eurealist.co.uk

Simon Jenkins is again having a go at Trial by jury in the Times today he says;

Jury trial has outlived its usefulness. To pretend that it delivers justice is absurd. This archaic theme park democracy is expensive, a waste of time and adds nothing to fair trial. Abolish it.

He cites as evidence for this call to abolish Trial by Jury two recent cases which have not gone the way he thinks proper;

Of the Abu Hamza trial he says;

In the first the trial of a man now known to have been a serious public menace was delayed for four years because the Crown Prosecution Service felt that the evidence of the police and MI5 was insufficient to get a jury conviction. And the Sion Jenkins case, here Simon Jenkins (no relation I assume) says After nine years, three trials, 700 witness statements and £10m in costs, the judicial system still cannot decide whether Jenkins killed his foster daughter, Billie-Jo.

Jenkins assumes that was why the CPS did not prosecute Abu Hamza, but it could equally have been because this Labour Government relies on a great many Muslim votes to keep them in office, and did not want to unset the apple cart.

Even if we accept Jenkins superstition, which is difficult even in his own terms, because he say now known to have been a serious public menace in other words that accusation has been tested in court, before then it was only an assumption.

In any event what is the alternative? That people be convicted without evidence or with a lower standard of evidence. And whose fault is it in the Jenkins case, if the prosecution cannot find the evidence to convince a jury, then obviously the evidence is lacking, here again Jenkins seems to be calling for conviction on a lower standard of evidence.

He then goes on to say;

No sooner was the Jenkins jury released and the accused formally acquitted than Thursday`s newspapers were filled with evidence that the jury had not been allowed to hear although it had been heard previously by Court of Appeal judges. This evidence, of violent rages suffered at Jenkins hands by his former wife, had been banned from disclosure at the trial as prejudicial (a word seemingly synonymous with relevant). The impact was to make the jury appear a bunch of dupes.

This is not a condemnation of trial by jury but of the legal professions own rules, which deny the jury the full information, originally up until the 17th century the jury would have made their own investigations and would not have been mere pawns in the professional game, to be spoon fed only the information decided by the judge. However even on that point; the reports that Jenkins suffered violent rages is not proof in itself that he murdered his foster daughter.

The fact the Charles Clarke is going to present arguments for the government to have the power to lock up people without trial since courts are slow and jurors may not convict is not an argument against trial by jury, it is in fact the very reason we need trial by jury.

Any government, that is its own judge of, and determines authoritatively for the people, what are its own powers over the people, is an absolute government of course. It has all the powers that it chooses to exercise. There is no other — or at least no more accurate — definition of a despotism than this. Spooner.

Jenkins claims in a case last year, where he was a juror, that the Judge suggested that the jury must acquit someone he believed to have been guilty the drift of the judge`s summing up was to the effect that the jury could only acquit. But this is not possible the judge cannot instruct a jury to find either way, Such was the case in the 1670 political trial of William Penn, who was charged with preaching Quakerism to an unlawful assembly. Four of the twelve jurors voted to acquit  and continued to acquit even after being imprisoned and starved for four days. Under such duress, most jurors paid the fines. However, one juror, Edward Bushell, refused to pay and brought his case before the Court of Common Pleas. As a result, Chief Justice Vaughan issued an historically-important ruling: that jurors could not be punished for their verdicts. Bushell’s Case (1670) was one of the most important developments in the common-law history of the jury.

Of course this concept like all our defences against the state is now under attack from a government who would like to be the deciders of their own powers. Jenkins then is either a fool, or useful idiot working in the cause of those who would like establish authoritarianism in our courts.

Jenkins now goes on to offer more evidence for abolishing jury trial

“Juries try less than 2% of criminal cases. They are a judicial sideshow. Given the professed sanctity of the institution to lawyers it is a wonder that they accept the fairness of the remaining 98%.”

Well there is that point, why should any of us accept the fairness of a system which decided on the evidence alone, that is one of the major benefits of the jury system it make the ordinary man or woman in the street the final arbiters of our law;

“For more than six hundred years — that is, since Magna Carta, in 1215 — there has been no clearer principle of English or American constitutional law, than that, in criminal cases, it is not only the right and duty of juries to judge what are the facts, what is the law, and what was the moral intent of the accused; but that it is also their right, and their primary and paramount duty, to judge of the justice of the law, and to hold all laws invalid, that are, in their opinion, unjust or oppressive, and all persons guiltless in violating, or resisting the execution of, such laws.

Unless such be the right and duty of jurors, it is plain that, instead of juries being a “palladium of liberty” — a barrier against the tyranny and oppression of the government — they are really mere tools in its hands, for carrying into execution any injustice and oppression it may desire to have executed.” Spooner I think.

Thomas Jefferson stated: “I consider trial by jury as the only action ever yet conceived by man by which a government can be held accountable to the to the principles of the constitution.”

Jenkins; “Research suggests that 90% of those electing to go for jury trial are guilty and are merely seeking delay or putting their faith in the ever-rising jury acquittal rate. The jury is presented, usually by those who have never sat on one, as a citizen’s last line of defence against an over-zealous state. It is mostly a villain’s last throw against conviction.”

They are not guilty unless they are fund to be by the jury, and it is up to the prosecution to prove that guilt. To dismiss one of our greatest freedoms from tyranny as a villain’s last throw against conviction is nonsense;

Removal from the jurors of their judgement on justice issues transforms Trial by Jury into the unlawful, one-sided, unfair mistrial-by-government-judges, the corrupt method by which tyrannies thrive.

This system enables and obliges judges to enforce every persecution, stealth-tax, oppression, money-motivated subterfuge and injustice government introduces, and which judges then lawlessly claim is “the law.” Democratic government generally attempts to enact legislation that is approved of by or is acceptable to the majority of the population. However, majority assent of itself does not invest legislation with legitimacy or virtue, regardless of its support, e.g. NAZI Race Laws. If Trial by Jury had been operating in the Third Reich, the NAZI tyranny would have been curtailed, perhaps then the Holocaust and the Second World War would have been averted.

Jenkins could not have been be more wrong if he tried when he says “Juries date from the days of trial by ordeal”, he is inverting historical facts, in order perhaps to use an oft (left wing) utilised method of argument; that is damming by association.

In 1219 Henry III, directed that this method of trial be abandoned in England after Pope Benedict III had condemned trial by ordeal in 1214. The jury trial was a replacement of the trial by ordeal and not a leftover from those days.

The fact is that for whatever reason Simon Jenkins does not like jury trials, and thinks them and archaic imposition on the power of the state. That they are an impediment to the power of the state, is a commendation for them and is the very reason we need to retain our rights to judge ourselves and to decide for ourselves, on the fairness of those laws our lords and masters in Whitehall, and increasingly in Brussels, wish to impose on us, because for as long as we have trial by jury we have the freedom to live by our own laws.

In his book Trial by Jury, published in 1956, Sir Patrick Devlin said:
For more than seven out of the eight centuries during which the judges of the
common law have administered justice in this country, trial by jury ensured that
Englishmen got the justice they liked and not the sort of justice that the
government or the lawyers or any body of experts thought was good for them.

Each jury is a little parliament. The jury sense is the parliamentary sense. I cannot
the see the one dying and the other surviving. The first object of any tyrant in
Whitehall would be to make parliament utterly subservient to his will; and the
next to overthrow or diminish trial by jury, for no tyrant could afford to leave a
subject’s freedom in the hands of twelve of his countrymen.

So that trial by jury is more than an instrument of justice and more than one wheel of the constitution: it is the lamp that shows that freedom lives.

It is a lamp that Charles Clarke, Tony Blair and Simon Jenkins wish to put out, it will be our great loss as a freedom loving nation if we let them get their way.

Edit
I just have recived this from Dennid Cooper;

Having read this through twice, I can’t find a single good argument leading to his conclusion that jury trial should be abolished, so I’m left wondering whether he has some ulterior motive. Eg, MI5 didn’t want Abu Hamza prosecuted for other
reasons, not because the evidence wouldn’t convince a jury.

Clarke argues for locking people away without due process because that’s what he wants to do, not because juries won’t convict.

It wasn’t the jury who decided that they couldn’t hear some evidence presented in the Sion Jenkins appeal.

So on, all the way through, and often he contradicts his own
arguments. It’s .

David Lidington, the Conservative Northern Ireland spokesman, has suggested that The Oath of Allegiance to the Queen sworn by MPs should be reviewed to encourage Sinn Fein to take up their seats in the House of Commons.

This might encourage them to do so but it is doubtful because they do not want Westminster as the seat of government for Northern Ireland but Dublin.

All MPs and peers are required to “swear by Almighty God to be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth” or make a solemn affirmation of loyalty to the Crown.

This is not just an oath but a legally binding undertaking not to work against the crown of Britian, not to undermine the state, thus it is part of the security of the state and part of the protection against the destruction of our constitution, any member who breaks that oath is committing treason.

Not that this has concerned our so called leaders, who have been doing just that for years, they must understand this because several have been reported for committing treason under the 1795 act of treason. Which is perhaps why one of the first things Tony Blair did when he gained office was to remove the offending act of treason from the statue books.

This from Hansard

Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty’s Government:
Why they have been unable to inform members of the public who have inquired the reason for the repeal of the Treason Act 1795 during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, neither the records of the relevant debates in Hansard during the passage of the Crime and Disorder Bill nor Bill papers held in the Home Office explain fully why the 1795 Act was repealed in its entirety. It is, however, evident from the Hansard records that the repeal was considered to be a necessary consequence of the decision to repeal the death penalty for treason.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I suppose that this could not possibly have anything to do with the fact that European Union Commissioners affirm an oath of allegiance to the European Union. If they do so, they swear allegiance to somebody other than Her Majesty the Queen, which I understand would in itself be treasonable.

The fact that treason has been committed by our leaders was confirmed this week when Blair made his speech in Oxford he said; The British problem with our membership of the EU may derive from the curious and tortured circumstances of its birth. But long since, it has taken on a unique life of its own. The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe. It’s sort of: isolation or treason.

One is also tempted to wonder if the Conservatives, although they are making noises about the constitution needing reform and have set up their Democracy Task Force whether they in fact mean to really look at the problem of the British constitution, or if this is just window dressing. As the task force is to be fronted by the Tories arch Euphile Kenneth Clarke, I suspect the latter is the case.

If David Lidington suggestion is anything to go by then it would seem clear that neither the public, or our elected representatives have a clear and comprehensive understanding of what the terms of our constitution actually are.

This is becoming increasingly apparent as almost every week we find that our elected representatives have agreed amongst themselves to change the status of the citizen in relation to the state. I mean who has even heard of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001,

Under the provisions of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, the Government can propose regulatory reform orders, which allow statute law to be amended by delegated rather than primary legislation. The Government has acknowledged that the Act was “constitutionally ground breaking”.

In a letter to the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, Lord Holme, the chairman of the Constitution Committee in the House of Lords, expressed his Committee`s concern about the nature of the powers contained in the Bill:

we are concerned by the potential of the Bill`s proposals, if enacted, markedly
to alter the respective and long-established roles of Ministers and Parliament in
the legislative process. This is because Part 1 of the Bill seeks to confer
unprecedentedly wide powers on Ministers to make Orders to amend, repeal and
replace any legislation (and to grant powers in respect of rules of the common
law in relation to Law Commission recommendations), with only a very restricted
role for Parliament in the process. The reforms thus have the potential to be so
far reaching that especial consideration will need to be given by the Committee to
the risk of inadvertent and ill considered constitutional change.

I wish to make my objection about the the double standards the police are operating.
Thanks EURFERENDUM

The Police attack the Hunting Demo

The Police attack the Hunting Demo

But this man told them to go softly writh this demo

The only people to be arrested at this demo were two men found carrying cartoons of Mohammed. Police said they had been detained “to prevent a breach of the peace”.

A man dressed as a suicide bomber, however, was left unhindered,

while the police sought to prevent photographers taking pictures.

But then……

Anti-capitalist demonstrators have a different view of the police as they protest ahead of the G8 summit in Edinburgh.

And in Sheffield

Even at the Labour Party Conference. The Police managed to prevent an obviously dangerous protest, this time using the Anti-terrorist laws.

Quote!

The British problem with our membership of the EU may derive from the curious and tortured circumstances of its birth. But long since, it has taken on a unique life of its own. The dilemma of a British Prime Minister over Europe is acute to the point of the ridiculous. Basically you have a choice: co-operate in Europe and you betray Britain; be unreasonable in Europe, be praised back home, and be utterly without influence in Europe. It’s sort of: isolation or treason.

Tony Blair 02/02/06 OXFORD

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page9003.asp

This from Open Europe

Blair: “the argument in favour of an open Europe is winning”

Tony Blair will give a speech in Oxford this evening which will attempt to defend his EU policies as Prime Minister. It is reported that he will insist that he has achieved his ambition of enhancing Britain’s clout in the EU through his policy of “positive engagement”. He will argue that Britain is now in “a much better place” on Europe than when Labour took office, saying it is a “pivotal country” at the heart of a new consensus over the need to adopt economic reforms.

The Independent reports that he will say: “Europe has emerged from its darkened room. It has a new generation of leaders. A new consensus is forming. Yes, there is still a debate to be had, but the argument in favour of an open Europe is winning… there’s never been a better time to be optimistic in Europe or enthusiastic about Britain’s part in it.”

He will also signal that there is a “new generation” of European leaders, such as Angela Merkel, who are united around the need to pursue economic reform. The FT reports that Downing Street is confident that the two principal competitors for the French presidency in 2007 - Nicolas Sarkozy and Dominique De Villepin - are increasingly focused on the economic reform agenda. The Times reports that Blair will claim today that Europe is now a “more comfortable place for Britain”, and that there is agreement on the new priorities of jobs, security, energy supply and migration.

Blair will, however, acknowledge that he has not secured the “big bang” change in Britain’s relationship with Europe that he aimed for but will blame this on Britain’s “Eurosceptic-dominated” newspapers.

Comment: It is pretty difficult to see how the current state of play in Europe can be spun into a success for Tony Blair or the Foreign Office: world trade talks in crisis because of EU protectionism; a budget deal under which Britain will pay £10.5 billion a year into a totally unreformed EU budget; an increase in the EU regulatory burden (on the Govt’s own figures) of at least £30 billion since mid-1998 alone; a disastrous drift to a single EU defence which has wasted more than £20 billion duplicating NATO assets and lost Britain access to US technology; and above all - no halt whatsoever in the EU drive towards deeper integration. The only argument in France and Germany about the EU Constitution is now when and how to bring it back – not if.

Blair’s suggestion that Sarkozy and Villepin are going to be “reform allies” in Europe calls to mind all the other people the FCO claimed were going to be our new partners: Angela Merkel, Romano Prodi, “The Blair-Berlusconi-Aznar axis” – even Jacques Chirac at first. Hopefully the team of Brown, Straw and Ed Balls are not under the comforting illusion that we are currently “winning the argument” in Europe…

The next big crunch in Europe is in 18 months’ time: the confluence of the French elections, the German Presidency of the EU, and a number of difficult decisions about enlargement. Hopefully Britain will have a new approach by then.

Times FT Telegraph Scotsman
Sarkozy on Europe Villepin on Europe

The Europhile spin put on the EU Constitution Exit Clause, would have us all belive that we can not leave the EU at the moment because there is no EU recognised legal apparatus for doing so. The implication being; if we wish to leave the EU then first we must ratify the EU Constitution, which contains an exit clause that will enable us to do so.

This argument, to be blunt, is arrant nonsense, this fact however does not stop this misunderstanding being pressed for all its worth.
Link to the earlier letters in this particular debate in the Scotsman, but Dr Cooper makes the correct case when he says;

“We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU.

Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU”

This is the point which is missed; at present the EU derives its power form the member states, through their treaties, if (god forbid) the Constitution is ever ratified, then it will derive its power from that constitution.

Lord Justice Laws explains the difference between a treaty and a constitution

“There is a categorical difference between a treaty and a constitution. A treaty is an exercise of power by sovereign States. A constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power.
This brings me, then, to the meaning of constitution. In what does a constitution
consist? Stripped to the bone, I think that a constitution’s minimum characteristics are twofold. (1) The constitution consists in the laws which define who shall be the ruler of the State, and what are the legal relationships between ruler and ruled; and (2) there are no laws superior to those which the constitution contains.”

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/letters.cfm?id=140882006

Progressive erosion

Dr DR Cooper (Letters, 23 January) tells us the European Court of Justice exceeded its authority in 1962 in describing the loss of sovereignty of European Union members as permanent and that its view has been rejected by national courts where the question has been posed. He also quotes our joining the then Common Market as authorising its parliament to “contract out” in a succession of treaties practically all its own legislative powers.

However, at that time, the Foreign Office certainly believed the EEC to be “a single permanent coalition”. Hence, presumably, the inclusion in the now resurrected European constitution of a new clause providing for voluntary withdrawal by a member state.

MARY ROLLS, Westerkirk, Langholm, Dumfriesshire

Sir

Mrs Mary Rolls raised an important point about the “exit clause”, Article I-60, in the proposed EU Constitution.

(Letter, January 28th)

Clearly the Wilson government was undeterred by the lack of any such provision in the Treaty of Rome, as it held a referendum to decide whether the UK would withdraw from the EEC. Interestingly, 1975 Cabinet Office papers entitled “EEC Referendum: ‘No’ contingency planning; implications of withdrawal” have just been opened by National Archives.

The government leaflet for the referendum emphasised that even if we decided to stay in Parliament retained the right to take us out in the future, simply by repealing the European Communities Act 1972. That position has been re-stated by ministers in recent years, and was confirmed by Lord Justice Laws in the “Metric Martyrs” case. We still have the right of unilateral withdrawal from the EU.

Indeed Article I-60 sets a trap, by representing that our right to withdraw shall no longer derive from our constitution but from that of the EU - which by its crucial primacy claim, Article I-6, purports to become the supreme source of legal authority for our country.

Yours faithfully

Dr D R Cooper

Margot Wallstrom the EU propaganda commissioner says that the major goal of the communication activities by the commission is to try to “sell our message.” But then goes on to say “we can not do propaganda.. we shouldn’t be accused of it,”

This is obviously a new EU definition of “Propaganda” they shouldn’t be accused of. In the old definition of the word (The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause) this is exactly what they do!