Skip to main content

Hoffman on the European Court

Lord Hoffman has criticised the decisions and processes of the Strasbourg Court. Where I am positive about the Strasbourg Court is that it is independent of the cosy consensus that exists in the legal establishment in the UK.

Someone who expresses the views that I express in public would be unable to make a living as a barrister in England simply because the judges would take against him (or her). This has been confirmed to me by barristers who support (some of) those things I say, but are unwilling to say them in public.

Lord Hoffman's detailed speech I hope to upload onto the JFF website as the only available copy is in Word which is not that good.

I would like to look at the three issues that he raises. These are the Sanders Case and self-incrimination. A case involving Hearsay and a third case about flights in Heathrow and Judicial Review.

Dealing with them in reverse order. Judicial review is a very difficult procedure to succeed with in England and involves major risks being taken by anyone with average wealth. From that perspective, therefore, it is not an "adequate remedy". I, therefore, agree with the European Court when "the Court nevertheless held by 16 votes to 1 (that being Sir Brian Kerr, the UK ad hoc judge) that judicial review had been an inadequate remedy."

It is not surprising that the UK judge felt that it was OK and it shows the strength of an external perspective. The concept of adequate remedies is an important concept otherwise people are powerless against the state.

The second one was where hearsay evidence was admitted in a criminal trial. I am concerned about the deontological versus consequentialist approach that has driven legal culture in recent years. On one side we have the treatment by the state of a defendant and the use of unreliable evidence. On the other side we have the consequence of someone guilty going unpunished. He cites a case where hearsay evidence was admitted. There is actually a good argument for a retrial in this situation - a retrial in which the hearsay evidence is not allowed. I do think we really need to take a look at the extent to which justice in England and Wales has been polluted by both unreliable expert opinion (something the law commission have noticed recently) and hearsay evidence.

The third case was the Sanders case. Someone has turned up to my advice bureau now so I will hope to comment on this later.

Comments

neil craig said…
When you look at how Lords May & Bonomy behaved in the Milosevic show "trial" & the way the rest of the UK legal "profession" kept quiet about it it is clear our courts are wholly corrupt.

I see that even the BBC have admitted that the illegal war the LibDems so enthusiasticaly supported was fought not to prevent genocide but to promote it, together with child sex slavery & the the kidnap, dissection while alive & sale in parts to our hospitals of thousnads of Serbs.

Your party & all its remaining members have proved themselves to be obscene Nazi war criminals guilty of atrocities worse than Hitler's. Every single murderer should be brought to trial & hung.
john said…
Sounds like paranoid nonsense to me.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Homelessness vs Selling Books

Candidates in elections tend to find themselves very busy with lots of things to do.  It is, therefore, necessary to prioritise things to ensure that the important things are dealt with.

To me the issue of homelessness and rough sleeping is an important issue.  Therefore, when Birmingham's Faith Leaders group contacted me to ask me what I would propose and whether I would work with them to make things better I was pleased to respond with my views and indicate that I would work with them after the election.

The Faith Leaders Group (Bishops and other religious leaders in Birmingham) have now sent out their report.

Sadly, according to their report,  I was the only candidate for Yardley to respond.  The group in their report said:

"Particularly disappointing was the lack of response from some of those candidates seeking re-election as MP for their respective constituencies."
It is worth looking at the priorities of my opponent.
Interestingly today she has decided to be at th…

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…