Skip to main content

Freedom of Speech and the rule of law

I quote from the linked post.

First, I will take the elements of the rule of law as sketched by the late Law Lord, Tom Bingham, in his final book The Rule of Law (Allen Lane, 2010):

  1. The law must be accessible, and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable (p37
  2. Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not by the exercise of discretion (p48)
  3. The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation (p55)
  4. Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers[,] and not unreasonably (p60)
  5. The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental rights (p66)
  6. Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve (p85)
  7. Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair (p90)
  8. The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law (p110).


It is worth reading the original post, but the question has to be asked as to how many of these tests are failed by the family courts.

Comments

Jerry said…
Without sounding too abrupt here all of the 8 test points are missed within the closed family courts arena.

What the late Law Lord, Tom Bingham has written sounds more like common sense and what all UK citizens should be entitled to, sadly as you know John this is hardly ever the case.

I don't know if you have read the recent article in the telegraph regarding Expert Evidence scrutiny. It seems to go some way to help a majority of people in these matter however I bet it falls short to include closed family court matters.

The article:-

The Law Commission, the Government’s adviser on legal reform, warned expert witnesses are used “too freely” and cases of “junk science” can result in innocent people being wrongly convicted or the guilty being freed.
In future, under the proposed changes, a judge would have the power to assess the credibility of the expert evidence in advance of a trial.
The appropriate defence or prosecution teams would then be able to challenge it before the judge decides whether it can be put before the jury.
There were more than 8,500 experts witnesses used in the courts in 2009 and the Law Commission estimates one in 20 would be ruled inadmissible under its proposed system.
It says evidence that helped convict the likes of Sally Clark would not have passed the test.
Solicitor Mrs Clark was wrongly jailed in 1999 for killing her 11-week-old son Christopher and eight-week-old son Harry after an expert witness, Professor Sir Roy Meadow, controversially testified that the probability of two natural unexplained cot deaths in a family was 73 million to one.
But Mrs Clark's conviction was overturned in 2003 and Prof Meadow was struck off by the General Medical Council after it ruled his evidence was both "erroneous" and "misleading".
Professor David Ormerod, the leading law commissioner on the project, said: "Action is long overdue. As far back as 2005 a House of Commons select committee called for a gatekeeping test for expert evidence.
"Our test will go a long way to ensuring that, in future, the expert evidence used in criminal trials is safe, and the potential for miscarriages of justice greatly reduced."

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…