Comments on The Pensive Quill: Draconian Destination

Mackers, it is certainly having serious consequen...

2011-11-17T14:05:00.580Z

Mackers,
it is certainly having serious consequences in the Massereene trial.
The entire court scenario is unfolding like a comedy of errors.
A vanishing and re-appearing latex tip. A policemen who cannot even remember being in the so-called getaway car and a forensic method which apparently lacks any scientific credence.
Stamp out political policing! sounds good when the shinner chant it, just a pity they do not the will or the clout to enforce it.

There is no difference between Baggott's, and ...

2011-11-17T12:02:11.164Z

There is no difference between Baggott's, and by extension the British government's, PSNI and Hitler's SS.

So whats the difference between Baggott's PSNI...

2011-11-17T11:58:11.477Z

So whats the difference between Baggott's PSNI and Hitler's SS. ?

Draconian destination? When did we ever leave the ...

2011-11-17T08:26:19.498Z

Draconian destination? When did we ever leave the station?

The Diplock system was 'discontinued' in July 2007 but Section 1 of the Justice and Security (Northern Ireland) Act 2007 allows for a “non-jury trial” in Northern Ireland. The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 details how the Director of Public Prosecutions can issue a certificate to have a jury removed from a trial.

Former NI Secretary of State, Peter Hain has emphasized the vital significance of this issue when he argued:
... the jury remains a prime political target in the judicial system. For defendants in political trials it may provide the only real hope of securing justice.

The dangers giving the PPS this unchangeable power are laid out in the blogg One law for one, no law for others which provides compelling evidence that the PPS 'doctored' evidence, see http://thepensivequill.am/2011/11/one-law-for-one-no-law-for-others.html

While it is commonly known that the Right to Silence has been removed during interrogations prior to being charged with an offence, what most may not be aware is that the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008: Part 2: Post-charge questioning: allows for adverse inferences to be drawn from failure to mention anything sought “at any time after being charged with the offence”

An obvious danger here would be that an astute Prosecutor need only ask an unexpected question and if the Defendant can answer then he/she is then depending upon that answer in their defence; thus the Court will then have discretion to draw an adverse inference or not.

Salus populi suprema lex esto (Let the good of the people be the supreme law)