One law to bind them?

The sun's shining through the windows into a cool, stylish room with quality art on the walls: this is how education should be, not conducted sullenly in pseudo-office blocks. I'm in the plenary session: Francisco Colom, a political scientist is explaining the concept of legal pluralism - it starts drily and rapidly becomes a fascinating demonstration of practical philosophy. In short, it's the notion that we can be subject to multiple legal systems at once. The examples that come to my mind are the arguments put forward in Ireland that Canon Law allows a cleric to not report child abuse to the secular authorities: a happier example is the UK's practice of allowing Jewish and Islamic courts (the latter exercised the rightwing press though the Jewish courts have been operating for centuries) to rule on a range of issues with the consent of all parties (and yes, non-believers can and do use them for their speed and economy).

The philosophical questions are about the role of the state in the administration of justice and the protection of the individual's autonomy. Political questions - particularly relating to Canada but relevant to most states - revolve around respecting minority traditions, particularly in religious and colonial situations: Malaysia operates civil law for some and religious law for Muslims. Rwanda has incorporated village tribunals as part of the genocide reconciliation system, and the United Kingdom abolished Wales's progressive constitution (Cyfraith Hywel Dda - the laws of Hywel the Good) while allowing Scotland to maintain a separate legal system when union was effected.

But in ethnic rather than national situations, it's difficult to permit a separate legal code to apply to a racial or religious group: what about the dissenting individual within that group, particularly women in religious groups)? What about social cohesion and the notion of the citizen? Is the legitimacy of the state as disinterested arbiter weakened by its delegation of justice under certain conditions? These are cultural and philosophical questions more than they are legal ones: they expose the fault-lines in the easy assumptions about law and fundamental rights which so often appear in public debates.

As it's Easter, how about a Christian case study: according to the Gospels, Pilate (a Roman governor of Jerusalem) declaimed jurisdiction when the Jewish priesthood accused Jesus of heresy, then said he couldn't see that any Roman laws had been breached, before bowing before the court of public opinion and pronouncing the sentence of crucifixion, though reluctantly and sarcastically - it's a political decision rather than a legal one. He was a legal pluralist (luckily for Christianity and children, or there'd have been a large theological whole and long school terms).

The short arm of the law

I spent the day in court.

Actually, I didn't. I spent the day in a waiting room. The poor architecture, institutionally-uncomfortable furniture, broken (and expensive) drinks machines and the being bossed about by patrician types with loud voices and sealed ears reminded me of work…

This case started in October 2008. It should have been fairly simple. Man threatens women with knife. I step in, we have a discussion (him: I want to stab you. Me: I'd rather you didn't stab anyone if that's OK with you), he runs off. The police stop him later, he still has the knife. He's already on bail for similar offences. Did he do it? Yes, he very much did.

Six months later, he's found guilty on the minor charges, imprisoned for 12 weeks. Then they keep him in pending the Crown Court charges. Cue two postponements and finally a day in court - miles from anywhere. We sit in another awful room for 6 hours until he sacks his lawyers. A whole day and thousands of pounds wasted (judge, lawyers, jury, court officials, translators for almost everyone). Another six months passes and it's scheduled for Wolverhampton. Then it's moved to Coventry 18 hours before.

What happens this time? We wait around for hours. Then he sacks his lawyers. He plans to defend himself. The judge (thankfully) refuses, as this would entail cross-examining his victim, who has already been given a screen for her safety. Then the prosecution, damn them, propose a solution: bind him over to keep the peace for two years and remind him that he is under a restraining order relating to the lady (they live only a few streets away and have nothing linking them except that he wants to hurt her).

OK, you might think, that sounds reasonable. I don't. People who attack other people with knives are, I'm guessing, mentally ill or at least irrational. Signing a piece of paper will make absolutely no difference.

On prison matters, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I don't think that prison works. I think they should be the last resort, used only to hold people who are dangerous to society: most murderers, rapists, Bertie Ahern and, frankly, people like this guy. A secure mental hospital is perhaps the best place for him. What happened today was a grubby little deal to end an annoying case which clogged up their clearance rates. I wouldn't be surprised if it all starts again.

Sent to Coventry

I'm a witness in a case which has been dragging on for a year and a half now. Tomorrow, I was planning to wander along to Wolverhampton Crown Court, three minutes walk from my flat, and finally give evidence.

But no. Despite having a date six months ago, I'm called today and informed that I'll have to be in bloody Coventry for 10 a.m. tomorrow - which means travelling through Birmingham in the rush hour wearing suit and tie, then wandering round one of Europe's ugliest cities before, no doubt, having the whole thing cancelled yet again. So no blogging from me tomorrow.

The whole thing has been an utter farce.

Carter-Ruck are back, back, BACK!

Less than a week after trying to ban any reporting of a parliamentary question about their client Trafigura's poisoning of 30,000 Ivorians, they've written to every MP and peer claiming that as the matter is 'sub judice', MPs can't have a debate about the affair!

Er… does that mean that nobody - MP or not - can talk about any matter that's moving through the courts? Can our elected representatives not choose to discuss whatever's important to this country? Not according to Carter-Ruck.

Luckily, the Speaker's pretty clear:

"It is not sub judice under the house's rules ... There is no question of our own proceedings being in any way inhibited."

Which is élite-speak for 'go fuck yourselves'.

What I don't quite get is why Trafigura think this is good for their company? Perhaps as esssentially very bad men engaged in a filthy business, public opinion doesn't matter, but they aren't making any friends - and the Tory MPs who'll (unfortunately) be in government soon take affronts to Parliamentary authority very seriously indeed.

Kafka, Carter-Ruck and Trafigura

I posted earlier about The Guardian being banned from reporting that an MP it couldn't name was asking a parliamentary question it couldn't repeat, at a time it couldn't mention, despite a constitutional ruling that newspapers could repeat anything said in Parliament (MPs are exempt from libel laws by Parliamentary Privilege, so that they can name and shame wrongdoers). In the comments section, Ewar and I posted the Twitter/blog rumours that the MP was Paul Farrelly (good Labour guy from Newcastle-under-Lyme) and the question concerned Trafigura, a toxic waste company which doesn't want any more attention devoted to its payment of lots of money to the 30,000 Africans it poisoned by dumping toxic waste in Ivory Coast.

This case raises a serious question of freedom of speech. There's no point an MP raising a point if his constituents and other citizens can't hear about it and discuss it. Lawyers shouldn't be able to use Britain's awful libel laws to silence any criticism of their clients.

The Guardian has now presumably won a court hearing, as it's identifying the matter in the 'breaking news' ticker. More background here.

Update: The Guardian's full story here.

Kafka: alive, well and living in London

Newspapers have had the right to print anything said in Parliament since 1688. MPs have used this to circumvent libel laws and identify bad guys by naming them in speeches/questions in Parliament, which the papers then print.

Until now. How's this for a blanket ban on free speech? Essentially, the Guardian can only report that something might be said. Nothing about the subject, the speaker, the time…

Today's published Commons order papers contain a question to be answered by a minister later this week. The Guardian is prevented from identifying the MP who has asked the question, what the question is, which minister might answer it, or where the question is to be found.

The Guardian is also forbidden from telling its readers why the paper is prevented – for the first time in memory – from reporting parliament. Legal obstacles, which cannot be identified, involve proceedings, which cannot be mentioned, on behalf of a client who must remain secret.

The only fact the Guardian can report is that the case involves the London solicitors Carter-Ruck, who specialise in suing the media for clients, who include individuals or global corporations.

I'd love to know what the subject is.

Atten-SHUN

Already overrun with ex-bizzies expounding the joy of 'kettling' peaceful protesters, my esteemed institution is toying with the idea of a degree for squaddies. As we've just merged with the Law school, how about 'Spotting an Illegal War for Dummies', and 'What Actually Constitutes Torture and Why It's A Bad Thing'?