New Labour bring old Nuremberg Laws to Britain

Original URL: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/14/only_obeying_orders/

New Labour bring old Nuremberg Laws to Britain
Police may act unlawfully when 'only obeying orders'
By John Ozimek
Posted in Policing, 14th January 2010 11:34 GMT
Free whitepaper – New storage architectures make SSDs more cost-effective

Police officers could find themselves on the wrong end of a citizen’s arrest if they follow advice issued by Home Secretary, Alan Johnson, after the European Court of Human Rights slapped the UK's stop and search laws.

According to government lawyers, however, so long as officials are "only obeying orders", there is little the ordinary citizen can do to resist them.


A bizarre Looking Glass scenario opened up this week as the European Court of Human Rights, sitting in Strasbourg, finally ruled (http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?action=html&documentId=860909&portal=hbkm&source=externalbydocnumber) on the case of two protesters stopped and searched at the Defence Systems and Equipment International Exhibition in 2003 under the notorious s44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/ukpga_20000011_en_5#pt5-pb2-l1g44).

This law gives police powers to stop any individual within "designated areas" and search them for material related to terrorist actions without having to show "reasonable cause" to justify their actions: it is the basis for much of the current tension between police and photographers.

Although the court ruled that the exercise of this power was unlawful under article 8 of the Human Rights Act – the Right to respect for private or family life – the Home Office responded instantly with a statement asserting "business as usual". The Home Secretary said:

"Stop and search under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 is an important tool in a package of measures in the on-going fight against terrorism.

"I am disappointed with the ECHR ruling in this case as we won on these challenges in the UK courts, including in the House of Lords. We are considering the judgment and will seek to appeal. Pending the outcome of this appeal, the police will continue to have these powers available to them."

The difficulty with this response – which is already being echoed in guidance issued by ACPO and individual police forces – is that the UK Government lost its case in Strasbourg, and were ordered to pay costs to the defendants. No fine was levied in this instance – but continued government resistance to the Human Rights convention seems bound to bring on heftier penalties. Furthermore, unless the government changes the way the law is applied, then there is no reason to expect any similar cases not to go the same way.

If the police apply the law in the same way as they did before this ruling, then expect growing numbers of protesters to take the police to court and to extract serious money from them in the form of costs and damages.

However, the potential consequences could be far worse. According to Robert Brown, a partner with specialist criminal law firm Corker Binning, where an arrest is not lawful, it could well amount to "false detention" – itself both a civil matter and a serious criminal offence.

False detention is, in fact, sufficiently serious an offence that an individual arrested in this way could potentially respond by carrying out a citizen’s arrest on the arresting officer.

But be warned. Without cast-iron evidence, the chances of making such a charge stick are slight, and the would-be good citizen is just as likely to find themselves facing a charge of resisting arrest. El Reg therefore expressed its surprise at the advice given to the Home Office, and were even more surprised by the response.

The Home Office claim that they have already thought through these possibilities. In a further statement, a spokeswoman for the Home Office told us: "The Office of Security and Counter Terrorism (OSCT) has sought Counsel advice as to the status of existing Authorisations and over what message those forces affected should issue to their staff. Counsel’s preliminary view is that, "in terms of domestic law, the police should for the time being be protected by Section 6(2)b Human Rights Act (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998/ukpga_19980042_en_1#pb3-l1g6) in acting under Section 44".

"This section provides that a public authority which is acting so as to give effect to primary legislation which cannot be read in a way which is compatible with the Convention, does not act unlawfully."

In plain English: even if a particular law is "unlawful" an official acting in compliance with that law would not themselves be acting unlawfully. Or, to put it another way, some 60 years after the Nuremberg Trials, the UK government appears to have enshrined in UK law – in the Human Rights Act, no less – the principle that no matter how illegal a law, so long as officials are merely obeying orders, they cannot be held responsible for their actions. ®

Related stories
European court pulls plugs on terror stop and search (12 January 2010)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/01/12/police_search_illegal/
Top cop's 'stop stopping snappers' memo: Too little too late? (15 December 2009)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/15/more_police_photography_advice/
Police snapper silliness reaches new heights (11 December 2009)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/11/police_quiz_itn_reporter/
Lord Carlile: Police are taking the proverbial on terror (4 December 2009)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/04/police_photos/
If they can break the law, why can't we? (24 May 2009)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/24/breaking_the_law/
Photocops: Home Office concedes concern (7 April 2009)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/04/07/gov_photography/

And so the slide begins...

First no-jury crime trial begins
Four men have appeared in court in the first crown court criminal trial to be held without a jury in England and Wales for more than 350 years.

The case concerns four men accused of a £1.75m armed robbery at a cash depot at Heathrow Airport, west London, in 2004.

Last June, Lord Chief Justice Lord Judge made legal history by allowing the trial to be heard by a judge alone as he feared jury "tampering".

One of the accused men's barristers said: "We are breaking history."

John Twomey, 61, Barry Hibberd, 43, Peter Blake, 57, and Glen Cameron, 50, all deny a series of charges including robbery and firearm possession.

Police protection

It is the fourth trial connected to the robbery.

As the trial began Sam Stein QC, representing Hibberd, remarked: "We are breaking history. This is the first time that a court has started a jury-less trial."

BBC legal affairs analyst Clive Coleman said trial by jury was a hallowed principle stretching back to the Magna Carta in 1215.

But, he said, it was now limited by legislation, which allowed non-jury trial if, as Lord Judge found in this case, there was a real and present danger of jury tampering which could not reasonably be protected against.

Last June, Lord Judge said the cost of the measures needed to protect jurors from potential influence, such as the services of police officers, was too high and that such measures might not properly insulate them.

The trial will be the first Crown Court case in England and Wales to be heard by a judge alone using powers under Sections 44 and 46 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, which came into force in July 2007.

No-jury trials are a more regular feature of justice elsewhere in the UK.

Diplock courts have been used in Northern Ireland since 1973 to combat jury intimidation by paramilitary groups.

And some criminal cases in Scotland are heard by a sheriff in the Sheriff Court or by a bench of one or more lay justices in justice of the peace courts.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/london/8453318.stm

Published: 2010/01/12 13:32:42 GMT

© BBC MMX

We are storing up trouble for ourselves by being soft with scum like this.

Scum gets off lightly and the Judge proves out of touch they really are.

Boy detained over bleach attack
A teenager who poured bleach over a woman at a restaurant in Leeds has been detained for 12 months.

Jordan Horsley, 16, was found guilty at an earlier hearing of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent.

Leeds Crown Court heard how Annette Warden, 46, asked the boy and his friends to be quiet during a film at the Vue cinema on Kirkstall Road.

Later, as Mrs Warden and her family ate in a nearby restaurant, the boy came in and poured bleach on her head.

In sentencing the teenager, Judge Peter Collier QC lifted an order banning the press from revealing his name.

Bleach in eyes

The attack happened on 26 July in the Frankie and Benny's restaurant at the Cardigan Fields complex.

Mrs Warden had been watching Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince with her husband and two sons when she complained to the boy and his friends as their mobile phones kept going off, the court heard.

As the family left the cinema and went to the restaurant the defendant shouted abuse at Mrs Warden from a car.

The court heard how the group drove to a nearby petrol station where Horsley wanted to buy eggs to throw at her, but when he could not find any he bought a bottle of bleach.

The teenager went into the restaurant and poured the bleach on Mrs Warden from behind.

Mrs Warden required hospital treatment after the liquid went into her eyes, although she was not seriously injured.

The boy told the court that he only wanted to "show up" the woman.

The court heard Mrs Warden had difficulty sleeping since the attack and had been prescribed medication for her nerves.

'Utterly vindictive'

It was revealed in court that Horsley had a previous conviction for hitting someone over the head with half a brick and had also been cautioned for assault on a separate occasion.

The boy, whose mother died when he was young, had suffered a violent relationship with his father and was living by himself at the time of the attack.

Judge Peter Collier QC, said social services had been involved with the family but said matters had not been resolved "satisfactorily".

"You have not been well-served in your life by your father and there must be some concerns as to the intervention that was attempted as you were growing up, which never resolved the issues which you still have," he said.

“ The fact he planned the attack and went off and bought the bleach before returning to throw it over her shows how malicious his thinking was that day ”
Det Insp Neil Thompson, West Yorkshire Police
Judge Collier said the teenager would serve half of the 12-month detention and training order before being released on licence.

He told Horsley he hoped some of his issues surrounding his family and his emotions would be dealt with during his time in custody.

Speaking after sentencing, a West Yorkshire Police spokesman said: "Jordan Horsley's actions were utterly vindictive and understandably left people shocked and sickened.

"The victim had made a perfectly reasonable request for him and the group he was with to be quiet during the film. She could never have expected that he would react in such a nasty and violent way.

"The fact he planned the attack and went off and bought the bleach before returning to throw it over her shows how malicious his thinking was that day."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/8451749.stm

Published: 2010/01/11 17:25:20 GMT

© BBC MMX

Is it legal to wave a knife at intruders?

A case of a Constable acting beyond their remit. No doubt a relatively inexperienced PC who really ought to know better. I don't blame them, I blame to training if it makes young coppers think that only they are allowed to use/threaten violence in self defence. The problem is not that the Police believe it, criminal scum also think that only the police are 'allowed' to act in self defence.

I say good on her.

Is it illegal to wave a knife at intruders?
WHO, WHAT, WHY?
The Magazine answers...
Myleene Klass, a TV presenter, claims she was warned by police for waving a knife after spotting intruders in her garden, but is there any way such an action could be against the law?

Celebrity Myleene Klass was in the kitchen of her house in Hertfordshire when she saw young men who she didn't know in her garden. Her reaction was instantaneous. She picked up a knife, banged on her kitchen window and waved the knife at them before they fled.

She was, according to her spokesman, later warned by police officers that carrying an "offensive weapon" was illegal in her own home. The allegation is vehemently denied by Hertfordshire Police, but it raises the question of whether this could be an offence in England.

The story comes at a time of heated debate about whether the law should be changed to make absolutely clear what action householders can take against burglars and other intruders on their property.

But did Klass break the law?

THE ANSWER
Possession of an offensive weapon only applies to public places
Waving a knife could count as common assault
But idea of self-defence makes it unlikely in these circumstances
The charge of carrying an offensive weapon is found in the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 but refers only to public places, says criminal lawyer Julian Young, of Julian Young & Co Solicitors. Klass's home is her private property, so it could not be argued that she had committed an offence.

Subsequent legislation like the Criminal Justice Act 1988 and the Offensive Weapons Act 1996 have touched on the offence but the position remains the same.

"It wouldn't mean there might not be some other offence," says criminal lawyer Robert Brown of Corker Binning solicitors.

A "threatening behaviour"-type charge would also fail because Klass's actions were on private property, he notes.

Common assault

Under the section of the Public Order Act 1986 labelled "Fear or provocation of violence" and subsequently amended to "Intentional harassment, alarm or distress", it says: "An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used... by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling."

But under common law, waving a knife at someone might constitute common assault. Despite what most laymen might assume, you do not need to have touched somebody to be guilty of assault, says Mr Brown.

"Assault involves putting someone in fear for their personal safety. If I raise my fist at you [for instance]. Waving a knife at someone could amount to an offence."

But, as both Mr Young and Mr Brown note, the element of self-defence in this case would make an assault conviction unlikely. Klass was at home with a young child upstairs.

"If you are using reasonable force to protect your property or your family or yourself then you have an excuse," says Mr Young.

"She has got, apparently, strangers going into her garden and looking into her garden shed. She is a woman on her own. She's got a child."

An argument of self-defence could even apply to a charge of carrying offensive weapons in a public place, says Mr Young, for instance if someone had purchased a kitchen knife and was taking it home and was then attacked.

And for the record Hertfordshire Police say they didn't tell Klass off at all about her knife-waving.

"Officers spoke to reassure the home owner, talked through security and gave advice in relation to the importance of reporting suspicious activity immediately to allow officers to act appropriately," says a spokeswoman.

"For clarification, at no point were any official warnings or words of advice given to the home owner in relation to the use of a knife or offensive weapon in their home."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/magazine/8451877.stm

Published: 2010/01/11 12:45:39 GMT

© BBC MMX

Government plans to change the law by the back door.

Who of you has ever been 'fined' by a private car parking firm? Well hopefully those of you that have knew enough about English Law not to be duped into paying by threats of court action etc. You see it has been a central plank of English law that one cannot be fined before being convicted of a crime. You can thank our little quoted Bill of Rights for protection against bullies who would threaten you with arbitrary 'fines' and punishments.

As a result private parking matters are civil matters revolving around contract law. Basically if you willingly enter into a contract with another party and then breach the terms of that contract the injured party can only claim his actual losses by way of compensation and can in no way seek to punish or penalise you. This means that if you park in a free of charge car park and fail to see some sign informing you that you will be liable to some sort of penalty charge if the private car parking company send you an invoice then all they can claim through the courts is the actual amount they lost and not the £75 they like to charge I.e. £0 because it's a free car park.

The government have decided that because the private parking companies never win in court what is needed is an independant panel who can look at 'appeals' and make rulings.

Excuse me, but we already have an independant body capable of looking at 'appeals' in a fair manner- ITS CALLED THE COUNTY COURT.

How on earth can some tribunal add an element of fairness to a private parking 'fine' when our laws already make them UNENFORCIBLE???

All I can say is that the idea is to make it easier for these bully boy companies to illegally make more money by frightening people into paying money they have NO LEGAL reason to pay.

All that was needed was the government to tell the private car park companies to stop issuing threats of court action if the driver disputed the fact any contract between them had ever exsisted. By making a tribunal they legalise something without any new law being passed by Parliarment. Even Councils had to have an Act of Parliarment before they could issue parking penalties. So much for the rule of law in NuLabour's hell hole of a country.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8450403.stm

Money before justice

Or to put it another way; money is more important in our modern socialist soceity.

If story below doesn't make you want to drag those 646 prostitutes from Westminster and start again then I am afraid you are part of the problem.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/6958451/Innocent-driver-admits-offence-to-avoid-cost-of-court-defence.html