements. Furthermore, Mr Mulholland accepted Mr Leader's suggestion that Mr Wardally would not be returned to Wandsworth until after the inspection ended."
It states Mr Wardally's transfer to Pentonville "may well have been influenced by the forthcoming inspection of Wandsworth" and recommends new evidence be reviewed "to determine whether a renewed investigation is justified". But the National Offender Management Service (Noms), which carried out the original investigation that led to three prison managers being reprimanded, has refused to re-open the case.
A Noms spokesman said it had "conducted a full investigation" and had considered the draft PPO report. He said: "We concluded the disciplinary process was exhaustive and there is no new evidence that would have impacted the outcome of that process. We have no intention of conducting a further investigation. The emails were examined as part of the original investigation."
Noms' decision has prompted outrage from unions, prison groups and Mr Wardally's family. Steve Gillan, the general secretary of the Prison Officers' Association (POA), said: "I am astonished Noms decided not to re -investigate... the POA has no desire to have a witch-hunt... but there must be closure on this extremely sad case. Transparency... must be applied."
Andrew Neilson, the assistant director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the refusal was "pretty shocking given the PPO recommended it". "It is clear the PPO says evidence has been overlooked and there is no reason why Noms can't take the initiative... we believe [the governors] should be re-investigated."
Kathleen Wardally said the decision not to re-investigate her son's case had "destroyed her faith in the system". She said: "How can I have any faith when they are being told to re-investigate and still they won't?"
The PPO's report, which makes 35 recommendations, also alleges major failings in Mr Wardally's care and shows he was moved four times in seven weeks. The report states: "It is impossible to gauge with certainty the impact the various moves had on his mental health, but frequent transfers are a known risk factor for self-harm and suicide, especially amongst the already vulnerable."
Email from one governor to another
From Leader, Nick
Sent 27 May 2009 08:40
To Mulholland, Ian [HMPS]
Subject Mr Wardally
Importance High
Ian
As promised we took him – he came from court though without his possessions. The prisoner nearly died at the Vile so I would be grateful if you could get someone to send these over as we will look very silly if this isn't resolved. We took him back with others who you kindly held during our inspection. The only request I have is that post your inspection if you could take Mr Wardally back –probably at his next court date after the inspection... My suggestion will be to do a case review to see if we can progress to our VP [Vulnerable Prisoner] unit... (his family already showing some concern he is hear [sic]).
Nick
Calls for fresh investigation into suicide of vulnerable man moved between jails
By Paul Cahalan
Wednesday, 11 May 2011
Christopher Wardally was a suicide risk and hanged himself soon after being sent back to Wandsworth Prison charities and the prison officers' union have attacked an "astonishing" and "shocking" decision not to re-investigate two of the country's leading prison governors after emails implicated them in the transfer of a vulnerable prisoner – who later killed himself – in order to avoid inspections.
Ian Mulholland, the former governor of Wandsworth – the largest prison in Britain – and Nick Leader, the former governor of Pentonville, were cleared of gross misconduct after it was alleged they helped each other to evade inspectors by swapping 11 self-harming and vulnerable prisoners in May and June 2009. But a draft report – leaked to The Independent – into the suicide of 25-year-old Christopher Wardally recommended authorities re-visit the governors' conduct after the emails were discovered.
The messages showed the pair agreeing to hold Mr Wardally at Pentonville – despite his attempted suicide there a month earlier – until the day after an inspection at Wandsworth had finished. A draft report into his death by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman (PPO) revealed massive failings in his care and, through the emails, tied his case to the "prisoner chess" transfer scandal unearthed in October 2009 by Dame Anne Owers, then the chief inspector of prisons.
The PPO's report revealed that after a court appearance on 26 May 2009, Mr Wardally, from south London, was taken to Pentonville despite his suicide attempt on 22 April which required him to be hospitalised for a week. In an email to Mr Mulholland a day later, Mr Leader – who is now director of the privately run Peterborough Prison – said: "We took him back with others you kindly held during our inspection. The only request I have is that post your inspection if you could take Mr Wardally back."
Mr Mulholland – now head of custody in Wales and is conducting the Prison Service's review into the riot at the Ford Prison on 1 January this year – replied two minutes later: "Happy to take him back any time from 6 June [the day after the Wandsworth inspection finished]."
Mr Wardally was returned to Wandsworth on 9 June. He was found hanged three days later.
The PPO report concludes: "The content of Mr Leader's exchange in particular leaves the reader with the impression that the forthcoming inspection certainly influenced Mr Wardally's movements. Furthermore, Mr Mulholland accepted Mr Leader's suggestion that Mr Wardally would not be returned to Wandsworth until after the inspection ended."
It states Mr Wardally's transfer to Pentonville "may well have been influenced by the forthcoming inspection of Wandsworth" and recommends new evidence be reviewed "to determine whether a renewed investigation is justified". But the National Offender Management Service (Noms), which carried out the original investigation that led to three prison managers being reprimanded, has refused to re-open the case.
A Noms spokesman said it had "conducted a full investigation" and had considered the draft PPO report. He said: "We concluded the disciplinary process was exhaustive and there is no new evidence that would have impacted the outcome of that process. We have no intention of conducting a further investigation. The emails were examined as part of the original investigation."
Noms' decision has prompted outrage from unions, prison groups and Mr Wardally's family. Steve Gillan, the general secretary of the Prison Officers' Association (POA), said: "I am astonished Noms decided not to re -investigate... the POA has no desire to have a witch-hunt... but there must be closure on this extremely sad case. Transparency... must be applied."
Andrew Neilson, the assistant director of the Howard League for Penal Reform, said the refusal was "pretty shocking given the PPO recommended it". "It is clear the PPO says evidence has been overlooked and there is no reason why Noms can't take the initiative... we believe [the governors] should be re-investigated."
Kathleen Wardally said the decision not to re-investigate her son's case had "destroyed her faith in the system". She said: "How can I have any faith when they are being told to re-investigate and still they won't?"
The PPO's report, which makes 35 recommendations, also alleges major failings in Mr Wardally's care and shows he was moved four times in seven weeks. The report states: "It is impossible to gauge with certainty the impact the various moves had on his mental health, but frequent transfers are a known risk factor for self-harm and suicide, especially amongst the already vulnerable."
Email from one governor to another
From Leader, Nick
Sent 27 May 2009 08:40
To Mulholland, Ian [HMPS]
Subject Mr Wardally
Importance High
Ian
As promised we took him – he came from court though without his possessions. The prisoner nearly died at the Vile so I would be grateful if you could get someone to send these over as we will look very silly if this isn't resolved. We took him back with others who you kindly held during our inspection. The only request I have is that post your inspection if you could take Mr Wardally back –probably at his next court date after the inspection... My suggestion will be to do a case review to see if we can progress to our VP [Vulnerable Prisoner] unit... (his family already showing some concern he is hear [sic]).
Nick
Prisoners given right to vote again
Prisoners given right to vote again
Australia
Federal Parliament has passed legislation to overturn a ban on prisoners voting and to increase the amount of time people have to enrol once an election is called.
The Government says it is implementing two High Court decisions - one that overturned the Howard government's ban on prisoners voting and another that found electoral roles cannot be closed on the day writs are issued.
Prisoners serving a sentence under three years will now be able to vote and people will have seven days to enrol after election writs are issued.
Special Minister of State Gary Gray says the Government respects the Court's decisions.
"The amendments moved in 2006 were both unfortunate and inconsistent with both the spirit and the good governance of our electoral codes - they should not have happened," he said.
"The High Court agreed with that and the Government and the Parliament have today spoken on that matter."
Australia
Federal Parliament has passed legislation to overturn a ban on prisoners voting and to increase the amount of time people have to enrol once an election is called.
The Government says it is implementing two High Court decisions - one that overturned the Howard government's ban on prisoners voting and another that found electoral roles cannot be closed on the day writs are issued.
Prisoners serving a sentence under three years will now be able to vote and people will have seven days to enrol after election writs are issued.
Special Minister of State Gary Gray says the Government respects the Court's decisions.
"The amendments moved in 2006 were both unfortunate and inconsistent with both the spirit and the good governance of our electoral codes - they should not have happened," he said.
"The High Court agreed with that and the Government and the Parliament have today spoken on that matter."
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
OSCE members in Cyprus for parliamentary elections
OSCE members in Cyprus for parliamentary elections
May 10, 2011
A nine-member delegation of OSCE observers is currently in Cyprus in view of the parliamentary elections to be held on May 22.
On election day, the observers will be based in the capital Nicosia and the southern coastal town of Limassol and will tour polling stations in other districts after receiving authorisation to do so.
On Tuesday, the delegation met at the Ministry of the Interior with Chief Returning Officer Lazaros Savvides who said ''they were very pleased with what they heard and the legislation on the parliamentary elections, as well as the manner in which the Ministry of the Interior manages polling matters abroad, issues concerning religious groups etc.''
He added that questions concerning legislation on the pre-election period, the right of prisoners to vote and how persons enclaved in the Turkish occupied areas and citizens from occupied districts vote, were also answered.
Savvides said the observers also wanted to know about the percentage of women candidates, which is 25% or 98 candidates, and the way in which equality issues are handled, adding that they were satisfied with the answers they received.
He noted that the observers would be meeting with non-governmental organisations and representatives of the National Mechanism for Women's Rights, in order to form a complete picture.
The Chief Returning Officer explained to the observers that when the ballot boxes are opened and the ballot papers are sorted out and counted, no one is allowed to enter the polling stations, adding that the observers were satisfied with the fact that it was a measure taken to prevent influencing anyone within the polling station at the given moment.
Savvides said that the House of Representatives had been informed about the mission and explained that the OSCE, in a report prepared in March, had expressed interest in observing the election process in Cyprus, and on April 19 had sent a letter to the Cypriot authorities informing them that they would be in Cyprus for the elections.
''No democratic country in Europe and the OSCE has ever dared tell the OSCE that it did not accept it for any reason,'' Savvides said, adding that ''the OSCE asked if it could sent observers to Cyprus and the reply of the state in all elections has always been positive.''
Savvides pointed out that the OSCE had reported in March that it was surprised that everyone trusted the institutions in Cyprus and there had not been a single complaint.
This is the first time OSCE observers are in Cyprus for elections. The mission will remain in Cyprus until May 27 and comprises observers from Slovenia, Latvia, Germany, Canada, Ireland, France and Kazakhstan.
May 10, 2011
A nine-member delegation of OSCE observers is currently in Cyprus in view of the parliamentary elections to be held on May 22.
On election day, the observers will be based in the capital Nicosia and the southern coastal town of Limassol and will tour polling stations in other districts after receiving authorisation to do so.
On Tuesday, the delegation met at the Ministry of the Interior with Chief Returning Officer Lazaros Savvides who said ''they were very pleased with what they heard and the legislation on the parliamentary elections, as well as the manner in which the Ministry of the Interior manages polling matters abroad, issues concerning religious groups etc.''
He added that questions concerning legislation on the pre-election period, the right of prisoners to vote and how persons enclaved in the Turkish occupied areas and citizens from occupied districts vote, were also answered.
Savvides said the observers also wanted to know about the percentage of women candidates, which is 25% or 98 candidates, and the way in which equality issues are handled, adding that they were satisfied with the answers they received.
He noted that the observers would be meeting with non-governmental organisations and representatives of the National Mechanism for Women's Rights, in order to form a complete picture.
The Chief Returning Officer explained to the observers that when the ballot boxes are opened and the ballot papers are sorted out and counted, no one is allowed to enter the polling stations, adding that the observers were satisfied with the fact that it was a measure taken to prevent influencing anyone within the polling station at the given moment.
Savvides said that the House of Representatives had been informed about the mission and explained that the OSCE, in a report prepared in March, had expressed interest in observing the election process in Cyprus, and on April 19 had sent a letter to the Cypriot authorities informing them that they would be in Cyprus for the elections.
''No democratic country in Europe and the OSCE has ever dared tell the OSCE that it did not accept it for any reason,'' Savvides said, adding that ''the OSCE asked if it could sent observers to Cyprus and the reply of the state in all elections has always been positive.''
Savvides pointed out that the OSCE had reported in March that it was surprised that everyone trusted the institutions in Cyprus and there had not been a single complaint.
This is the first time OSCE observers are in Cyprus for elections. The mission will remain in Cyprus until May 27 and comprises observers from Slovenia, Latvia, Germany, Canada, Ireland, France and Kazakhstan.
Kate McCann: why didn’t they believe her?
Kate McCann: why didn’t they believe her?
Do you think it could have something to do with the lies that the McCanns told and that that is good enough reason not to believe her?
For example...
I hope Kate McCann is asked to explain why the McCanns put out the false story that the shutters had been jemmied and Apartment 5 A was the subject of a break-in?
This was the McCann theory fed to the British press. And they lapped it up. Break-in + abductor = abduction. The Mark Warner complex stated that there was no break-in. Then the police said that there was no evidence of a break-in. It was not until October, almost 6 months later, before Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns press spokesman admitted that there was no break-in.
The British media did not ask for an explanation why the McCanns fabricated the break-in story. Shouldn't the British media at least consider it was a cover up? Because without the break-in the abductor and abduction parts also tend to fall down.
And yet, Cassandra Jardine writes "the McCanns learnt after the abduction" as though it is a fact that Madeleine was abducted. But, the fact is that it was only ever the McCanns version of events and not the truth.
Do you think it could have something to do with the lies that the McCanns told and that that is good enough reason not to believe her?
For example...
I hope Kate McCann is asked to explain why the McCanns put out the false story that the shutters had been jemmied and Apartment 5 A was the subject of a break-in?
This was the McCann theory fed to the British press. And they lapped it up. Break-in + abductor = abduction. The Mark Warner complex stated that there was no break-in. Then the police said that there was no evidence of a break-in. It was not until October, almost 6 months later, before Clarence Mitchell, the McCanns press spokesman admitted that there was no break-in.
The British media did not ask for an explanation why the McCanns fabricated the break-in story. Shouldn't the British media at least consider it was a cover up? Because without the break-in the abductor and abduction parts also tend to fall down.
And yet, Cassandra Jardine writes "the McCanns learnt after the abduction" as though it is a fact that Madeleine was abducted. But, the fact is that it was only ever the McCanns version of events and not the truth.
Mosley loses privacy case
Mosley loses privacy case
The European Convention on Human Rights does not require media to give prior notice of intended publications to those who feature in them
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Mosley v. the United Kingdom (application no. 48009/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
No violation of Article 8 (right to protection of private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned a complaint that the United Kingdom failed to impose a legal duty on newspapers to notify the subjects of intended publications in advance to give them an opportunity to prevent such publications by seeking an interim court injunction.
Principal facts
The applicant, Max Rufus Mosley, is a British national who was born in 1940 and lives in Monaco. He is is the former president of the International Automobile Federation, a nonprofit association that represents the interests of motoring organisations and car users worldwide and is also the governing body for Formula One.
In March 2008, the Sunday newspaper News of the World published on its front page an article entitled “F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers”. Several pages inside the newspaper were also devoted to the story which included still photographs taken from video footage secretly recorded by one of the participants in the sexual activities.
An edited extract of the video, in addition to still images, were also published on the newspaper’s website and reproduced elsewhere on the internet.
On 4 April 2008, Mr Mosley brought legal proceedings against the newspaper claiming damages for breach of confidence and invasion of privacy. In addition, he sought an injunction to restrain the News of the World from making available on its website the edited video footage.
On 9 April 2008, the High Court refused to grant the injunction because the material was no longer private as it had been published extensively in print and on the Internet. In subsequent privacy proceedings before the High Court, the court found that the images did not carry any Nazi connotations. Consequently there was no public interest and thus no justification for publishing that article and accompanying images, which had breached Mr Mosley’s right to privacy. The court ruled that News of the World had to pay to Mr Mosley 60,000 GBP in damages.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on 8 (right to private life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Mosley complained that, despite the monetary compensation awarded to him by the courts, he remained a victim of Article 8 of the Convention as a result of the absence of a legal duty on the News of the World to notify him in advance of their intention to publish material concerning him thus giving him the opportunity to ask a court for an interim injunction and prevent the material’s publication.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 September 2008.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:
Lech Garlicki (Poland), President,
Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom),
Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),
Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),
Ledi Bianku (Albania),
Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), Judges,
and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Admissibility
Victim status
The British Government considered that Mr Mosley was no longer a victim of a
Convention violation given, in particular, that he had been compensated by the
newspaper as ordered by the UK courts: 60,000 British pounds (GBP) in damages and GBP 420,000 for legal costs.
Mr Mosley insisted that he had remained a victim of a violation by the UK of his right to privacy, as the damages awarded were unable to restore his privacy to him after millions of people in the world had seen the embarrassing material in which he featured.
The Court found that no sum of money awarded after disclosure of the material which had caused Mr Mosley humiliation could be a remedy for his specific complaint that no legal requirement existed in the UK obliging the media to give advance warning to a person of a publication related to their private life.
Consequently, Mr Mosley could claim to still be a victim of a Convention violation.
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
The Government claimed that Mr Mosley had not exhausted a number of domestic remedies before taking his complaint before the Court. In particular, they argued that he had not appealed against the UK judge’s ruling on exemplary damages, that he could have pursued an account of profits claim as opposed to a claim for damages as he had done, and that he had failed to complain under the Data Protection Act about the unauthorised processing of his personal information and to seek rectification or
destruction of his personal data.
Mr Mosley considered the proposed remedies irrelevant to his complaint.
The Court found that none of the remedies relied upon by the Government could have addressed Mr Mosley’s specific complaint about the absence of a UK law requiring prenotification of the publication of the article which had interfered with his right to respect for his private life.
Private life
The Court noted that the UK courts had found no Nazi element in Mr Mosley’s sexual activities and had therefore concluded that there had been no public interest in, and therefore justification for, the publication of the articles and images. In addition, the newspaper had not appealed against the judgment. The Court therefore considered that the publications in question had resulted in a flagrant and unjustified invasion of Mr Mosley’s private life. Given that Mr Mosley had achieved a finding in his favour before the domestic court, the Court’s own assessment concerned the balancing act to be conducted between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression not in the circumstances of the applicant’s particular case but in relation to the UK legal system.
It was clear that the UK authorities had been obliged under the Convention not only to refrain from interfering with Mr Mosley’s private life, but also to take measures to ensure his effective enjoyment of that right. The question which remained to be answered was whether a legally binding pre-notification rule was required.
The Court observed that it had implicitly accepted in its earlier case law that damages obtained following a defamatory publication provided an adequate remedy for right-to-private-life breaches arising out of newspaper publications of private information.
It then recalled that States enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation in respect of the measures they put in place to protect people’s right to private life.
Notwithstanding the potential merits of Mr Mosley’s individual case, given that a pre-notification requirement would inevitably affect political reporting and serious journalism, in addition to the sensationalist reporting at issue in Mr Mosley’s case, the Court stressed that any restriction on journalism required careful scrutiny.
In the United Kingdom, the right to private life had been protected with a number of measures: there was a system of self-regulation of the press; people could claim damages in civil court proceedings; and, if individuals were aware of an intended publication touching upon their private life, they could seek an interim injunction preventing publication of the material. In addition, in the context of private life and freedom of expression, a parliamentary inquiry on privacy issues had been recently held in the UK with the participation of various interested parties, including Mr Mosley himself, and the ensuing report had rejected the need for a pre-notification requirement.
The Court further noted that Mr Mosley had not referred to a single jurisdiction in which a pre-notification requirement as such existed, nor had he indicated any international legal texts requiring States to adopt such a requirement. Last and not least, the current UK system fully corresponded to the resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on media and privacy.
As to the clarity of any pre-notification requirement, the Court was of the view that the concept of “private life” was sufficiently well understood for newspapers and reporters to be able to identify when a publication could infringe the right to respect for private life. It further considered that a satisfactory definition of those subject to the obligation could be found. However, any pre-notification obligation would have to allow for an exception if public interest was at stake. Thus, a newspaper could opt not to notify an individual if it believed that it could subsequently defend its decision on the basis of the public interest in the information published. The Court observed in that regard that a narrowly defined public interest exception would increase the chilling effect of any pre-notification duty. In Mr Mosley’s case, given that the News of the World had believed that the sexual activities they were disclosing had had Nazi overtones, hence were of public interest, they could have chosen not to notify Mr Mosley, even if a legal pre-notification requirement had been in place. Alternatively, a newspaper could choose, in any future case to which a pre-notification requirement was applied, to run the same risk and decline to notify, preferring instead to pay a subsequent fine. The Court emphasised that any pre-notification requirement would only be as strong as the sanctions imposed for failing to observe it; however, particular care had to be taken when examining constraints which might operate as a form of censorship prior to publication. Although punitive fines and criminal sanctions could be effective in encouraging pre-notification, that would have a chilling effect on journalism, even political and investigative reporting, both of which attracted a high level of protection under the Convention. That ran the risk of being incompatible with the Convention requirements of freedom of expression.
The Court concluded by recognising that the private lives of those in the public eye had become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media. The publication of news about such people contributed to the range of information available to the public.
Although the dissemination of that information was generally for the purposes of entertainment rather than education, it undoubtedly benefitted from the protection of Article 10. The Article 10 protection afforded to publications might cede to the requirements of Article 8 where the information was of a private and intimate nature and there was no public interest in its dissemination.
However, looking beyond the facts of Mr Mosley’s case, and having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risked giving rise, to the doubts about its effectiveness and to the wide margin of appreciation afforded to the UK in that area, the Court concluded that Article 8 did not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Therefore, its absence in UK law had not breached Article 8.
The judgment is available only in English.
The European Convention on Human Rights does not require media to give prior notice of intended publications to those who feature in them
In today’s Chamber judgment in the case Mosley v. the United Kingdom (application no. 48009/08), which is not final1, the European Court of Human Rights held, unanimously, that there had been:
No violation of Article 8 (right to protection of private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The case concerned a complaint that the United Kingdom failed to impose a legal duty on newspapers to notify the subjects of intended publications in advance to give them an opportunity to prevent such publications by seeking an interim court injunction.
Principal facts
The applicant, Max Rufus Mosley, is a British national who was born in 1940 and lives in Monaco. He is is the former president of the International Automobile Federation, a nonprofit association that represents the interests of motoring organisations and car users worldwide and is also the governing body for Formula One.
In March 2008, the Sunday newspaper News of the World published on its front page an article entitled “F1 boss has sick Nazi orgy with 5 hookers”. Several pages inside the newspaper were also devoted to the story which included still photographs taken from video footage secretly recorded by one of the participants in the sexual activities.
An edited extract of the video, in addition to still images, were also published on the newspaper’s website and reproduced elsewhere on the internet.
On 4 April 2008, Mr Mosley brought legal proceedings against the newspaper claiming damages for breach of confidence and invasion of privacy. In addition, he sought an injunction to restrain the News of the World from making available on its website the edited video footage.
On 9 April 2008, the High Court refused to grant the injunction because the material was no longer private as it had been published extensively in print and on the Internet. In subsequent privacy proceedings before the High Court, the court found that the images did not carry any Nazi connotations. Consequently there was no public interest and thus no justification for publishing that article and accompanying images, which had breached Mr Mosley’s right to privacy. The court ruled that News of the World had to pay to Mr Mosley 60,000 GBP in damages.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on 8 (right to private life) and Article 13 (right to an effective remedy), Mr Mosley complained that, despite the monetary compensation awarded to him by the courts, he remained a victim of Article 8 of the Convention as a result of the absence of a legal duty on the News of the World to notify him in advance of their intention to publish material concerning him thus giving him the opportunity to ask a court for an interim injunction and prevent the material’s publication.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 29 September 2008.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven, composed as follows:
Lech Garlicki (Poland), President,
Nicolas Bratza (the United Kingdom),
Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
David Thór Björgvinsson (Iceland),
Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),
Ledi Bianku (Albania),
Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), Judges,
and also Lawrence Early, Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
Admissibility
Victim status
The British Government considered that Mr Mosley was no longer a victim of a
Convention violation given, in particular, that he had been compensated by the
newspaper as ordered by the UK courts: 60,000 British pounds (GBP) in damages and GBP 420,000 for legal costs.
Mr Mosley insisted that he had remained a victim of a violation by the UK of his right to privacy, as the damages awarded were unable to restore his privacy to him after millions of people in the world had seen the embarrassing material in which he featured.
The Court found that no sum of money awarded after disclosure of the material which had caused Mr Mosley humiliation could be a remedy for his specific complaint that no legal requirement existed in the UK obliging the media to give advance warning to a person of a publication related to their private life.
Consequently, Mr Mosley could claim to still be a victim of a Convention violation.
Exhaustion of domestic remedies
The Government claimed that Mr Mosley had not exhausted a number of domestic remedies before taking his complaint before the Court. In particular, they argued that he had not appealed against the UK judge’s ruling on exemplary damages, that he could have pursued an account of profits claim as opposed to a claim for damages as he had done, and that he had failed to complain under the Data Protection Act about the unauthorised processing of his personal information and to seek rectification or
destruction of his personal data.
Mr Mosley considered the proposed remedies irrelevant to his complaint.
The Court found that none of the remedies relied upon by the Government could have addressed Mr Mosley’s specific complaint about the absence of a UK law requiring prenotification of the publication of the article which had interfered with his right to respect for his private life.
Private life
The Court noted that the UK courts had found no Nazi element in Mr Mosley’s sexual activities and had therefore concluded that there had been no public interest in, and therefore justification for, the publication of the articles and images. In addition, the newspaper had not appealed against the judgment. The Court therefore considered that the publications in question had resulted in a flagrant and unjustified invasion of Mr Mosley’s private life. Given that Mr Mosley had achieved a finding in his favour before the domestic court, the Court’s own assessment concerned the balancing act to be conducted between the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression not in the circumstances of the applicant’s particular case but in relation to the UK legal system.
It was clear that the UK authorities had been obliged under the Convention not only to refrain from interfering with Mr Mosley’s private life, but also to take measures to ensure his effective enjoyment of that right. The question which remained to be answered was whether a legally binding pre-notification rule was required.
The Court observed that it had implicitly accepted in its earlier case law that damages obtained following a defamatory publication provided an adequate remedy for right-to-private-life breaches arising out of newspaper publications of private information.
It then recalled that States enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation in respect of the measures they put in place to protect people’s right to private life.
Notwithstanding the potential merits of Mr Mosley’s individual case, given that a pre-notification requirement would inevitably affect political reporting and serious journalism, in addition to the sensationalist reporting at issue in Mr Mosley’s case, the Court stressed that any restriction on journalism required careful scrutiny.
In the United Kingdom, the right to private life had been protected with a number of measures: there was a system of self-regulation of the press; people could claim damages in civil court proceedings; and, if individuals were aware of an intended publication touching upon their private life, they could seek an interim injunction preventing publication of the material. In addition, in the context of private life and freedom of expression, a parliamentary inquiry on privacy issues had been recently held in the UK with the participation of various interested parties, including Mr Mosley himself, and the ensuing report had rejected the need for a pre-notification requirement.
The Court further noted that Mr Mosley had not referred to a single jurisdiction in which a pre-notification requirement as such existed, nor had he indicated any international legal texts requiring States to adopt such a requirement. Last and not least, the current UK system fully corresponded to the resolutions of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on media and privacy.
As to the clarity of any pre-notification requirement, the Court was of the view that the concept of “private life” was sufficiently well understood for newspapers and reporters to be able to identify when a publication could infringe the right to respect for private life. It further considered that a satisfactory definition of those subject to the obligation could be found. However, any pre-notification obligation would have to allow for an exception if public interest was at stake. Thus, a newspaper could opt not to notify an individual if it believed that it could subsequently defend its decision on the basis of the public interest in the information published. The Court observed in that regard that a narrowly defined public interest exception would increase the chilling effect of any pre-notification duty. In Mr Mosley’s case, given that the News of the World had believed that the sexual activities they were disclosing had had Nazi overtones, hence were of public interest, they could have chosen not to notify Mr Mosley, even if a legal pre-notification requirement had been in place. Alternatively, a newspaper could choose, in any future case to which a pre-notification requirement was applied, to run the same risk and decline to notify, preferring instead to pay a subsequent fine. The Court emphasised that any pre-notification requirement would only be as strong as the sanctions imposed for failing to observe it; however, particular care had to be taken when examining constraints which might operate as a form of censorship prior to publication. Although punitive fines and criminal sanctions could be effective in encouraging pre-notification, that would have a chilling effect on journalism, even political and investigative reporting, both of which attracted a high level of protection under the Convention. That ran the risk of being incompatible with the Convention requirements of freedom of expression.
The Court concluded by recognising that the private lives of those in the public eye had become a highly lucrative commodity for certain sectors of the media. The publication of news about such people contributed to the range of information available to the public.
Although the dissemination of that information was generally for the purposes of entertainment rather than education, it undoubtedly benefitted from the protection of Article 10. The Article 10 protection afforded to publications might cede to the requirements of Article 8 where the information was of a private and intimate nature and there was no public interest in its dissemination.
However, looking beyond the facts of Mr Mosley’s case, and having regard to the chilling effect to which a pre-notification requirement risked giving rise, to the doubts about its effectiveness and to the wide margin of appreciation afforded to the UK in that area, the Court concluded that Article 8 did not require a legally binding pre-notification requirement. Therefore, its absence in UK law had not breached Article 8.
The judgment is available only in English.
Monday, May 09, 2011
Injunctions 30+
Injunctions 30+
Footballers and sports personalities
1 John Terry (injunction removed)
2 Ryan Giggs
3 Colin Montgomerie
4 Michael Owen
5 Robbie Keane
6 Peter Crouch
7 Alan Pardrew
Film or Television/Radio personalities
1 David Threlfall (actor in Shameless)
2 Hugh Bonneville
3 Gordon Ramsey (TV Chef)
4 Andrew Marr (injunction removed)
5 Stephen Nolan
6
7
8
9
10
Pop stars
1 Annie Lennox
2
3
4
5
Others
1 Zac Goldsmith MP Court judgment
2 Sheherazade Goldsmith
3 Jemima Khan
4 Fred Goodwin (banker)
5 Lakshmi Mittal
6
7
8
9
10
UPDATE: Hyper-injunction
Footballers and sports personalities
1 John Terry (injunction removed)
2 Ryan Giggs
3 Colin Montgomerie
4 Michael Owen
5 Robbie Keane
6 Peter Crouch
7 Alan Pardrew
Film or Television/Radio personalities
1 David Threlfall (actor in Shameless)
2 Hugh Bonneville
3 Gordon Ramsey (TV Chef)
4 Andrew Marr (injunction removed)
5 Stephen Nolan
6
7
8
9
10
Pop stars
1 Annie Lennox
2
3
4
5
Others
1 Zac Goldsmith MP Court judgment
2 Sheherazade Goldsmith
3 Jemima Khan
4 Fred Goodwin (banker)
5 Lakshmi Mittal
6
7
8
9
10
UPDATE: Hyper-injunction
Celebrities outed on Twitter
Celebrities outed on Twitter
Twitter outings undermine "super injunctions"
By Georgina Prodhan, Reuters
LONDON | Mon May 9, 2011 7:48am EDT
Twitter revelations of alleged attempts by British celebrities to cover up sexual indiscretions show that "super injunctions" to gag the press are unsustainable, lawyers said Monday.
A Twitter user posted details Sunday of six instances of what the blogger said were injunctions obtained by television and sports stars to cover up affairs or prevent the publication of revealing photographs.
One of the celebrities named, socialite Jemima Khan, used her own Twitter feed to deny an allegation that she had obtained a super injunction to prevent intimate pictures of her and TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson from being published.
"OMG - Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of "intimate" photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!" she tweeted.
Super injunctions prevent the media from reporting not only details of a story but even the existence of the injunction.
They have their legal basis in the UK's 1998 Human Rights Act but have given rise to concerns of a creeping privacy law made by the courts and favoring the famous and wealthy.
"It's rich man's justice," said media lawyer Mark Stephens, a partner at London-based law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, noting that not a single woman was known to have obtained such an injunction.
Stephens estimated that about 200 super injunctions had been issued in the past three to four years. Their cost of more than 100,000 pounds ($164,000) each puts them out of most people's reach.
Public debate over super injunctions was rekindled last month when prominent BBC journalist Andrew Marr confessed that he had obtained one in 2008 to prevent reporting of an extra-marital affair he had had.
Stephens, an outspoken pro-media lawyer who has represented celebrities including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said incidents like the weekend Twitter leak showed the super injunction was outdated.
"The superinjunction is becoming unsustainable because people are just breaking it," he said.
His sentiments were echoed by intellectual property and media lawyer Keith Arrowsmith, a partner at Manchester-based law firm Ralli Solicitors.
"The fact that anyone can set up these feeds without anyone checking the identity of the author undermines the credibility of super injunctions. People on Twitter feel as though they can publish anything and it doesn't matter," he said.
Twitter had no immediate comment on the matter. The tweets were still on the site Monday afternoon, almost 24 hours after they were first published.
ECHOES OF SPYCATCHER
Both lawyers compared the current situation with the notorious 1980s Spycatcher case, in which the British government tried to ban ex-intelligence officer Peter Wright from publishing his autobiography.
The book was published in Australia and in many other foreign countries and was smuggled into Britain. The UK government eventually gave up its attempt to ban it.
One of the best-publicized uses of a super injunction was the case of shipping company Trafigura in 2009, which forbade discussion of allegations the company had dumped toxic waste in Ivory Coast.
"The underlying problem with the current law is that the courts are being used to conceal the truth," Liberal Democrat member of parliament John Hemming wrote in an email to Reuters. Hemming is compiling a report on super injunctions.
"I know of a number of cases where the truth that is being concealed involves serious misbehavior by the authorities rather than the peccadilloes of celebrities. That is where there is a real danger in the current position," he added.
Stephens said the author of the weekend tweets could expect "a knock on the door from the lawyers" in the next 48 hours for contempt of court.
But Arrowsmith stressed that this would not help the people who had been outed.
"In the past, for example, if someone had got wind that the News of the World was planning to break a story Sunday, we could try to agree a way forward, and, if that failed, approach the court for a ruling."
"With international instant messaging it's too late, the cat is out of the bag," he said.
Arrowsmith said Twitter itself, as a U.S.-based organization, would be hard for UK courts to pursue.
"If you're going to have a super injunction, you've got to have a international super court to enforce it," he said.
(Additional reporting by Olesya Dmitracova; Editing by Steve Addison)
This is what all the fuss is about on Twitter...
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
Two stars of the TV show Shameless, David Threlfall and Pauline McLynn (Libby Croker) had an affair. Both are married. #superinjunction
8 May
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
Jeremy Clarkson has an injunction preventing the publication or mention of intimate photographs of him and Jemima Khan. #superinjunction
8 May
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
British actor Hugh Bonneville paid £195 for the services of prostitute Helen Wood. Wood used a sex toy on Bonneville. #superinjunction
8 May
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
Gordon Ramsay sexually harassed a female employee and sacked a male chief executive for no reason, he is still owed wages. #superinjunction
8 May
»
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
British comedian/actor David Schneider is into BDSM and visits spanking establishments to engage in the whipping of women. #superinjunction
8 May Favorite Retweet Reply
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
Footballer Ryan Giggs had an extramarital affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas which lasted for 7 months. #superinjunction
8 May
Twitter outings undermine "super injunctions"
By Georgina Prodhan, Reuters
LONDON | Mon May 9, 2011 7:48am EDT
Twitter revelations of alleged attempts by British celebrities to cover up sexual indiscretions show that "super injunctions" to gag the press are unsustainable, lawyers said Monday.
A Twitter user posted details Sunday of six instances of what the blogger said were injunctions obtained by television and sports stars to cover up affairs or prevent the publication of revealing photographs.
One of the celebrities named, socialite Jemima Khan, used her own Twitter feed to deny an allegation that she had obtained a super injunction to prevent intimate pictures of her and TV presenter Jeremy Clarkson from being published.
"OMG - Rumour that I have a super injunction preventing publication of "intimate" photos of me and Jeremy Clarkson. NOT TRUE!" she tweeted.
Super injunctions prevent the media from reporting not only details of a story but even the existence of the injunction.
They have their legal basis in the UK's 1998 Human Rights Act but have given rise to concerns of a creeping privacy law made by the courts and favoring the famous and wealthy.
"It's rich man's justice," said media lawyer Mark Stephens, a partner at London-based law firm Finers Stephens Innocent, noting that not a single woman was known to have obtained such an injunction.
Stephens estimated that about 200 super injunctions had been issued in the past three to four years. Their cost of more than 100,000 pounds ($164,000) each puts them out of most people's reach.
Public debate over super injunctions was rekindled last month when prominent BBC journalist Andrew Marr confessed that he had obtained one in 2008 to prevent reporting of an extra-marital affair he had had.
Stephens, an outspoken pro-media lawyer who has represented celebrities including WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, said incidents like the weekend Twitter leak showed the super injunction was outdated.
"The superinjunction is becoming unsustainable because people are just breaking it," he said.
His sentiments were echoed by intellectual property and media lawyer Keith Arrowsmith, a partner at Manchester-based law firm Ralli Solicitors.
"The fact that anyone can set up these feeds without anyone checking the identity of the author undermines the credibility of super injunctions. People on Twitter feel as though they can publish anything and it doesn't matter," he said.
Twitter had no immediate comment on the matter. The tweets were still on the site Monday afternoon, almost 24 hours after they were first published.
ECHOES OF SPYCATCHER
Both lawyers compared the current situation with the notorious 1980s Spycatcher case, in which the British government tried to ban ex-intelligence officer Peter Wright from publishing his autobiography.
The book was published in Australia and in many other foreign countries and was smuggled into Britain. The UK government eventually gave up its attempt to ban it.
One of the best-publicized uses of a super injunction was the case of shipping company Trafigura in 2009, which forbade discussion of allegations the company had dumped toxic waste in Ivory Coast.
"The underlying problem with the current law is that the courts are being used to conceal the truth," Liberal Democrat member of parliament John Hemming wrote in an email to Reuters. Hemming is compiling a report on super injunctions.
"I know of a number of cases where the truth that is being concealed involves serious misbehavior by the authorities rather than the peccadilloes of celebrities. That is where there is a real danger in the current position," he added.
Stephens said the author of the weekend tweets could expect "a knock on the door from the lawyers" in the next 48 hours for contempt of court.
But Arrowsmith stressed that this would not help the people who had been outed.
"In the past, for example, if someone had got wind that the News of the World was planning to break a story Sunday, we could try to agree a way forward, and, if that failed, approach the court for a ruling."
"With international instant messaging it's too late, the cat is out of the bag," he said.
Arrowsmith said Twitter itself, as a U.S.-based organization, would be hard for UK courts to pursue.
"If you're going to have a super injunction, you've got to have a international super court to enforce it," he said.
(Additional reporting by Olesya Dmitracova; Editing by Steve Addison)
This is what all the fuss is about on Twitter...
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
Two stars of the TV show Shameless, David Threlfall and Pauline McLynn (Libby Croker) had an affair. Both are married. #superinjunction
8 May
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
Jeremy Clarkson has an injunction preventing the publication or mention of intimate photographs of him and Jemima Khan. #superinjunction
8 May
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
British actor Hugh Bonneville paid £195 for the services of prostitute Helen Wood. Wood used a sex toy on Bonneville. #superinjunction
8 May
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
Gordon Ramsay sexually harassed a female employee and sacked a male chief executive for no reason, he is still owed wages. #superinjunction
8 May
»
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
British comedian/actor David Schneider is into BDSM and visits spanking establishments to engage in the whipping of women. #superinjunction
8 May Favorite Retweet Reply
InjunctionSuper Billy Jones
Footballer Ryan Giggs had an extramarital affair with Big Brother star Imogen Thomas which lasted for 7 months. #superinjunction
8 May
Carl Gardner is a redacted redacted!
Carl Gardner is a redacted redacted!
Carl Gardner author of Head of Legal blog is banning people from mentioning Jeremy Clarkson on his blog in relation to this story Jeremy Clarkson texts Jemima Khan over 'nightmare' super-injunction claims on Twitter sad or what?
Carl Gardner author of Head of Legal blog is banning people from mentioning Jeremy Clarkson on his blog in relation to this story Jeremy Clarkson texts Jemima Khan over 'nightmare' super-injunction claims on Twitter sad or what?
Inside Broadmoor
Inside Broadmoor
Broadmoor: A hospital, not a prison
Broadmoor is often viewed as the dumping ground for some of the country's most notorious criminals, like the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. But, as the Today programme's Tom Feilden discovered, the reality of life behind its walls is rather different.
"Broadmoor is a hospital not a prison, and patients - not prisoners - do move on and back out into the community."
I've barely even sat down in his office in the administrative block overlooking Broadmoor before the clinical director, Dr Kevin Murray, launches into what he regards as the single most pernicious myth hanging over the hospital - and a big part of the reason why the West London Mental Health Trust has agreed to let me in to Britain's most notorious high-security facility.
"There is a general perception that people come to Broadmoor and we throw away the key and they're here for ever. That's certainly not the case".
And of course he is right. Although some of the most damaged and dangerous patients may never leave, the average length of stay at Broadmoor is actually just six years.
During that time patients are exposed to an intensive programme of drug, and psychological, therapies. Depending on their response to that treatment a patient might expect to move on to another, medium-secure facility, and ultimately back out into wider society.
In that sense, Broadmoor is just one part of a wider forensic psychiatric care system that aims to identify and treat people suffering from a mental disorder.
But that does not mean security is not taken extremely seriously. For all the talk of hospital and treatments, Broadmoor retains the status of a Category B prison. Just getting in involves a series of biometric tests, airport style security scans and a thorough physical search.
Once inside, movements are strictly regulated from a central control room. At any one time, the head of security Mike Humphrey claims, his staff know where every patient is, and access around the hospital grounds is controlled via a series of electronic gates.
As if to make the point the deputy director of nursing Jimmy Noak and I have to wait to be buzzed through Broadmoor's real perimeter: a higher, and much more technologically-secure, steel fence that runs inside the hospital's familiar redbrick walls.
My first impression of the scattered mix of Victorian wards and more modern additional buildings is of a small provincial hospital or university campus.
But this is not the way the typical patient - who may have been transferred from a medium-secure unit, or more likely prison - arrives at Broadmoor.
'Insight'
"Admissions can be very difficult," according to Jimmy Noak. "Patients can be very psychotic, very disorientated and thought disturbed on arrival.
"They may be very aggressive and violent, and if you think about it from their point of view, if you're not in a stable state of mind and you think everyone's out to get you it can be very frightening."
A comprehensive assessment of the patient's history, their illness and treatment requirements, lasting up to three months is undertaken before a patient is ready to move on, usually to a high dependency ward in the main body of the hospital. Here the real work on treatment can begin.
Although each case is different, consultant forensic psychologist Dr Shaun Battacherjee says, patients can be broadly divided into two categories: those suffering from mental illnesses like schizophrenia; and those suffering from personality disorders.
Treatment regimes usually involve a combination of powerful anti-psychotic drugs and intensive psychological therapies.
A key element, and a word you hear a lot in Broadmoor, is "insight". Getting patients to acknowledge they are suffering from a mental disorder, and to understand its role in their offending.
"The trick in deciding what treatments are going to be appropriate for a patient is to fully understand their illness," Dr Battacherjee explains. "Allowing the patient to have greater insight and control over his behaviour."
Just about the last thing I expected when I arrived at Broadmoor was to find patients, including paranoid schizophrenics, playing a computer game in which everyone is out to get them.
The Secret Agent programme has been developed by Dr Susan Young and presents players with a series of risk-based and moral decisions.
'Tough' treatments
It helps researchers like Dr Young to assess patients on a variety of scales including empathy, altruism and moral reasoning, and can be used to demonstrate to those patients how their decision making may differ from the average man on the street.
"The game is a great tool that tells us where the patient is and informs us about what kinds of interventions might be appropriate," she says.
"But it's also very illuminating for them because we can sit down and say look this is how you scored, this is what you were doing. Do you want to do something about that? We can help you do something about that."
Research into the basis of mental disorder is an important component of the work that goes on at Broadmoor. Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or MRI, scans of the brain Dr Migendra Das is trying to understand why a small minority of people suffering from an acute mental illness resort to violence.
The study, carried out at the neural imaging unit of the Maudsley Hospital in south London, revealed significant differences in the structure of the brains of patients at Broadmoor hospital, and interestingly, a marked difference in fear responses and inhibition processing between schizophrenic patients and those with a personality disorder.
While the schizophrenics in the study were overly-stimulated by the prospect of a mild electric shock - none were actually delivered during the study - the brains of patients with personality disorders showed a much more muted emotional response.
"This kind of imaging study can be important in helping to develop useful diagnostic tools," Dr Das suggests "and broaden our understanding of the bio-chemistry of mental disorder".
Inevitably patients need some respite from the emotional intensity of the psychological therapies they go through. Confronting, and coming to terms with what they may have done - even while in the grip of severe mental illness - takes its toll.
Broadmoor offers a range of extra-curricular activities in its well equipped carpentry, and arts and crafts workshops, music studios and extensive kitchen garden. Although it is not part of the treatment Tony Roche, who runs the music school, says it is definitely part of the cure.
"The treatments are very tough, and emotionally draining. Patients need some down-time, some space to get away, and we can offer them skills and opportunities that may help boost their confidence, and that they can use to reintegrate back into society."
It was at this point that a nagging concern about the extraordinary level of effort and investment being channelled into the patients at Broadmoor bubbled to the surface.
Many of these men - they are all men at Broadmoor - had committed the worst crimes of violence imaginable. What about the victims of those crimes? What about their families?
"It's not fair, but what is the alternative? If these people committed crimes because they were suffering from an acute mental illness then they should be in hospital," Jimmy Noak told me.
"In any civilised society you should be treating people who have a serious mental illness in a hospital."
Broadmoor: A hospital, not a prisonBroadmoor is often viewed as the dumping ground for some of the country's most notorious criminals, like the Yorkshire Ripper, Peter Sutcliffe. But, as the Today programme's Tom Feilden discovered, the reality of life behind its walls is rather different.
"Broadmoor is a hospital not a prison, and patients - not prisoners - do move on and back out into the community."
I've barely even sat down in his office in the administrative block overlooking Broadmoor before the clinical director, Dr Kevin Murray, launches into what he regards as the single most pernicious myth hanging over the hospital - and a big part of the reason why the West London Mental Health Trust has agreed to let me in to Britain's most notorious high-security facility.
"There is a general perception that people come to Broadmoor and we throw away the key and they're here for ever. That's certainly not the case".
And of course he is right. Although some of the most damaged and dangerous patients may never leave, the average length of stay at Broadmoor is actually just six years.
During that time patients are exposed to an intensive programme of drug, and psychological, therapies. Depending on their response to that treatment a patient might expect to move on to another, medium-secure facility, and ultimately back out into wider society.
In that sense, Broadmoor is just one part of a wider forensic psychiatric care system that aims to identify and treat people suffering from a mental disorder.
But that does not mean security is not taken extremely seriously. For all the talk of hospital and treatments, Broadmoor retains the status of a Category B prison. Just getting in involves a series of biometric tests, airport style security scans and a thorough physical search.
Once inside, movements are strictly regulated from a central control room. At any one time, the head of security Mike Humphrey claims, his staff know where every patient is, and access around the hospital grounds is controlled via a series of electronic gates.
As if to make the point the deputy director of nursing Jimmy Noak and I have to wait to be buzzed through Broadmoor's real perimeter: a higher, and much more technologically-secure, steel fence that runs inside the hospital's familiar redbrick walls.
My first impression of the scattered mix of Victorian wards and more modern additional buildings is of a small provincial hospital or university campus.
But this is not the way the typical patient - who may have been transferred from a medium-secure unit, or more likely prison - arrives at Broadmoor.
'Insight'
"Admissions can be very difficult," according to Jimmy Noak. "Patients can be very psychotic, very disorientated and thought disturbed on arrival.
"They may be very aggressive and violent, and if you think about it from their point of view, if you're not in a stable state of mind and you think everyone's out to get you it can be very frightening."
A comprehensive assessment of the patient's history, their illness and treatment requirements, lasting up to three months is undertaken before a patient is ready to move on, usually to a high dependency ward in the main body of the hospital. Here the real work on treatment can begin.
Although each case is different, consultant forensic psychologist Dr Shaun Battacherjee says, patients can be broadly divided into two categories: those suffering from mental illnesses like schizophrenia; and those suffering from personality disorders.
Treatment regimes usually involve a combination of powerful anti-psychotic drugs and intensive psychological therapies.
A key element, and a word you hear a lot in Broadmoor, is "insight". Getting patients to acknowledge they are suffering from a mental disorder, and to understand its role in their offending.
"The trick in deciding what treatments are going to be appropriate for a patient is to fully understand their illness," Dr Battacherjee explains. "Allowing the patient to have greater insight and control over his behaviour."
Just about the last thing I expected when I arrived at Broadmoor was to find patients, including paranoid schizophrenics, playing a computer game in which everyone is out to get them.
The Secret Agent programme has been developed by Dr Susan Young and presents players with a series of risk-based and moral decisions.
'Tough' treatments
It helps researchers like Dr Young to assess patients on a variety of scales including empathy, altruism and moral reasoning, and can be used to demonstrate to those patients how their decision making may differ from the average man on the street.
"The game is a great tool that tells us where the patient is and informs us about what kinds of interventions might be appropriate," she says.
"But it's also very illuminating for them because we can sit down and say look this is how you scored, this is what you were doing. Do you want to do something about that? We can help you do something about that."
Research into the basis of mental disorder is an important component of the work that goes on at Broadmoor. Using Magnetic Resonance Imaging, or MRI, scans of the brain Dr Migendra Das is trying to understand why a small minority of people suffering from an acute mental illness resort to violence.
The study, carried out at the neural imaging unit of the Maudsley Hospital in south London, revealed significant differences in the structure of the brains of patients at Broadmoor hospital, and interestingly, a marked difference in fear responses and inhibition processing between schizophrenic patients and those with a personality disorder.
While the schizophrenics in the study were overly-stimulated by the prospect of a mild electric shock - none were actually delivered during the study - the brains of patients with personality disorders showed a much more muted emotional response.
"This kind of imaging study can be important in helping to develop useful diagnostic tools," Dr Das suggests "and broaden our understanding of the bio-chemistry of mental disorder".
Inevitably patients need some respite from the emotional intensity of the psychological therapies they go through. Confronting, and coming to terms with what they may have done - even while in the grip of severe mental illness - takes its toll.
Broadmoor offers a range of extra-curricular activities in its well equipped carpentry, and arts and crafts workshops, music studios and extensive kitchen garden. Although it is not part of the treatment Tony Roche, who runs the music school, says it is definitely part of the cure.
"The treatments are very tough, and emotionally draining. Patients need some down-time, some space to get away, and we can offer them skills and opportunities that may help boost their confidence, and that they can use to reintegrate back into society."
It was at this point that a nagging concern about the extraordinary level of effort and investment being channelled into the patients at Broadmoor bubbled to the surface.
Many of these men - they are all men at Broadmoor - had committed the worst crimes of violence imaginable. What about the victims of those crimes? What about their families?
"It's not fair, but what is the alternative? If these people committed crimes because they were suffering from an acute mental illness then they should be in hospital," Jimmy Noak told me.
"In any civilised society you should be treating people who have a serious mental illness in a hospital."
Europe Day
Europe Day
Surely, the United States of Europe is better than sovereignty of the UK?
Ode to Joy instrumental
Surely, the United States of Europe is better than sovereignty of the UK?
Ode to Joy instrumental
Let's be clear: Osama bin Laden was executed – and for good reason
Let's be clear: Osama bin Laden was executed – and for good reason
Imagine the media circus if the Americans had put the al-Qaeda chief on trial in New York City.
Boris Johnson
Well, that's handy. We have all just learnt some useful etiquette about how to greet US Navy Seals arriving unexpectedly in your house when you have just gone to bed. If you find yourself lying there with your wife, just after turning off the lights, and there is a terrific racket from downstairs, you need to follow these essential dos and don'ts.
If the ninja-clad gunmen start charging up the stairs and shooting up your relatives, you are perfectly entitled to stick your head out of your bedroom door and have a gander. You may gawp in horror as a bullet whangs into the plaster near your ear. But if you try to dodge the next bullet, I am afraid you may be deemed to have committed a "hostile act". If you are so rash as to duck back into your bedroom, you will apparently entitle the Seals to follow you into the matrimonial chamber, shoot your wife in the leg and then blow you away with a shot in the chest and the head.
Yup, it was Osama bin Laden's "hostile act" of bullet-dodging that cost him his life, says the White House. If he had only stayed out there on the landing and taken the next bullet square on the mazzard, he would have been beyond suspicion, it seems. As an explanation for killing an unarmed man, this is starting to get embarrassing. I am reminded of the old South African police force, who used to explain deaths in custody by saying that their unarmed black detainees had launched savage attacks with their left temples and the smalls of their backs on the steel toecaps of their guards.
So why don't we all just cut the cackle and admit the groaningly obvious. It is perfectly clear why the US will not release the video footage they were all watching in the White House, and that caused Hillary to press her knuckles to her mouth. There was no firefight. Osama bin Laden did not cower behind his wife, spraying the US troops from his AK-47 like some scene from Call of Duty: Black Ops. That was a lie that went round the world faster than it took the truth to get its boots on, and the truth was that bin Laden hadn't even got his dressing gown on, let alone his boots, before he was despatched into the arms of Shaitan.
This was an assassination, a liquidation, an extra-judicial killing and a termination with extreme prejudice. Whichever way you look at it, President Obama has carried out one of the most effective whack jobs ever seen, and if he doesn't get re-elected I will be amazed. Osama is a has-bin, who sleeps with the fishes of the North Arabian sea, and it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
But when the president tells us that "justice has been done", I think he needs to be a bit fuller in his definition of "justice". It was 10 years ago this December, when the net was closing in on bin Laden in Tora Bora, that I wrote a pious piece in this very space, urging that the mass murderer should be put on trial. Read him the Miranda, give him his two telephone calls, and then arraign him for multiple homicide in New York and around the world.
It may be painful and problematic, I argued, but that is the difference between them and us. It's civilisation versus barbarism, the rule of law versus the law of the jungle. It's what we're fighting for. Fiat iustitia, ruat coelum, I said; and 10 years on I have to admit I can see why the Americans have not found it easy to follow my advice. Having pinpointed his lair, they could hardly have asked the Pakistanis to put him on trial – not when the Pakistani security services seem to be some kind of affiliate of al-Qaeda. They couldn't hold the trial in the Hague, since the US does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
In an ideal world, they would have put him on trial in NYC, the place of his greatest crime. And then what? A secret trial would have been deemed suspicious; so we would have endured a long, show-boating courtroom drama, with lawyers from the school of the O J Simpson defence trying to cast doubt on any connection between the accused and 9/11, and the cameras of the world would have been trained for weeks on the noble and priestly features of the accused, as he subjected America and her allies to some of his finger-wagging denunciations.
Though a New York jury would certainly have sent him down, they don't have the death penalty there – and so his place of incarceration would have become a shrine, the nearby pavements covered with the wax of cretinous candlelit vigils. Having been completely obscured by the events of the Arab spring, al-Qaeda would be back on the airwaves recruiting again – and that is perhaps where the Americans could mount a legitimate argument for what they have done. Bin Laden may represent a threat to US interests whether he is dead or alive, but the reality is that he is much less of a threat in his current subaquatic position than he would be in either a courtroom or a prison.
In so far as President Obama has a duty to protect America and Americans, he almost certainly has the necessary legal cover, provided by Congress, to remove bin Laden from the scene by any means at his disposal, and that is what he has triumphantly done. As an argument, it is not without its difficulties. If America is to go around indulging in extra-judicial liquidation of anyone who poses a threat to American interests, then we are entitled to wonder where it will end. We may be worried that the enemies of America may be spurred to symmetrical retaliation and that we will be caught up in a cycle of killing and counter-killing.
But it is at least plausible, and emotionally convincing, to say Osama bin Laden was a clear and present danger to America; he had it coming, and the president had him killed. All I ask is that we stop pussy-footing around about "hostile acts" and accept that this was an execution.
Imagine the media circus if the Americans had put the al-Qaeda chief on trial in New York City.
Boris Johnson
Well, that's handy. We have all just learnt some useful etiquette about how to greet US Navy Seals arriving unexpectedly in your house when you have just gone to bed. If you find yourself lying there with your wife, just after turning off the lights, and there is a terrific racket from downstairs, you need to follow these essential dos and don'ts.
If the ninja-clad gunmen start charging up the stairs and shooting up your relatives, you are perfectly entitled to stick your head out of your bedroom door and have a gander. You may gawp in horror as a bullet whangs into the plaster near your ear. But if you try to dodge the next bullet, I am afraid you may be deemed to have committed a "hostile act". If you are so rash as to duck back into your bedroom, you will apparently entitle the Seals to follow you into the matrimonial chamber, shoot your wife in the leg and then blow you away with a shot in the chest and the head.
Yup, it was Osama bin Laden's "hostile act" of bullet-dodging that cost him his life, says the White House. If he had only stayed out there on the landing and taken the next bullet square on the mazzard, he would have been beyond suspicion, it seems. As an explanation for killing an unarmed man, this is starting to get embarrassing. I am reminded of the old South African police force, who used to explain deaths in custody by saying that their unarmed black detainees had launched savage attacks with their left temples and the smalls of their backs on the steel toecaps of their guards.
So why don't we all just cut the cackle and admit the groaningly obvious. It is perfectly clear why the US will not release the video footage they were all watching in the White House, and that caused Hillary to press her knuckles to her mouth. There was no firefight. Osama bin Laden did not cower behind his wife, spraying the US troops from his AK-47 like some scene from Call of Duty: Black Ops. That was a lie that went round the world faster than it took the truth to get its boots on, and the truth was that bin Laden hadn't even got his dressing gown on, let alone his boots, before he was despatched into the arms of Shaitan.
This was an assassination, a liquidation, an extra-judicial killing and a termination with extreme prejudice. Whichever way you look at it, President Obama has carried out one of the most effective whack jobs ever seen, and if he doesn't get re-elected I will be amazed. Osama is a has-bin, who sleeps with the fishes of the North Arabian sea, and it couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.
But when the president tells us that "justice has been done", I think he needs to be a bit fuller in his definition of "justice". It was 10 years ago this December, when the net was closing in on bin Laden in Tora Bora, that I wrote a pious piece in this very space, urging that the mass murderer should be put on trial. Read him the Miranda, give him his two telephone calls, and then arraign him for multiple homicide in New York and around the world.
It may be painful and problematic, I argued, but that is the difference between them and us. It's civilisation versus barbarism, the rule of law versus the law of the jungle. It's what we're fighting for. Fiat iustitia, ruat coelum, I said; and 10 years on I have to admit I can see why the Americans have not found it easy to follow my advice. Having pinpointed his lair, they could hardly have asked the Pakistanis to put him on trial – not when the Pakistani security services seem to be some kind of affiliate of al-Qaeda. They couldn't hold the trial in the Hague, since the US does not recognise the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court.
In an ideal world, they would have put him on trial in NYC, the place of his greatest crime. And then what? A secret trial would have been deemed suspicious; so we would have endured a long, show-boating courtroom drama, with lawyers from the school of the O J Simpson defence trying to cast doubt on any connection between the accused and 9/11, and the cameras of the world would have been trained for weeks on the noble and priestly features of the accused, as he subjected America and her allies to some of his finger-wagging denunciations.
Though a New York jury would certainly have sent him down, they don't have the death penalty there – and so his place of incarceration would have become a shrine, the nearby pavements covered with the wax of cretinous candlelit vigils. Having been completely obscured by the events of the Arab spring, al-Qaeda would be back on the airwaves recruiting again – and that is perhaps where the Americans could mount a legitimate argument for what they have done. Bin Laden may represent a threat to US interests whether he is dead or alive, but the reality is that he is much less of a threat in his current subaquatic position than he would be in either a courtroom or a prison.
In so far as President Obama has a duty to protect America and Americans, he almost certainly has the necessary legal cover, provided by Congress, to remove bin Laden from the scene by any means at his disposal, and that is what he has triumphantly done. As an argument, it is not without its difficulties. If America is to go around indulging in extra-judicial liquidation of anyone who poses a threat to American interests, then we are entitled to wonder where it will end. We may be worried that the enemies of America may be spurred to symmetrical retaliation and that we will be caught up in a cycle of killing and counter-killing.
But it is at least plausible, and emotionally convincing, to say Osama bin Laden was a clear and present danger to America; he had it coming, and the president had him killed. All I ask is that we stop pussy-footing around about "hostile acts" and accept that this was an execution.
Sunday, May 08, 2011
Hypocrisy of Kate McCann accusing police of cover up!
Hypocrisy of Kate McCann accusing police of cover up!
Childkiller Kate McCann
Following Madeleine McCann's death in Apartment 5A, Kate and Gerry McCann staged a cover up which involved a fake break-in and a phantom abductor.
They are still covering up even now by Kate McCann profitting from her crime by writing a work of fiction in which she blames everybody else but herself and her husband for what happened.
We know for a fact that on the night the McCanns did not search for Madeleine because they knew exactly what had happened to her and that going through the motions was a waste of time. "Mrs McCann tells of how she frantically searched for the child on discovering Madeleine was no longer asleep in her bed".
"In Madeleine, Mrs McCann tells of the couple's guilt at leaving Madeleine and their twins Sean and Amelie unattended in their apartment while they ate supper with friends about 100 yards away". As Madeleine was already dead when they went out on their binge session, they only left the live twins unattended.
Childkiller Kate McCannFollowing Madeleine McCann's death in Apartment 5A, Kate and Gerry McCann staged a cover up which involved a fake break-in and a phantom abductor.
They are still covering up even now by Kate McCann profitting from her crime by writing a work of fiction in which she blames everybody else but herself and her husband for what happened.
We know for a fact that on the night the McCanns did not search for Madeleine because they knew exactly what had happened to her and that going through the motions was a waste of time. "Mrs McCann tells of how she frantically searched for the child on discovering Madeleine was no longer asleep in her bed".
"In Madeleine, Mrs McCann tells of the couple's guilt at leaving Madeleine and their twins Sean and Amelie unattended in their apartment while they ate supper with friends about 100 yards away". As Madeleine was already dead when they went out on their binge session, they only left the live twins unattended.
Saturday, May 07, 2011
Inside Time becomes gutter press!
Inside Time becomes gutter press!
Inside Time the so-called national newspaper for prisoners, in my view, has been sliding down hill for sometime now. So much so, that when a journalist asked me to explain the difference between Inside Time and Converse (so far its only rival), I was unable to do so and I said that they were both as bad as each other.
For example, in the latest issue, May, Inside Time has stooped to misleading prisoners with two items in its Newsround pages (not available in the online edition) on pages 11 and 13.
1)"Human rights court will be reined in over deportation
Failed asylum seekers and foreign prisoners face restrictions on their ability to challenge decisions to deport them under plans announced on April 27 to rein in the powers of the European Court of Human Rights (The Times writes).
The court should be prepared to intervene only in the "most exceptional circumstances", according to a declaration issued after a Council of Europe meeting in Turkey. Ministers are also looking at charging a fee for appealing to the Strasbourg court in a measure intended to cut the number of people applying to overturn British court decisions.
Britain joined the council's 46 other countries in signing a declaration intended to curb the court. The direction, which the court is unlikely to ignore, follows growing concerns at Westminster over a serious [sis] of human rights rulings and the frequency and number of appeals to Strasbourg".
2)"EU ultimatum to give prisoners right to vote
The Prime Minister has been given a six-month deadline to produce legislation to end the blanket ban on votes for conviced [sic] prisoners.
He was given an ultimatum by the European Court of Human Rights in a decision which will enrage Tory backbenchers, who are opposed to giving prisoners the vote and deeply hostile to the court. The court dismissed a government request for an appeal hearing and said the verdict on ending the blanket ban was final".
In relation to 1), "Human rights court will be reined in over deportation", is an inaccurate statement. Who is going to do the reigning in, the UK? For starters, the ECtHR itself has the jurisdiction (power) which extends to all matters concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. The UK has no power to usurp the Court's jurisdiction. Secondly, the UK is but 1/47th of the Council of Europe and any reforms to the Court or Convention requires the agreement of all 47 Member States of the Council of Europe. Given the Council of Europe's concerns about deportations to countries which may torture or kill deportees, it is highly unlikely that the UK will get the required support for reform of the Court in this respect.
"Failed asylum seekers and foreign prisoners face restrictions on their ability to challenge decisions to deport them under plans announced on April 27 to rein in the powers of the European Court of Human Rights (The Times writes)". This is also an inaccurate statement. No such plan was announced. Rather, this relates to a MoJ press release announcing the gist of the speech which Kenneth Clarke intended to deliver to the Izir Conference in Turkey. The MoJ press officer put spin upon the substance, and so did the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and The Times. The reality is that under the Convention the right to individual petition to the Court remains the same for all applicants regardless of the substance of their applications. The Court treats each case on its individual merit. Therefore, those mentioned above do not and will not in future face restrictions.
"The court should be prepared to intervene only in the "most exceptional circumstances", according to a declaration issued after a Council of Europe meeting in Turkey. Ministers are also looking at charging a fee for appealing to the Strasbourg court in a measure intended to cut the number of people applying to overturn British court decisions".
The Izir Conference follows on from the Interlaken Conference and the topic is reform of the ECtHR. Part of the problem being the 120,000 backlog of cases before the Court. Many of these cases will be declared inadmissible, but also too many cases relate to Member States failing to comply with the Court judgments. For example, following Hirst v UK (No2) being ignored by the UK there are now 3,500 more cases by prisoners before the Court. This poses a challenge to the Court which the Court intends to address. Following on from the Interlaken Declaration came the Izir Declaration. Part of this reads: "Invites the Court, when examining cases related to asylum and immigration, to assess and take full account of the effectiveness of domestic procedures and, where these procedures are seen to operate fairly and with respect for human rights, to avoid intervening except in the most exceptional circumstances". Notice that this is just an invitation and not a "should" as in a mandatory action. The problem in relation to the UK is that often there is no effective remedy, and that the procedures tend not to be fair and this only leads to abuse of human rights. Basically, what the UK is asking is that it be allowed to abuse human rights without international interference. However, unless the UK tidies its act up there will be more and not less international scrutiny. The Council of Europe "invites the Committee of Ministers to continue to examine the issue of charging fees to applicants", but as many of the Member States oppose the introduction of a fee it is doubtful that this obstacle to access to the Court will be allowed to occur.
"Britain joined the council's 46 other countries in signing a declaration intended to curb the court. The direction, which the court is unlikely to ignore, follows growing concerns at Westminster over a serious [sic] of human rights rulings and the frequency and number of appeals to Strasbourg". This is again an inaccuracy, the Izir Declaration is not about curbing the powers of the Court. On the contrary, the Lisbon Treaty, in particular Protocol 14, actually extends the jurisdiction of the Court and gives the Council of Europe and Committee of Ministers new powers. Shortly, I expect that the UK will be feeling the brunt of these new powers for daring to challenge the Court's authority over the Prisoners Votes Case. As already stated, it was not a direction but an invitation, and it is very likely, in spite of what the Inside Time and The Times state, that the Court will ignore the invite. Given the growing concerns at Westminster over a series of human rights rulings and the frequency and number of appeals to Strasbourg, this is evidence of a systemic failure in human rights protection in the UK, and is surely an issue which the Inside Time should be addressing rather than cosying up to the Establishment and being part of the problem and not the cure?
In relation to 2), "EU ultimatum to give prisoners right to vote", of course it is the Council of Europe, and not the EU, which has issued the ultimatum!
"The Prime Minister has been given a six-month deadline to produce legislation to end the blanket ban on votes for conviced [sic] prisoners". The UK, and not the Prime Minister, has been given 6 months to introduce legislation to end the blanket ban on votes for convicted prisoners.
"He was given an ultimatum by the European Court of Human Rights in a decision which will enrage Tory backbenchers, who are opposed to giving prisoners the vote and deeply hostile to the court. The court dismissed a government request for an appeal hearing and said the verdict on ending the blanket ban was final". It is a pity that Inside Time failed to identify that the decision was reached in the case of Greens and MT v UK. Also that as the UK had already appealed and lost its appeal in Hirst v UK (No2), that there is no provision under the Convention to appeal against a final decision in one case by way of argument in another case. This would have amounted to an abuse of process.
Finally, I am not sure whether this down hill slide of the Inside Time is because of the incompetence of Noel Smith (compared to John Bowers) or whether John Roberts has been at the helm too long and is getting stale or going senile!
UPDATE: I Tweeted this article and received this tweet in response...
loveburglars LoveBurglars
@
@Jailhouselawyer It's an awful paper!
Inside Time the so-called national newspaper for prisoners, in my view, has been sliding down hill for sometime now. So much so, that when a journalist asked me to explain the difference between Inside Time and Converse (so far its only rival), I was unable to do so and I said that they were both as bad as each other.
For example, in the latest issue, May, Inside Time has stooped to misleading prisoners with two items in its Newsround pages (not available in the online edition) on pages 11 and 13.
1)"Human rights court will be reined in over deportation
Failed asylum seekers and foreign prisoners face restrictions on their ability to challenge decisions to deport them under plans announced on April 27 to rein in the powers of the European Court of Human Rights (The Times writes).
The court should be prepared to intervene only in the "most exceptional circumstances", according to a declaration issued after a Council of Europe meeting in Turkey. Ministers are also looking at charging a fee for appealing to the Strasbourg court in a measure intended to cut the number of people applying to overturn British court decisions.
Britain joined the council's 46 other countries in signing a declaration intended to curb the court. The direction, which the court is unlikely to ignore, follows growing concerns at Westminster over a serious [sis] of human rights rulings and the frequency and number of appeals to Strasbourg".
2)"EU ultimatum to give prisoners right to vote
The Prime Minister has been given a six-month deadline to produce legislation to end the blanket ban on votes for conviced [sic] prisoners.
He was given an ultimatum by the European Court of Human Rights in a decision which will enrage Tory backbenchers, who are opposed to giving prisoners the vote and deeply hostile to the court. The court dismissed a government request for an appeal hearing and said the verdict on ending the blanket ban was final".
In relation to 1), "Human rights court will be reined in over deportation", is an inaccurate statement. Who is going to do the reigning in, the UK? For starters, the ECtHR itself has the jurisdiction (power) which extends to all matters concerning the interpretation or application of the Convention. The UK has no power to usurp the Court's jurisdiction. Secondly, the UK is but 1/47th of the Council of Europe and any reforms to the Court or Convention requires the agreement of all 47 Member States of the Council of Europe. Given the Council of Europe's concerns about deportations to countries which may torture or kill deportees, it is highly unlikely that the UK will get the required support for reform of the Court in this respect.
"Failed asylum seekers and foreign prisoners face restrictions on their ability to challenge decisions to deport them under plans announced on April 27 to rein in the powers of the European Court of Human Rights (The Times writes)". This is also an inaccurate statement. No such plan was announced. Rather, this relates to a MoJ press release announcing the gist of the speech which Kenneth Clarke intended to deliver to the Izir Conference in Turkey. The MoJ press officer put spin upon the substance, and so did the Daily Mail, Daily Telegraph and The Times. The reality is that under the Convention the right to individual petition to the Court remains the same for all applicants regardless of the substance of their applications. The Court treats each case on its individual merit. Therefore, those mentioned above do not and will not in future face restrictions.
"The court should be prepared to intervene only in the "most exceptional circumstances", according to a declaration issued after a Council of Europe meeting in Turkey. Ministers are also looking at charging a fee for appealing to the Strasbourg court in a measure intended to cut the number of people applying to overturn British court decisions".
The Izir Conference follows on from the Interlaken Conference and the topic is reform of the ECtHR. Part of the problem being the 120,000 backlog of cases before the Court. Many of these cases will be declared inadmissible, but also too many cases relate to Member States failing to comply with the Court judgments. For example, following Hirst v UK (No2) being ignored by the UK there are now 3,500 more cases by prisoners before the Court. This poses a challenge to the Court which the Court intends to address. Following on from the Interlaken Declaration came the Izir Declaration. Part of this reads: "Invites the Court, when examining cases related to asylum and immigration, to assess and take full account of the effectiveness of domestic procedures and, where these procedures are seen to operate fairly and with respect for human rights, to avoid intervening except in the most exceptional circumstances". Notice that this is just an invitation and not a "should" as in a mandatory action. The problem in relation to the UK is that often there is no effective remedy, and that the procedures tend not to be fair and this only leads to abuse of human rights. Basically, what the UK is asking is that it be allowed to abuse human rights without international interference. However, unless the UK tidies its act up there will be more and not less international scrutiny. The Council of Europe "invites the Committee of Ministers to continue to examine the issue of charging fees to applicants", but as many of the Member States oppose the introduction of a fee it is doubtful that this obstacle to access to the Court will be allowed to occur.
"Britain joined the council's 46 other countries in signing a declaration intended to curb the court. The direction, which the court is unlikely to ignore, follows growing concerns at Westminster over a serious [sic] of human rights rulings and the frequency and number of appeals to Strasbourg". This is again an inaccuracy, the Izir Declaration is not about curbing the powers of the Court. On the contrary, the Lisbon Treaty, in particular Protocol 14, actually extends the jurisdiction of the Court and gives the Council of Europe and Committee of Ministers new powers. Shortly, I expect that the UK will be feeling the brunt of these new powers for daring to challenge the Court's authority over the Prisoners Votes Case. As already stated, it was not a direction but an invitation, and it is very likely, in spite of what the Inside Time and The Times state, that the Court will ignore the invite. Given the growing concerns at Westminster over a series of human rights rulings and the frequency and number of appeals to Strasbourg, this is evidence of a systemic failure in human rights protection in the UK, and is surely an issue which the Inside Time should be addressing rather than cosying up to the Establishment and being part of the problem and not the cure?
In relation to 2), "EU ultimatum to give prisoners right to vote", of course it is the Council of Europe, and not the EU, which has issued the ultimatum!
"The Prime Minister has been given a six-month deadline to produce legislation to end the blanket ban on votes for conviced [sic] prisoners". The UK, and not the Prime Minister, has been given 6 months to introduce legislation to end the blanket ban on votes for convicted prisoners.
"He was given an ultimatum by the European Court of Human Rights in a decision which will enrage Tory backbenchers, who are opposed to giving prisoners the vote and deeply hostile to the court. The court dismissed a government request for an appeal hearing and said the verdict on ending the blanket ban was final". It is a pity that Inside Time failed to identify that the decision was reached in the case of Greens and MT v UK. Also that as the UK had already appealed and lost its appeal in Hirst v UK (No2), that there is no provision under the Convention to appeal against a final decision in one case by way of argument in another case. This would have amounted to an abuse of process.
Finally, I am not sure whether this down hill slide of the Inside Time is because of the incompetence of Noel Smith (compared to John Bowers) or whether John Roberts has been at the helm too long and is getting stale or going senile!
UPDATE: I Tweeted this article and received this tweet in response...
loveburglars LoveBurglars
@
@Jailhouselawyer It's an awful paper!
Were the LibDems right to sacrifice principles for power?
Were the LibDems right to sacrifice principles for power?
I would have thought that the whole point of a Coalition Government was to show a united front. On the issue of AV the Tories and LibDems went their separate ways. There was no Coalition.
It is being said that the LibDems had no choice but to form a Coalition with the Tories. However, surely there was a choice not to sacrifice principles for a taste of power?
I would have thought that the whole point of a Coalition Government was to show a united front. On the issue of AV the Tories and LibDems went their separate ways. There was no Coalition.
It is being said that the LibDems had no choice but to form a Coalition with the Tories. However, surely there was a choice not to sacrifice principles for a taste of power?
Federalism or sovereignty?
Federalism or sovereignty?
Within this article from the Daily Mail "Now will Cameron seize this chance to show he's a true Tory?", I have pulled out the following quote:
"Ken Clarke must rethink his approach to letting more prisoners out of jail — otherwise Cameron should find a new Justice Secretary who will.
The same goes for the Government’s craven attitude towards Europe. Cameron should quickly draw up a plan to reclaim powers Britain has lost to Brussels. This would stop us having to put up with ludicrous rulings such as the one by the European Court which has ordered that murderers and rapists should be given the vote".
Every country that has signed up to the Council of Europe and/or the European Union has surrendered some national sovereignty, power, if you like, for the common good in a unified Europe. Part of paying this price is that they have agreed that some decisions will be made by the supranational as opposed to the national power. I cannot see Europe allowing the UK to be both part of the United States of Europe and a totally independent state at the same time. In other words, the UK cannot both have its cake and eat it.
I would like to see an end to the hypocrisy of UK representatives saying one thing in Strasbourg and Brussels, and another thing back home in the UK.
Within this article from the Daily Mail "Now will Cameron seize this chance to show he's a true Tory?", I have pulled out the following quote:
"Ken Clarke must rethink his approach to letting more prisoners out of jail — otherwise Cameron should find a new Justice Secretary who will.
The same goes for the Government’s craven attitude towards Europe. Cameron should quickly draw up a plan to reclaim powers Britain has lost to Brussels. This would stop us having to put up with ludicrous rulings such as the one by the European Court which has ordered that murderers and rapists should be given the vote".
Every country that has signed up to the Council of Europe and/or the European Union has surrendered some national sovereignty, power, if you like, for the common good in a unified Europe. Part of paying this price is that they have agreed that some decisions will be made by the supranational as opposed to the national power. I cannot see Europe allowing the UK to be both part of the United States of Europe and a totally independent state at the same time. In other words, the UK cannot both have its cake and eat it.
I would like to see an end to the hypocrisy of UK representatives saying one thing in Strasbourg and Brussels, and another thing back home in the UK.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)