Justice for Ian Huntley

Over here, Ewar makes a strong case against mob rule (careful Ewar, you're sounding liberal), so I thought I'd add my pennorth.

Ian Huntley murdered two children. He was convicted and sentenced to life in prison, which sounds fair enough to me.

In prison, he was badly injured in an attack by another prisoner (now a folk hero on Facebook, as Ewar explains) and intends to sue the prison authorities for endangering him. The story's been all over the worst tabloids this week.

Good.

Huntley's bad and/or mad. That's clear enough from his crime. That doesn't mean that he isn't a human being with all the rights that accrue. He's paying his debt to society. You don't lose your fundamental right to safety because you're a criminal. I'm very uncomfortable with the idea that he could have £100,000 in the bank in compensation for his injuries, but that's tough. He shouldn't have been attacked, and the prison service shouldn't create the conditions in which violent individuals can launch such attacks.

Justice is administered by the state, and blindly (that's the theory anyway, though women, for example, are imprisoned for offences men don't get locked up for, amongst other problems). It doesn't matter what Huntley's done when it comes to acting on crimes committed against him. If we remove the rights of the worst members of society, that undermines the social values that keep society on an even keel.

Personally, I'd like to see NHS care denied to anyone who crashes their car while using a mobile phone or not wearing a seat belt (my taxes, your stupidity), but I know that that's a slippery slope in which the loudest voices (Tory Scum and their tabloid friends) will institute a reign of terror. Before long you'd get AIDS treatment restricted to blood transfusion victims, or benefits doled out only to the 'deserving' poor. Oh hang on, that's already happening…

Is the judiciary racist? I refer you to bears and woods

I dismissed the judiciary yesterday as reactionary and out of touch. Today's Guardian diary has a piece which illustrates my point rather neatly:

They got Theresa May to the Home Office, and once she's settled in, is there any chance she might send a quick note to the recorder Robin Pearse-Wheatley, whose expressions of sympathy to two Icelandic women who hooked up with a gang of criminals to commit a brutal "honeytrap" robbery seem a little out of place as we fight to rebuild Broken Britain. But no less out of place than his summing-up of their plight. "You seem to have fallen in with a group of black men which seems to have been the beginning of your unfortunate adventures," he said. "After a series of adventures I won't detail, but including time you were shoplifting – which doesn't reflect well on you at all – you, no doubt at the behest of these frightening black men who you were keeping company with, were involved in this incident." Is it because they is black? Seems it is.

Simon Singh: vindicated

Simon Singh is a science writer who stated that chiropractors claimed they could cure a range of childhood illnesses, despite a total lack of scientific evidence. They sued him for libel, accusing him of claiming that they knowingly peddled bogus treatments.

Under Britain's crazy libel laws, you can't defend yourself on the basis of truth: stating the truth can still be held to be libellous. Facts = libel, comment = fair enough! The chiropractors were out to bankrupt and silence Singh in the courts rather than debate the science, and the early stages of the trial seemed to go their way.

Until today: the Court of Appeal has dismissed Mr Justice Eady's previous ruling that Singh's statement was 'factual' and therefore not 'fair comment' and found for Singh. Eady has appalling form in allowing every tyrant, shyster and quack from around the world to sue in the British courts - it's time for this farce to end.

But for now - bliss that another bunch of charlatans have been defeated.

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.

What a very exciting day (2)

The people rose up and protested against the obscene and excessive charges levied by the banks for things like slipping over your withdrawal limit, or a cheque not being cleared (often £30 or more).

The Office for Fair Trading supported them. So did the High Court. It seemed like the Establishment was going to side with us for a change. Until today: the banks' appeal to the Supreme Court has been upheld.

The judges say the banks can charge what they want for the fees - that they do not have to reflect the cost of the administration involved. They say the charges were not concealed and consumers knew what they were in for when they signed up for the accounts, which means the OFT could not test them under the regulations.

Apparently you can charge whatever you like for services without regard for the actual costs. The OFT has been told that 'fairness' doesn't apply to account charges. How weird.

If you don't have a mortgage, according to Moneyfacts at Abbey you will pay £25 a month for going overdrawn without permission, plus up to £35 for bounced cheques and payments. At Alliance & Leicester, the overdraft fee is £5 a day, subject to a maximum of £100, while bounced payments cost up to £25.

The costliest bank on the high street seems to be Clydesdale, where Moneyfacts says going overdrawn without asking will cost you £25 a month, plus £25 each time the overdraft increases, plus £35 for every bounced payment.

Lloyds TSB charges £15 a month, plus £20 for each bounced payment, subject to a maximum of three a day. Halifax is charging a flat £5 a day for unauthorised borrowing, with no additional fees for bounced items.

I'm not affected by this - I claimed £700 in bank charges three years ago and the Co-op paid up without demur, which I took as an admission of guilt, though it may have been the case that it was cheaper to pay than to fight it through the courts. I stayed with Co-op and am generally happy with it, especially as it has an ethical investment only policy.

I do feel for everybody else though. Our banks have hardly covered themselves in glory recently, and as taxpayers we now own most of them, and now this. Banking isn't free, but they make billions by paying us 0.01% on our current accounts and lending it at 8.5%: these charges are excessive.

You shall be hanged from the neck until you are dead

… even if your judge and prosecutor are having an affair. Meanwhile in Texas (where else?), democracy rules - leading to judges being elected on a 'pro-prosecution' ticket. God knows the UK system is set up to maintain the dominance of white, male, privately-educated Oxbridge types, but it does mean that mob rule isn't the order of the day.

Heeee's back!

Hello. Did you enjoy the peace and quiet while I was away? A torrent of bloggable things occurred to me - my thoughts are pretty much permanently accompanied by the sound of imaginary keys clacking these days. This is not a good thing.

However - what a waste of time yesterday was. For the second time, the case was cancelled because the accused changed his mind at the last moment. The offence occurred over a year ago. He was convicted of some charges at the Magistrate's Court some time ago, and has been in prison ever since. Six months ago I dragged myself, via three buses, to Brierley Hill Crown Court for the big event - cancelled after 6 hours in a waiting room because he sacked his lawyers. Fair enough, that's his right. The state paid for his translator to come up from London and stay overnight, and for the victims' translator to do the same. Plus the cost of the lawyers and court officials. He was then given time to instruct new representatives, but apparently decided to defend himself.

Until yesterday afternoon, when he decided that he needed lawyers after all. So another hearing will happen in a few weeks to decide that, then there'll be another hearing several months later, after the new lawyers familiarise themselves with the case. Meanwhile, the victims must be losing all faith in the system and I wouldn't be surprised to find that they give up and go back to their home country, especially with the recession biting. The accused will then go free.

I feel a bit weird sounding so angry about this. I'm utterly lefty-liberal about the justice system. Basically I think it's all wrong. Except now. This guy is genuinely and seriously mentally and physically dangerous, as I found out in the simplest way possible. I want him locked up - perhaps in a secure mental institution, perhaps in prison (I don't know what his state is) - until he isn't dangerous any more. I want him to receive the best treatment in court and afterwards, to have the benefit of all his rights, but at the same time, I know he's utterly guilty because I was involved, and there's been no benefit to anyone of all these delays, including him.

Anyway, off to write my Othello lecture. Or rewrite it.

Justice?

You may know that Britain's libel laws are heavily skewed in favour of rich people and corporations. Being right is no defence, and nor is freedom of speech, unlike the US. Lots of foreign people are suing in the UK courts over articles published elsewhere in the world because they'll get what they want here and not elsewhere. Books which have never been published in the UK have been subject to libel judgements because a single person has ordered one from Amazon US, newspapers with a circulation of 100-200 in the UK have been sued out of existence too.

It's got so bad that the US Congress has passed laws setting aside UK libel judgements, and now US newspapers (a couple of hundred are sent over for expats wanting the baseball results) are planning to cease publication here at all, just in case.

Madness. This country has become a playground for the corrupt and oppressive, thanks to the sterling work of people like Mr. Justice Eady.

Ya'alon ya way, son

Moshe Ya'alon, Israeli deputy prime minister, won't be having a slap-up feed in London after he was warned that a British judge may well issue an arrest warrant on war crimes charges if he got off the plane.

Both sides have committed war crimes over the past few years - but the Palestinians are already prisoners, whereas the Israelis are given carte blanche to kill hundreds and build as many nuclear weapons as they want.

Well done the British - it's an improvement on the last time, when the police tipped off a senior Israeli (is this legal?), leading to him staying on the plane until it went home. Let's treat all criminals equally - starting with Blair…

Twelve men good and true

What a public-spirited citizen - and he got away with it! Not that I'd want him on my jury.

I did jury service a few years ago. It felt like being inducted into to a lynch-mob. They all read the Daily Mail and kept saying things like 'he must have done it - he's in court' and 'he must be guilty because he doesn't look sorry' (the chap was pleading innocent and we'd seen him for all of five minutes before being sent out for legal argument. I didn't endear myself to my fellow jurors by affirming rather than swearing on a holy book, by reading the Guardian, and for pointing out that voting guilty on particular charges because he'd obviously done something wasn't really the point. I felt sorry for one guy though - he shared the bus ride home with the defendants every evening, which seemed a bit odd.

The trouble is, we worked hard as a jury, and the court officials, lawyers and police appeared not to have done so. Important questions weren't asked, important problems weren't raised, and the judge seemed to live in a different world - which is a problem. I don't mind a judge not knowing that Stella is known as 'wifebeater' or (in one defendant's words) 'loopy-juice', but you have to question the worldliness of a man who asks the defence 'What is this Stella?' ('a lager, m'lud') and follows it with 'and in what quantities does one consume this beverage?' (in pint glasses, m'lud).

Was justice done in the cases I sat on? Case one came to an 11-1 verdict of guilty. Guess who voted not guilty? I thought he had committed criminal acts, but that no evidence had been presented. We voted not guilty on the second case because we thought that he probably was guilty but that the prosecution and coppers could have done some fairly easy work to nail him, but didn't.

Anyone else been on (or in front of) a jury?