Many thanks for this, Joshua, but I am no easier in my mind in the light of your Gazette feature about the Select Committee hearing than before it and indeed Professor Craig, who with every respect of him supports the draft legislation more than do I, cites yet another scenario which would be problematic and given the likely workings of the eventual Act ,as I fear it may be, just plain wrong. I am impelled, yet again, to return to the Justice Secretary’s description of this sorry state of affairs as “wholly (sic) unique”. The chances are - in particular see the further menacing storm on the “horizon” of Capture- that unique it may be very far from proving to be. What price the separation of the powers and the rule of law then? And are those (in my view) victims of flawed technology of the future not, surely, going to cite this legislation once the law of the land and to demand equally speedy approximations to justice and due process. Why only with sub post persons and Horizon and- who knows?- Capture and not they may well come the cry. What exactly would then be our answer to that? Forgive me for having repeated myself- again- but I feel impelled to do so over as I see it such a (proposed) constitutionally significant departure from all that I learnt as a law student and all I endeavoured to stand up and fight for throughout the forty seven years of the “paid job” and indeed continue to do so in what passes for my “retirement”. The “common law”- as it were- did NOT really get it wrong in that judges and juries might only work on the evidence before them, as might- at least- the defence advocates and defence teams. I accept the qualification to that assertion wherever both the prosecuting entity and its in-house or out-of- house lawyers may have defaulted -or worse. Deeply troubled I have been and deeply troubled I remain. I see having proceeded thus far that the esteemed Alisdair far more pythily than I shares some of my anxieties.
Very lively session. Who would have thought three academics and a journalist would have different opinions! It will be interesting to see what is said in the House. As is predictable, I tend to prefer Hannah's arguments, but I can understand the views of others. I do, however, worry about the political precedent this creates. I accept it is not stare decisis, but it is all too tempting to say, "well, we did it there". When it gets to the HoL, it will be interesting to see what retired judges say.
I wish you a happy Passover to you and yours, Joshua.
Many thanks for this, Joshua, but I am no easier in my mind in the light of your Gazette feature about the Select Committee hearing than before it and indeed Professor Craig, who with every respect of him supports the draft legislation more than do I, cites yet another scenario which would be problematic and given the likely workings of the eventual Act ,as I fear it may be, just plain wrong. I am impelled, yet again, to return to the Justice Secretary’s description of this sorry state of affairs as “wholly (sic) unique”. The chances are - in particular see the further menacing storm on the “horizon” of Capture- that unique it may be very far from proving to be. What price the separation of the powers and the rule of law then? And are those (in my view) victims of flawed technology of the future not, surely, going to cite this legislation once the law of the land and to demand equally speedy approximations to justice and due process. Why only with sub post persons and Horizon and- who knows?- Capture and not they may well come the cry. What exactly would then be our answer to that? Forgive me for having repeated myself- again- but I feel impelled to do so over as I see it such a (proposed) constitutionally significant departure from all that I learnt as a law student and all I endeavoured to stand up and fight for throughout the forty seven years of the “paid job” and indeed continue to do so in what passes for my “retirement”. The “common law”- as it were- did NOT really get it wrong in that judges and juries might only work on the evidence before them, as might- at least- the defence advocates and defence teams. I accept the qualification to that assertion wherever both the prosecuting entity and its in-house or out-of- house lawyers may have defaulted -or worse. Deeply troubled I have been and deeply troubled I remain. I see having proceeded thus far that the esteemed Alisdair far more pythily than I shares some of my anxieties.
Very lively session. Who would have thought three academics and a journalist would have different opinions! It will be interesting to see what is said in the House. As is predictable, I tend to prefer Hannah's arguments, but I can understand the views of others. I do, however, worry about the political precedent this creates. I accept it is not stare decisis, but it is all too tempting to say, "well, we did it there". When it gets to the HoL, it will be interesting to see what retired judges say.
I wish you a happy Passover to you and yours, Joshua.