The Maises had a notorious divorce case. The judge refused the divorce on the grounds that both parties were too immoral to be allowed to marry anyone else.
One of Britain’s most dangerous al-Qaeda terrorists is seeking to have his conviction overturned on human rights grounds, The Telegraph can disclose.
Abdulla Ahmed Ali, the ringleader of a suicide plot which could have killed 10,000 people, has gone to the European Court of Human Rights to claim his human rights were infringed by publicity before he was convicted of conspiracy to murder.
He alleges the jury would have been prejudiced by media coverage of a previous trial.
That trial included the disclosure that Ali had recorded a “suicide video” saying his plot to bring down airliners with liquid bombs disguised as soft drinks was intended to “teach a lesson” non-Muslims “will never forget”.
He is currently serving a life sentence for leading the liquid bomb plot. Investigating and prosecuting the conspiracy has already cost the taxpayer more than £100 million, and Ali’s legal challenge will push the bill even higher.
Doesn’t matter a toss how high that legal bill will go.
If he didn’t get a fair trial then he didn’t get a fair trial and we all start over. If he did then he’s in jail for the rest of his natural.
Shrug, this is just the way that we do it. And the reason we do it for the scumbags is because we want it to be done with us if our turn comes to be tried. Really, it’s very, very, simple.
Miss Hewson, a barrister at Hardwicke Chambers, added: “It seems to me, simply factually, we all know if you’re drunk you are more likely to have accidents. So if you fall off a bar stool and hit you head and have a serous brain injury because you’re drunk people are gong to say well you chose to be drunk.
“So it does seem to me something a little sanitised about the idea that (when discussing rape) we cannot even have a discussion about the moral responsibility whatever people may want to say about the legal responsibility.”
Miss Hewson, 52, who lives in Islington, north London, dismissed what she saw as four “components” of the dominant “ideology of sexual victimisation” surrounding rape.
“The first is the idea that rape and sexual abuse is very widespread but largely unrecognised even by victims themselves who need to be taught to realise what’s really happened.
“Secondly, that it has long term damaging effects. Thirdly that its morally absolutely unambiguous, the victim is utterly innocent and the victimiser is utterly guilty and this is infinitesimal. And finally that claims of victimisation must always be respected, anything less is victim-blaming.”
The policing minister, Damian Green, has also confirmed radical plans to open up the recruitment of middle-ranking officers to outsiders with business and leadership skills for the first time.
The introduction of a direct-entry annual recruitment scheme for at least 20 police superintendents and 80 fast-track inspectors from next year will end a century’s tradition of all police officers starting their career on the beat.
The police themselves have always resisted the idea of an officer class. And pissing off establishments is always a useful guide to interesting policy. So on that side, OK, fine.
And yet, and yet: the police are supposed to be us. The citizenry. Adopting a more military style management doesn’t seem to aid in that very much.
Or, of course, we could end up with the wannabe middle management types who have their sociology degrees being this new officer class and that would be even worse than having the force run by the rejects from the Life Guards. And I think my greatest fear here is that that is exactly what will happen. It’ll be a career path for those too dim to go into normal management. Heads stuffed full of diversity advisoring rather than how to actually police and area.
In his ruling, Mr Justice Mostyn said he was lifting the injunction “because the emphasis should be on transparency” in the courts.
He added: “Mr Booker is perfectly entitled to be as rude as he wants about anybody he wants. That is what freedom of speech is about.”
I’ve got Sky News on the TV at the moment and have just heard the phone conversations between Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce. I think it is scandalous that they have been made public. I almost felt dirty listening to them. I’m not sure what is proved by their release. Indeed, why have they been made public? I don’t recall this ever happening before. I’m sure it is right that the jury should listen to them, although I am not sure they help Vicky Pryce’s case at all.
Well Iain, It\’s as the first comment on your post says:
The phone call has been released for the same reason that Huhne\’s son\’s text messages were released. They were put forward as evidence against Huhne. Until he pled guilty there were kept confidential. Now that he has changed his tune, they are public record just like any other piece of evidence.
Justice must be done and justice must be seen to be done. Thus evidence in court (with some exceptions, to be sure) is simply public information that may be reported.
Police chiefs have admitted that a second undercover unit stole the identities of dead children as recently as the late 1990s in a series of operations to infiltrate political activists.
Yes, obviously you can in the colloquial sense. But can you in a legal one?
I can see that you can misuse one. I can see that the State might get mightily pissed off with you representing yourself as someone you\’re not. You might use a fake ID to \”steal\” benefits, which would indeed be theft.
But is the identity of a dead person actually property that can be stolen?
Perverting the course of justice is a crime.
The sentencing guidelines are here.
Pleading guilty will reduce the sentence. Having stoutly insisted upon innocence before that will increase it. Note that sentences are expected to be consecutive, not concurrent, and there should be two, one for the offence and one for the perversion.
Sentences are reduced/increased given the seriousness of the underlying crime.
The current betting from those who know more about this than I do is over a year of jail time (no, whatever it is will not be suspended) and thus a by-election.
Anyone want to lay claim to a different number?
Chris Grayling said the Government should not always be paying for the most senior QCs to defend suspected criminals when cheaper junior lawyers could do the job just as well.
Speaking on BBC Radio Four\’s Today programme, he said the £1 billion legal aid bill spent on criminal cases is too high when budgets are being cut across the Government.
\”If you look at the daily rate for a senior QC it can be between £1300 and £2,000. For somebody who\’s going to become a QC in a month\’s time, it\’s just over half that amount,\” he said.
\”The question is can we really afford so often to use people who are paid such an additional higher rate compared with somebody\’s who\’s nearly as experienced, who\’s a seriously competent barrister, who will become a QC one day if they choose to do so.
You\’re aiming to take the liberty of the person you\’re prosecuting. Yes, you do need to pay for the lawyer to defend that person.
Whinging about how much it all costs: there are two things the nation state is meant to do. Defend the country and provide a court and justice system. Those are the two pre-requisites. Everything else it does is subordinate to these two. So if you\’ve not got enough money to do these two then you\’d better just stop doing some of the others to pay for these two.
Married lawyer, 58, \’had affair with divorce client then billed her for times they had sex\’
It\’s not unknown for divorce lawyers to shag their clients. Common enough that I\’ve seen it used as a running joke in a certain style of American legal novel.
But to charge the client (or, as is more likely, charge the husband as he\’ll be paying all the legal bills) for shagging the soon to be ex-wife is to move from scumbag to poltroon.
Former chief justice Tun Zaki Azmi said “like it or not, it is the duty of lawyers to uphold justice”.
“As a practising lawyer, you have to distinguish between your personal or public emotions and politics,” he said. “You cannot assume the accused is guilty and should not get a fair defence.”
Zaki said lawyers had always been the first to say that a person is presumed innocent unless proven otherwise.
He questioned why the lawyers were acting the way they were.
Malaysian Bar Council president Lim Chee Wee was surprised that the accused rapists were unable to obtain legal representation despite an “independent and strong Bar in a modern democracy such as India”.
“Assuming the same ethical standards apply, a lawyer is obliged to act unless he is embarrassed, in a position of conflict or does not possess the necessary skills or relevant experience,” he said.
“A lawyer must never be equated, identified or associated with his or her client’s cause.”
Asked if the decision could have been made due to fear of reprisals, Lim said lawyers must never be intimidated.
“We are the last frontier of justice and everyone needs legal representation to ensure due process is satisfied,” he said.
Damn right matey, damn right.
To the point that I\’ve still got troubles with the Nuremburg trials, based as they were on retrospective law.
I do hope, very much, that that is true.
I certainly believe that directing an Anglo-Saxonism at men and women who have heard if often enough (and in my limited experience of drinking with coppers before one nicked my girlfriend they say it often enough) might be offensive but it\’s not an offence.
But could those of you who know much more law than me confirm this? Most especially, is this an actual treaceable quote (through bailli perhaps) that can be pointed to?
Did an actual judge actually say this? Recordedly?
Lawyers for Lord McAlpine are demanding that ITV pays more in libel damages than the BBC over false claims linking him to child sex abuse.
The broadcaster has been given until this afternoon to respond to a demand to pay damages to the former Conservative Party treasurer. He accepted £185,000 plus costs from the BBC last week over a Newsnight report that the corporation admitted had been broadcast without undertaking “basic journalistic checks”.
A spokesman for Lord McAlpine said it was “quite clear” ITV would have to pay significantly more after Phillip Schofield, the co-host of This Morning, handed David Cameron live on air a list of names of alleged abusers that was briefly visible to viewers Lord McAlpine’s spokesman said that the peer had restricted the demand for compensation from the BBC because he was conscious that licence-payers’ money was involved. The same situation did not apply to his action against the commercial broadcaster. “This was also done in broad daylight in a premeditated way in front of the Prime Minister. It was that programme that prompted Lord McAlpine to come out with his statement,” the spokesman said.
The peer, who is in poor health, issued a statement on November 9 that denounced “wholly false and seriously defamatory” suggestions that he had been involved in the paedophile scandal at a children’s home in North Wales in the 1970s and 1980s.
ITV has issued written warnings to Mr Schofield and four members of the programme’s production team. A spokesman for the broadcaster said that it had received a letter from solicitors for Lord McAlpine and would be responding.
The actor and comedian Alan Davies is among thousands of Twitter users facing libel claims for linking the peer to the scandal.
I can\’t actually recall where I read it. But someone, yesterday, was pointing out a very interesting legal fact.
When there is an obvious case of widespread libel, each and every instance of such a libel is not considered separately. They are, for want of a better word, cumulative. More specifically, damages are cumulative.
Each and every person who libelled, who repeated it, are not treated as being the one and sole libeller. Rather, all are treated as having committed the one offence.
Purely as an example, say that the damge to a reputation was worth damages of £10 million (one might think this a reasonable enough sum actually, it being higher than any other set of libel damages ever). It is all who have libelled together who should then cough up £10 million collectively. Not, as some might assume, £10 million each.
No, they\’re not jointly and severally liable or anything, but that\’s still a very interesting point, don\’t you think?
A British Transport Police spokeswoman said: \”BTP officers were called to the railway line in Aston Magna, Moreton in Marsh, Gloucestershire, on Friday, 19 October following a report of a man being struck by a train.
\”BTP and Gloucestershire Constabulary officers attended the incident, which was reported to BTP at 12.20pm and is currently being treated as non-suspicious.
\”Paramedics from Great Western Ambulance Service also attended but the man was pronounced dead at the scene.\”
She added that they were investigating the circumstances surrounding the incident and were preparing a file for the coroner.
He was due to appear at court in St Albans with his wife Teresa, also a serving officer, charged with perverting the course of justice over a speeding incident in Scotland.
That incident was was being investigated by Hertfordshire Constabulary.
It is alleged Mrs Fraser, who has been suspended from West Midlands Police pending the outcome of the investigation, accepted responsibility for a speeding offence committed by her husband in Strathclyde last September.
Mr Fraser had been suspended from duty since December 2010, pending a separate investigation being carried out by Merseyside Police.
Merseyside Police confirmed earlier this year they were investigating Mr Fraser following allegations of misconduct and fraud.
Supporters of Julian Assange have launched an legal bid to recover the £140,000 cash they put up in bail money which was forefeit when the WikiLeaks founder sought asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy.
The group – which includes two members of the British aristocracy, a Nobel Prize winner and an academic – told a court they were \”wholly blameless\” in the saga, and had \”worked assiduously\” to help Assange comply with court orders.
Excellent, you worked hard to try and get him to obey the law.
Good for you.
But that ain\’t what bail sureties are about. For you\’re not a bounty hunter.
What the guarantees are about is that the Government, or the court, doesn\’t really know how honest the bloke in front of them is. Could be a man of unblemished character falsely accused. So we look around to see if other people trust him. If they do, then great, they can show their faith in his good character by providing those financial guarantees. The court then takes that other people have faith, demonstrated by that financial commitment, as being evidence that he is of good character and will turn up for trial.
If you get that estimation of character wrong well, tough luck.
The Ministry of Justice hopes it will help Britain become the \”largest specialist centre for the resolution of financial, business and property litigation anywhere in the world\” and on the face of it, there seems little to object to in that. I have many criticisms of the judiciary, but I have never entertained the notion that an English judge would take a bribe or succumb to pressure from the state. You cannot say the same of judges in Moscow, New Delhi or Beijing. The incorruptibility of the judiciary and the work ethic of the lawyers ensure that more international commercial disputes take place in London than in any other city in the world. And of course we need whatever taxes the lawyers\’ accountants condescend to pass to the Revenue.
We have an honest judiciary that Johnny Foreigner wishes to use.
Sounds like a matter for congratulation really.
A father who faces being restricted from seeing his daughter after an unidentified woman made sexual abuse claims against him has won the right to be told the name of his accuser.
Three Court of Appeal judges also said social workers must disclose the identity of the woman despite her refusal to be named.
The man, who is Australian, has so far also been denied any details of the claims against him, making it almost impossible for him to fight them.
He vociferously denies sexually abusing \”anybody\”.
In what was acknowledged as a “highly unusual” situation, a High Court judge ruled earlier this year that the woman’s identity could not be disclosed because she suffered mental and physical problems which were \”towards the top end of the spectrum\”.
It\’s possible to describe this two ways.
1) Woman so harmed by sexual abuse struggles to prevent this from happening to another. Bravely identifies her abuser. Her identity is protected to protect her fragile state.
2) Known nutter makes allegation. No one to know what it is, who she is, making it entirely impossible to prove allegations or to defend against them.
It seems the lower court and the social workers went with 1). The higher court with 2).
As it should be of course: any and everyone has a right to know the allegations, the person making them, so that they can be defended against.
Apple scored a major legal victory last night after a US jury found arch rival Samsung violated patents used in the iPhone and ordered the South Korean company to pay $1.05bn (£664bn) in damages.
Million, billion….still a stunning verdict though.
Not these problems, of remand prisoners not being treated as they should be. That\’s bad, but not my point.
I do know why remand exists: flight or witness nobbling possibilities.
But the end result is, and always will be, that some who are subsequently found not guilty end up serving jail sentences. The process itself becomes the punishment.
No I don\’t mean those sentenced to time served. I mean those found not guilty: the justification for them to have to serve a sentence is what?
I don\’t know anything about the details but I would suspsect that those cleared at trial are let out with a \”Sorry but that\’s the way it goes\” and that\’s an end to it.
Which, if true, would strike me as the system not having enough skin in the game. Who, if anyone, loses out if too many go on to remand? Who compensates those who serve remand time for having been locked up without actually having been guilty of anything?
It can be substantial amounts of time too: months certainly are possible. It doesn\’t take all that long for a modern life to fall apart if you\’re not able to take part in it. Mortgages, rents, jobs, all disappear pretty quickly.
As I say, I don\’t actually know what does happen and would love to know (no, not for any personal reasons, they haven\’t found out the E factory in the basement of 8 Downing Street yet). Who, if anyone, coughs up for what those found innocent after being on remand lose?
And if it\’s no one, then shouldn\’t someone?
There are better legal minds around here than mine but:
But they will also ask for a writ of habeas corpus freeing him from custody.
The common law procedure developed in medieval times and is Latin for “you may have the body”.
Umm, doesn\’t it mean \”we have the body\” or perhaps \”here is the body\”?
The basic idea being that if someone is languishing in some Baron\’s dungeon then the King\’s courts they (or, I think, anyone else?) can demand that they are presented in the King\’s courts to determine whether said Baron (or anyone else) has the right to detain them?
Going back some the point being that the body itself had to be presented at the hearing so that it could be freed if that\’s what was going to happen?
BTW, on this Qatada thing, this specific case, my view is as always. He may be a bad \’un, I have no idea. But he gets tried and treated the same way you and I do. As far as the law is concerned you\’re not a bad \’un until you\’ve been tried and proved to be so. And yes, there are exceptions to this. Flight risk is a reason for denying bail as is the risk of witness nobbling. And there are times, like when we\’re at war, when we have internment which is, essentially, the withdrawal of the protections of habeas corpus.
But we haven\’t declared that last. Qatada hasn\’t been convicted of anything in our courts. He\’s not a flight risk, quite the opposite. And as we\’re not trying to charge him with anything there are no witnesses to nobble.
And we just don\’t do preventive detention for the quite obvious reason that we\’re a free country of free people.
And yes, he\’s a scumbag: and as Larry Flynt pointed out, if the law will protect scumbags then it will protect you and me.
Free Abu Qatada!