What Alisdair says can scarcely be said too often but here at least we do have some increased transparency emerging as to how this particular tricky aspect of our system works- and let us hope that such relative openness becomes a healthy habit. Those in authority over others (including US here) in England and Wales have always very much tended to hug to them their power of keeping secrets.
I have learnt so much from this edition and both we criminal justice professionals - albeit now non practising in my case- AND more importantly the PUBLIC AT LARGE need to know of the authenticity of such vital checks and balances by way of reassurance that there is a vastness of clear, pure water between our democracy -still- however creaking and the Trump “wrecking ball” the other side of the pond. In that regard, eternal vigilance must never slide into being a mere, glib, complacent “given”. As to Sir Brian and David Gauke working together- absolutely! As to the sentencing review, this government of all govts under the leadership- for goodness sake of a human rights lawyer (once one such always one), with a LAWYER so far holding to the faith in nearby Ladywood’s Shabana Mahmood and Lord Timpson in situ, let there please be no diverting from or deferring of genuine sentencing and prison numbers reduction. Also please no opportunistic seizing upon grim cases to depart from genuine reform or grabbing hold of any vaguely tough element in Gauke once it should have emerged to the virtual exclusion of the more liberal, constructive facets. Also please- although I liked and got on well with LJ Auld- no uncritical taking down from the shelf from his review of for example the intermediate court, so sliding towards the dismantling of ALL jury trials. That has for decades been the gleam in the eye of so many for DECADES.
Another interesting piece. The intrinsic problem with covert powers is that it is very difficult to know how they are being used. For example, if you're under covert surveillance and they're doing it effectively, you won't know, so how do you complain?
Leveson's "I have a very good relationship" comment cuts both ways. He argues it means they won't lie to him (although if they can lie to a court, I'm not sure that logic holds) but sceptics would say that the cosy relationship means that they are not being properly scrutinised because there's a 'good chap' approach.
I am not one for conspiracy theories (hence why I don't use X/Twitter!), but the statistics of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is remarkable. Many years not a single complaint is upheld, and very occasionally, a single-digit number of complaints are upheld. That is a position unheard of for any other court or tribunal and you can see why eyebrows get raised.
What Alisdair says can scarcely be said too often but here at least we do have some increased transparency emerging as to how this particular tricky aspect of our system works- and let us hope that such relative openness becomes a healthy habit. Those in authority over others (including US here) in England and Wales have always very much tended to hug to them their power of keeping secrets.
I have learnt so much from this edition and both we criminal justice professionals - albeit now non practising in my case- AND more importantly the PUBLIC AT LARGE need to know of the authenticity of such vital checks and balances by way of reassurance that there is a vastness of clear, pure water between our democracy -still- however creaking and the Trump “wrecking ball” the other side of the pond. In that regard, eternal vigilance must never slide into being a mere, glib, complacent “given”. As to Sir Brian and David Gauke working together- absolutely! As to the sentencing review, this government of all govts under the leadership- for goodness sake of a human rights lawyer (once one such always one), with a LAWYER so far holding to the faith in nearby Ladywood’s Shabana Mahmood and Lord Timpson in situ, let there please be no diverting from or deferring of genuine sentencing and prison numbers reduction. Also please no opportunistic seizing upon grim cases to depart from genuine reform or grabbing hold of any vaguely tough element in Gauke once it should have emerged to the virtual exclusion of the more liberal, constructive facets. Also please- although I liked and got on well with LJ Auld- no uncritical taking down from the shelf from his review of for example the intermediate court, so sliding towards the dismantling of ALL jury trials. That has for decades been the gleam in the eye of so many for DECADES.
Another interesting piece. The intrinsic problem with covert powers is that it is very difficult to know how they are being used. For example, if you're under covert surveillance and they're doing it effectively, you won't know, so how do you complain?
Leveson's "I have a very good relationship" comment cuts both ways. He argues it means they won't lie to him (although if they can lie to a court, I'm not sure that logic holds) but sceptics would say that the cosy relationship means that they are not being properly scrutinised because there's a 'good chap' approach.
I am not one for conspiracy theories (hence why I don't use X/Twitter!), but the statistics of the Investigatory Powers Tribunal is remarkable. Many years not a single complaint is upheld, and very occasionally, a single-digit number of complaints are upheld. That is a position unheard of for any other court or tribunal and you can see why eyebrows get raised.