Government to Get Rid of Embarrassing Inquests
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Government to Get Rid of Embarrassing Inquests
BBC: Backlash over jury ban proposals
The government is facing a backlash over controversial proposals to remove juries from some inquests.
Provisions in its counter-terrorism bill, published last month, would also allow home secretaries to replace coroners with their own appointees.
Ministers insist the new powers would be used sparingly and the vast majority of inquests will still stay public. But critics say the changes are dangerous and unnecessary meddling with a system that has worked for centuries.
A little-noticed clause in the bill would allow the home secretary to prevent a jury being called to an inquest and even to change the coroner for "reasons of national security". The change is intended to avoid the risk of sensitive information - such as details of phone-taps or surveillance operations - being revealed to jurors and other members of the public. But it is not explicitly restricted to terrorism cases and could in theory be applied to cases of deaths where no such link is suspected.....
As the law stands, coroners must call an inquest into violent, unnatural or unexplained deaths in their districts. They are held in public and a jury must be convened if the death occurred in certain circumstances, including in police or prison custody.....
Alan Beith, the Liberal Democrat chairman of the Commons justice committee, believes the reform is dangerous. "I'm not comfortable with a situation where a politician is deciding there shouldn't be a jury in a particular inquest," he told BBC Radio 4's World This Weekend.
Mr Beith said the move addressed the genuine problem of how to handle security-based evidence in an inquest. But he warned: "Simply tacking something on to a bill of this kind which does not address the fundamental problems in the coroners' system is a dangerous way to do it.".....
The government is facing a backlash over controversial proposals to remove juries from some inquests.
Provisions in its counter-terrorism bill, published last month, would also allow home secretaries to replace coroners with their own appointees.
Ministers insist the new powers would be used sparingly and the vast majority of inquests will still stay public. But critics say the changes are dangerous and unnecessary meddling with a system that has worked for centuries.
A little-noticed clause in the bill would allow the home secretary to prevent a jury being called to an inquest and even to change the coroner for "reasons of national security". The change is intended to avoid the risk of sensitive information - such as details of phone-taps or surveillance operations - being revealed to jurors and other members of the public. But it is not explicitly restricted to terrorism cases and could in theory be applied to cases of deaths where no such link is suspected.....
As the law stands, coroners must call an inquest into violent, unnatural or unexplained deaths in their districts. They are held in public and a jury must be convened if the death occurred in certain circumstances, including in police or prison custody.....
Alan Beith, the Liberal Democrat chairman of the Commons justice committee, believes the reform is dangerous. "I'm not comfortable with a situation where a politician is deciding there shouldn't be a jury in a particular inquest," he told BBC Radio 4's World This Weekend.
Mr Beith said the move addressed the genuine problem of how to handle security-based evidence in an inquest. But he warned: "Simply tacking something on to a bill of this kind which does not address the fundamental problems in the coroners' system is a dangerous way to do it.".....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of the hercules inquest, those called to give evidence, including myself will give some evidence in public and the secret stuff in front of camera. Statements will be highlighted in different colours enabling questioning without risk of breaking OSA in public. It is simply a question of organisation. This is a clear attempt to interfere with democracy by a stalinesque brute of a govt.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Thread Starter
Grauniad: 'Alarming' juryless inquests plan
Press Association
Thursday February 7, 2008 7:28 AM
Government plans to give the Home Secretary new powers to order sensitive inquests to be held without a jury have been branded "seriously alarming" by an influential parliamentary committee.
Little-noticed provisions in last month's Counter-Terrorism Bill would allow Jacqui Smith to block the summoning of a jury and parachute in her own choice of coroner if she deems it to be in the interests of national security or the UK's relationship with another country or "otherwise in the public interest". Although it is included in a bill to tackle the threat of terror, the new powers are not explicitly restricted to terrorism cases and could in theory be applied to cases of deaths where no link with violent extremism is suspected.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights warned that the measures could be invoked to limit scrutiny of deaths of British servicemen killed by US "friendly fire" in Iraq or the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was mistaken by police for a suicide bomber. The Committee branded the inquest plans "astonishing", especially as they were introduced into the Bill at a late stage with no time for consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny.
Andrew Dismore MP, the Labour chair of the Committee, said: "We are seriously alarmed at the prospect that under these provisions, inquests into the deaths occurring in circumstances like that of Jean Charles de Menezes, or British servicemen killed by US forces in Iraq, could be held by a coroner appointed by the Secretary of State sitting without a jury. Inquests must be, and be seen to be, totally independent and in public to secure accountability, with involvement of the next of kin to protect their legitimate interests. When someone dies in distressing, high-profile circumstances their family need to see and feel that justice is being done, and where state authorities are involved there is a national interest in accountability as well."
The report warned that the new measures may breach the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory. "On first inspection we find this an astonishing provision with the most serious implications for the UK's ability to comply with the positive obligation in Article 2 (of the) ECHR to provide an adequate and effective investigation where an individual has been killed as a result of the use of force, particularly where the death is the result of the use of force by state agents," it said.
Press Association
Thursday February 7, 2008 7:28 AM
Government plans to give the Home Secretary new powers to order sensitive inquests to be held without a jury have been branded "seriously alarming" by an influential parliamentary committee.
Little-noticed provisions in last month's Counter-Terrorism Bill would allow Jacqui Smith to block the summoning of a jury and parachute in her own choice of coroner if she deems it to be in the interests of national security or the UK's relationship with another country or "otherwise in the public interest". Although it is included in a bill to tackle the threat of terror, the new powers are not explicitly restricted to terrorism cases and could in theory be applied to cases of deaths where no link with violent extremism is suspected.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights warned that the measures could be invoked to limit scrutiny of deaths of British servicemen killed by US "friendly fire" in Iraq or the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, who was mistaken by police for a suicide bomber. The Committee branded the inquest plans "astonishing", especially as they were introduced into the Bill at a late stage with no time for consultation or pre-legislative scrutiny.
Andrew Dismore MP, the Labour chair of the Committee, said: "We are seriously alarmed at the prospect that under these provisions, inquests into the deaths occurring in circumstances like that of Jean Charles de Menezes, or British servicemen killed by US forces in Iraq, could be held by a coroner appointed by the Secretary of State sitting without a jury. Inquests must be, and be seen to be, totally independent and in public to secure accountability, with involvement of the next of kin to protect their legitimate interests. When someone dies in distressing, high-profile circumstances their family need to see and feel that justice is being done, and where state authorities are involved there is a national interest in accountability as well."
The report warned that the new measures may breach the European Convention on Human Rights, to which the UK is a signatory. "On first inspection we find this an astonishing provision with the most serious implications for the UK's ability to comply with the positive obligation in Article 2 (of the) ECHR to provide an adequate and effective investigation where an individual has been killed as a result of the use of force, particularly where the death is the result of the use of force by state agents," it said.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 769
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coroner attacks MoD over failure
A coroner criticised the Ministry of Defence for failing to supply soldiers in Afghanistan with basic equipment. BBC Website
Capt Philippson's father, Anthony Philippson, said after the verdict: "He (the coroner) laid into them, particularly badly for the lack of equipment.
"They were outgunned by a bunch of terrorists. I do hold the Ministry of Defence (MoD) responsible for James's death but it is not just the MoD - it goes much deeper than that.
"The Treasury and the then chancellor, Gordon Brown, will be really to blame for what happened.
"It's not really the MoD who are responsible - it's that miserable, harsh, parsimonious Scotsman we now have as prime minister who starved the MoD of funds."
Capt Philippson's father, Anthony Philippson, said after the verdict: "He (the coroner) laid into them, particularly badly for the lack of equipment.
"They were outgunned by a bunch of terrorists. I do hold the Ministry of Defence (MoD) responsible for James's death but it is not just the MoD - it goes much deeper than that.
"The Treasury and the then chancellor, Gordon Brown, will be really to blame for what happened.
"It's not really the MoD who are responsible - it's that miserable, harsh, parsimonious Scotsman we now have as prime minister who starved the MoD of funds."
A coroner criticised the Ministry of Defence for failing to supply soldiers in Afghanistan with basic equipment.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Strictly applying anti terrorist legislation, surely Blair, Bown and all their gang are guilty of aiding and abetting terrorists by virtue of starving the armed forces of equipment?
Alternatively, treason by virtue of aiding the enemy?
Alternatively, treason by virtue of aiding the enemy?
One only has to read about the latest report from the RUSI
to wonder just when the chickens will finally come home to roost, leading to a much needed change of Government. The problem there is that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have shown as much ability to score in front of an open goal as Derby County
to wonder just when the chickens will finally come home to roost, leading to a much needed change of Government. The problem there is that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition have shown as much ability to score in front of an open goal as Derby County
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a hole, in the garden.
Posts: 56
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting....Don't think this is a particularly new concept (the limitation of a jury) but having just tried to study this exact point, I think that this is a minefield of complex elements. I would love to read a reply from a legal beagle on all of this as I have my own views which are too embryonic at this stage to form into a coherent moot.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If this Bill goes through not only can they do away with the Jury but they can replace the Coroner at any time. So someone like Mr Walker who is a thorn in the side of the MOD could be replaced say in the Nimrod inquest if the Government so decided.
Part 6 — Inquests and inquiries
18A
Appointment of specially appointed coroners
(1) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under section 8A in relation
to an inquest, the Secretary of State may appoint a person (a “specially appointed coroner”) to hold the inquest.
(2) A person may not be appointed under this section unless the person—
(a) is a coroner, or
(b) would be qualified under section 2(1) to be appointed as coroner.
(3) A specially appointed coroner may be appointed under this section—
(a) in relation to an inquest that has not begun, or
(b) in relation to an inquest that has begun, at any time before its conclusion.
Part 6 — Inquests and inquiries
18A
Appointment of specially appointed coroners
(1) If the Secretary of State issues a certificate under section 8A in relation
to an inquest, the Secretary of State may appoint a person (a “specially appointed coroner”) to hold the inquest.
(2) A person may not be appointed under this section unless the person—
(a) is a coroner, or
(b) would be qualified under section 2(1) to be appointed as coroner.
(3) A specially appointed coroner may be appointed under this section—
(a) in relation to an inquest that has not begun, or
(b) in relation to an inquest that has begun, at any time before its conclusion.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: cambridge
Posts: 395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
this only highlights that the government have real concerns on the effect of the information that is uncovered in the inquest process. this, i doubt in most cases, is due to breaching of national security but the damaging effect it has on their reputation.
we tried for a jury right at the first pre inquest but were turned down!
better make sure we all look our best if we are to be in front of camera, eh nige?! fnar fnar
we tried for a jury right at the first pre inquest but were turned down!
better make sure we all look our best if we are to be in front of camera, eh nige?! fnar fnar
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why pretend we still live in a democracy ?
**** is ****, whether the wrapper is red, blue or yellow.
Just let the lying self serving murdering robbing bastards crack on with it, they will anyway.
Birth, Tax, Death, Tax. That's all they're bothered about.
If you want to pretend democracy still exists in this country in any meaningful form, please will you send me whatever medication you're on.
Just enjoy your life to the best of your abilities/finances and then die.
Job Jobbed.
**** is ****, whether the wrapper is red, blue or yellow.
Just let the lying self serving murdering robbing bastards crack on with it, they will anyway.
Birth, Tax, Death, Tax. That's all they're bothered about.
If you want to pretend democracy still exists in this country in any meaningful form, please will you send me whatever medication you're on.
Just enjoy your life to the best of your abilities/finances and then die.
Job Jobbed.
Not very pious, PP! I hope that you are not serving. I suspect that you are not, nor ever have been, a member of the armed forces. The tragedy is that your negative attitudes are shared by so many others of the electorate, and that so many have died and continue to die to defend your right to live such a disconnected and disinterested existence. For shame!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 964
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chugalug2
I fail to see what Pontius has said that is so wrong
He said:
Now tell me again Chugalug2, what has he said that got you so upset?
I was in the military, and was proud to be, and like those still in fought for our idea of democracy. Please remember that those lads and lassies out there are not fighting and more importantly dying to protect our democracy and freedom. The sad thing is Chugalug2 they are dying because of corrupt, lying politicians with NO OTHER motive than to feather their own nests ( I wonder how much Bliar will give of the millions a year he makes on the speech circuit to the families of dead soldiers, or those that were injured? mmm let me guess...None!), who sent them in to a battle they should not be in without the right equipment.
I have spoke to a young lad who lost a leg and, over a beer, he said he didn't get maimed for the people back home, he did his duty for Queen and Country as he promised, but sadly, that goodwill and comittment was hijacked by a bunch of thieving lying politicians (his words).
This is not like world war II, there is no mass invasion, it is about helping the US out with Oil. Infact if we want to be safe then bring all of our troops back, because Chugalug, the war is within. The invasion has started and the 'British way of life' you may love has gone. History is repeating itself. Almost a millenia ago Sahaladin did the same thing for the Arabs. Draw the soldiers out of the fort, in chase of a battle they cannot possibly win, and then have an army go around the other side and ...attack the fort, hey ho, Jerusalem was taken. We allow the arabs to buy vast amounts of London, can you buy property in Saudi or Kuwait or Bahrain etc???. No! I wonder why. We tolerate the extremists teaching a young generation hatred of our way of life.
Wake up Chugalug....Smell the coffee.
I fail to see what Pontius has said that is so wrong
He said:
Why pretend we still live in a democracy ? Well we don't live in one, we have let one man we did not elect as PM sign us into the European deal, when we had been promised a referendum and we are now very short finals to close the deal and the people are still ignored.
**** is ****, whether the wrapper is red, blue or yellow. True!
Just let the lying self serving murdering robbing bastards crack on with it, they will anyway. They are(self serving etc) and they will!
Birth, Tax, Death, Tax. That's all they're bothered about. True!
If you want to pretend democracy still exists in this country in any meaningful form, please will you send me whatever medication you're on. Then send some to me
Just enjoy your life to the best of your abilities/finances and then die.The first bit is great advice the last bit is a fact!
**** is ****, whether the wrapper is red, blue or yellow. True!
Just let the lying self serving murdering robbing bastards crack on with it, they will anyway. They are(self serving etc) and they will!
Birth, Tax, Death, Tax. That's all they're bothered about. True!
If you want to pretend democracy still exists in this country in any meaningful form, please will you send me whatever medication you're on. Then send some to me
Just enjoy your life to the best of your abilities/finances and then die.The first bit is great advice the last bit is a fact!
I was in the military, and was proud to be, and like those still in fought for our idea of democracy. Please remember that those lads and lassies out there are not fighting and more importantly dying to protect our democracy and freedom. The sad thing is Chugalug2 they are dying because of corrupt, lying politicians with NO OTHER motive than to feather their own nests ( I wonder how much Bliar will give of the millions a year he makes on the speech circuit to the families of dead soldiers, or those that were injured? mmm let me guess...None!), who sent them in to a battle they should not be in without the right equipment.
I have spoke to a young lad who lost a leg and, over a beer, he said he didn't get maimed for the people back home, he did his duty for Queen and Country as he promised, but sadly, that goodwill and comittment was hijacked by a bunch of thieving lying politicians (his words).
This is not like world war II, there is no mass invasion, it is about helping the US out with Oil. Infact if we want to be safe then bring all of our troops back, because Chugalug, the war is within. The invasion has started and the 'British way of life' you may love has gone. History is repeating itself. Almost a millenia ago Sahaladin did the same thing for the Arabs. Draw the soldiers out of the fort, in chase of a battle they cannot possibly win, and then have an army go around the other side and ...attack the fort, hey ho, Jerusalem was taken. We allow the arabs to buy vast amounts of London, can you buy property in Saudi or Kuwait or Bahrain etc???. No! I wonder why. We tolerate the extremists teaching a young generation hatred of our way of life.
Wake up Chugalug....Smell the coffee.
Last edited by Tigs2; 17th Feb 2008 at 00:09.
We live in a democracy, ie we have government by elected representatives (see Collins 21c edition). The point about the PM is bogus, we never elect the PM, the government's parliamentary party does that. My opinion of the present government is included above in Post #7. So maybe you, PP and I all agree that the present one is crap. The old saw that a nation gets the government that it deserves is as true now as ever, very few bothered to vote either for or against this one! It seemed to me that the point PP was making is that the whole set up is a waste of time, let them get on with it and do their worst, meanwhile just get on with your own life. If that is the case I totally disagree, hence for instance my advice to lobby your MP to stop the proposed measures re Coroners Inquests which are the subject of this thread. I would go further and say next time vote, be it for Red, Blue, Yellow, Green or whatever, but Vote!
Regarding buying property in Saudi, Kuwait or Bahrain, no thanks as I suspect they will all be in the hands of some very fundamentally minded people sooner rather than later, which is probably why all the smart money is being invested here!
Re repatriating our troops, you are probably right, re Bliars wars, I quite agree, re broken covenants, here here. I still stand by para 1 though!
Regarding buying property in Saudi, Kuwait or Bahrain, no thanks as I suspect they will all be in the hands of some very fundamentally minded people sooner rather than later, which is probably why all the smart money is being invested here!
Re repatriating our troops, you are probably right, re Bliars wars, I quite agree, re broken covenants, here here. I still stand by para 1 though!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tigs2, bang on fella.
We don't live in a democracy, you've been conditioned to think you live in a democracy. There's a subtle difference.
I'll happily continue to watch this country go to rat ****, it's what its inhabitants and those that 'govern' it deserve.
Questioning whether I'm serving or ex so as to substantiate my opinion is a bit daft really. You're basically saying it's worth a lot more if I am/were, if that's not the case, why bring it up ? FWIW I'm ex serving on a war pension, does that enable me a Brucie bonus on your pious sliding scale of piosity?
No, thought not.
We don't live in a democracy, you've been conditioned to think you live in a democracy. There's a subtle difference.
I'll happily continue to watch this country go to rat ****, it's what its inhabitants and those that 'govern' it deserve.
Questioning whether I'm serving or ex so as to substantiate my opinion is a bit daft really. You're basically saying it's worth a lot more if I am/were, if that's not the case, why bring it up ? FWIW I'm ex serving on a war pension, does that enable me a Brucie bonus on your pious sliding scale of piosity?
No, thought not.
Ok PP, point taken. I'm not trying to be perverse re democracy. I merely say that democracy does not necessarily make for good government, only good democratic government does, and this one isn't that. As has been said before it's a lousy system, it's just less lousy than the others. The reason that I had a crack at you, which was unfounded and for which I now apologise, is that those in the electorate who never bother to vote are the ones directly responsible for the poor quality of democracy that we end up with, IMHO. Anyone who has served and been left feeling betrayed by this or any other government has a perfect right to hold any view they wish of that government and those who elected it. Who the hell am I to gainsay such opinions? Perhaps to pious and hypocrite I should myself now add insensitive and liable to jump to false conclusions! A lesson learned. Sorry fella!
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Lancashire
Age: 48
Posts: 550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No worries mate, your generalisation was the only thing that bothered me. I honestly don't believe I'm entitled to a greater validity than someone that hasn't served.
You can't blame this 'govern'ment alone, the cons of the 70's/80's & 90's were just as bad in terms of ****ting on people from a great height. We're tied in to europe because of them bellends, thatcher/ted heath ruined many a town and family. I wouldn't spit on him while he's burning in hell, hopefully thatcher is next.
The one great benefit of blair's illegal war based on lies is that he broke the covenant, he with the backing of the 'govern'ment denigrated the trust of the armed forces. I just hope that everyone within the armed forces can see the lives he decided to wipe his front bottom with.
If you want to find the date that war was given the go ahead, look to when commercial shipping was booked for a trip to the sand. The decision was made months before any official decision was made or documentary 'evidence' found.
Asking for an honest trustworthy politician is like asking for a caring sharing bank robber, they're mutually exclusive, it's never going to happen. You have to be a self serving cnut of a person to get to a position of power, the whole system is riddled from the bottom to the top.
Like I said, Red, Blue or Yellow wrapping paper, **** is ****.
People have died for my right to vote, you're right.
That guilt should be placed squarely at the feet of the politicians, the very same people who are responsible for hundreds of deaths for the sake of oil and power, not mine or the rest of society that has also given up.
I do wonder how blair sleeps at night, maybe he doesn't.
Hopefully some nutter will bump him off in the near future.
You can't blame this 'govern'ment alone, the cons of the 70's/80's & 90's were just as bad in terms of ****ting on people from a great height. We're tied in to europe because of them bellends, thatcher/ted heath ruined many a town and family. I wouldn't spit on him while he's burning in hell, hopefully thatcher is next.
The one great benefit of blair's illegal war based on lies is that he broke the covenant, he with the backing of the 'govern'ment denigrated the trust of the armed forces. I just hope that everyone within the armed forces can see the lives he decided to wipe his front bottom with.
If you want to find the date that war was given the go ahead, look to when commercial shipping was booked for a trip to the sand. The decision was made months before any official decision was made or documentary 'evidence' found.
Asking for an honest trustworthy politician is like asking for a caring sharing bank robber, they're mutually exclusive, it's never going to happen. You have to be a self serving cnut of a person to get to a position of power, the whole system is riddled from the bottom to the top.
Like I said, Red, Blue or Yellow wrapping paper, **** is ****.
People have died for my right to vote, you're right.
That guilt should be placed squarely at the feet of the politicians, the very same people who are responsible for hundreds of deaths for the sake of oil and power, not mine or the rest of society that has also given up.
I do wonder how blair sleeps at night, maybe he doesn't.
Hopefully some nutter will bump him off in the near future.
Last edited by Thelma Viaduct; 17th Feb 2008 at 12:39.