Skip to main content

Miscarriage of Justice Compensation - why I agreed with the Lords

I rebelled against the party whip today voting to keep the lords amendment 112 on Miscarriage of Justice compensation. My reasons are that the government position shifts the burden of proof. The lords amendment, which was supported by the majority of law lords basically creates a threshold which is that a conviction with the new evidence would be guaranteed to fail.

I did not support government or opposition on the amendment in lieu. I think it marginally improves the wording, but creates a mixed message as I am unhappy with the burden shifting.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Six months for recording a court hearing - Norman Scarth

The link is in Russian about the imprisonment of Norman Scarth who is actually 85. He has a complex history including a court hearing which found that he used a chainsaw to fight off bailiffs when he was 75. [a court judgment which is disputed see comments] However, that does not justify imprisoning him for 6 months for recording a court hearing (see the link and ask google to translate it if your Russian is not up to it). It has got into the Argyll News Because he has been held such that people cannot get to him to sign paperwork an application for a writ of Habeas Corpus was made today. This has been adjourned until next week. The English judicial system is really not good at responding to major abuses of human rights by the judicial system.
57 comments
Read more