Skip to main content

Public Interest Immunity Certificate creates Murky situation

This story in today's times (Paywall) reveals:
An accountant wrongly convicted of a fraud allegedly connected to the bribery of civil servants is demanding to see the secret evidence which saved him from a lengthy prison sentence.
Tom Wilson, 52, says he cannot rebuild his life and career because of a court secrecy order which means he and his lawyers are forbidden to know why he was eventually acquitted. Campaigners say Mr Wilson’s case highlights the use of Public Interest Immunity (PII) certificates, which allow government ministers, prosecutors, police and even private companies to ensure evidence remains secret from those facing trial.


I also wrote in The Times:
Parliament must act now

You would think that a Public Interest Immunity (PII) Certificate would be used to protect national security and keep us safe from terrorism.

It is surprising that the order in Tom Wilson’s case appears to have been used to hide the misbehaviour of civil servants and a contractor. But I have seen many cases where the use of different types of secrecy orders create a cover-up and undermine the rule of law. The Government has even lost track of how many PII certificates are given.

Article 5 of the Bill of Rights (1688) in theory should protect the right of citizens to complain to the authorities about wrongdoing in the same way as the first amendment of the US Constitution. However, this is not happening. Parliament needs to act to establish a formal inquiry looking at individual cases in secret courts and to roll back the levels of judicial secrecy.

Comments

Jake Maverick said…
bloody paywall...impossible to comment! but right hand side....not even a joke inquest inquest for Mark Duggan? when you pledged to do away with 'secret inquests'.....well, i dnt suppose many people realised you meant just do with them altogether.....no more promotions to royal protection squad available?
Jake Maverick said…
is there anyway you can find out if one of the PPI things applies to all the evidence of the crimes committed against me? currently being planned? the only way i currently have of finding out even WHO they are is to kill one in self defence....

despite our differences in politics can i rely on you for a character witness at any future kangaroo trial for murder/ diminshed responsibilty thing? ;-)

you've alluded a bit recently to what can euphamistically be termed 'fraudulent psychiatric' reports...but have you ever heard of any case, at any point in the space time continuum where somebody claiming to be a non physical entity AFTER THE FACT was judged to be killed in self defence when they attacked someone?

if i ever stop posting here you'll know why, won't you? sad to say you the only one who might actually notice....
Jake Maverick said…
2nd attempt


nothing to do with parliament....just enforce the existing laws, DPA for one....i'm sure that will actually throw up the evidence to prosecute the perps for the rest!

like all that CCTV footage you got of what you did to me....and the mobile footage....and christ knows what else.....whatever secret files say by people with no names doesn't constitute evidence, of anything (never accused of anything)--- words do mean what words actually do mean!
Jake Maverick said…
regardless of your secret evidence, legal mumbo jumbo hearsay/ bullshit.....a gang off psychopaths in darth avadar masks murdered an unarmed man with machine guns and then lied about it after the fact. another case in a long line of cases. i wish i would be so lucky

and even lying about Cornish pasties now...that's the thing abt compulisve liars, they can't help themselves even whne ther eis no point...what else can you lie about? one has to wonder....at least the last one was tarined liar...you can't really count GB, all he did was nick our gold reserves.....bahamas now probably!

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…