The law strikes back

[Mich the Tester]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6469431.ece

Despite NuLiebore's best attempts, it's still illegal to try people without presenting them with the evidence against them. Well done the law lords;this is what you're there for.

[expat]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6469431.ece

Despite NuLiebore's best attempts, it's still illegal to try people without presenting them with the evidence against them. Well done the law lords;this is what you're there for.

Seconded. I never thought to see the day, even in wartime, when people would be imprisoned without even being told why. I am sorry to be clichéd, but it is pure Kafka. Worse, the government will not admit that even after the ruling.

As I said in another thread, not a good Home Secretary (especially not a Labour one) since Roy Jenkins. That civilised and decent man must be turning in his grave at what has become of his country and his party.

What are we defending here, if people can be imprisoned without trial, without even being accused, and without hope of any process of trial?

[Mailman]

Of those 17, I wonder how many are here either illegally or as asylum seekers?

Of that number, I wonder how many of them would have been deported if it wasnt for their so called uman rights being possibly maybe infringed in what ever sh1thole they came from?

Mailman

[BlackenedBiker]

They're from Swindon????

[Doggy Styles]

Just wait until the Law Lords are elected and have their seats and the party whip to worry about.

[Mich the Tester]

Of those 17, I wonder how many are here either illegally or as asylum seekers?

Does that make any difference whatsoever to their right to know what they are accused of and what evidence there is against them? Not in a country which is supposed to uphold the rule of law it doesn't.

[AlfredJPruffock]

What are we defending here, if people can be imprisoned without trial, without even being accused, and without hope of any process of trial?

To answer your query - you are defending the States power to compeletly negate Human rights - namely Article 6

Remember that the Human Rights Articles were introduced after WW2 to safegaurd people from the abuse of State power.

The full text of Article 6 is set out in OG 71 A2. It ensures that, in the determination of any civil right or obligation a person is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.


This is a key feature of a democratic society and includes:


Access to a court or tribunal

This allows people to challenge decisions taken by a public authority whose procedures fail to satisfy Article 6. However, the whole process needs to be considered.

If the original decision is taken by a public authority whose procedures do not satisfy Article 6, the requirement may nevertheless be met if that decision can be reviewed (in the form of an appeal on both facts and law) by a court or tribunal that does satisfy Article 6. If the conditions of Article 6 are met by the original decision, it is not necessary to provide for an appeal. But if they are not met by the original decision then an appeal process that does meet those conditions may be necessary to ensure that the whole process (taking into account the appeals processes) is compliant.

[Menelaus]

I'm aware of a trial that's ongoing at the moment where the alleged evidence was not (and as far as I'm aware, to date, still has not) been presented.

[Mich the Tester]

I'm aware of a trial that's ongoing at the moment where the alleged evidence was not (and as far as I'm aware, to date, still has not) been presented.

That's not a trial. That's a show trial, and it belongs in banana republics.