After the bug of last week (which has not entirely gone – I now have an absurdly deep / croaky voice which makes podcasts just too absurd to contemplate..Think Paul Robeson on benylin) I decided to have a glass of Rioja for afternoon tea. Normally I wait until well after 7.00 in the evening – but ars longia vita brevis and all that..
I like this….You be The Judge from the Criminal Justice System Online - it does what it says on the tin. [Hat Tip to Brian Inkster of Inksters for alerting me to this ] You hear the case and decide the sentence…and then see if it bears any resemblance to the ‘real thing’. Floggers, hangers and deporters will…however, be disappointed. Nothing for you here… but I am sure you can make your own arrangements for something more suited to your tastes by using Google.
And, if you fancy a shock to your central nervous system this wonderful pastiche by the politically astute and leading Photoshop artist..Beau Bo D’Or… it really is worth a look… but I did warn you.
On, temporarily, to more serious matters….. a bit of law, even.
Keir Starmer QC ruled last week that he could not prosecute Baroness Uddin because of a change in the rules by the Lords. One leading barrister takes a very different line. I extract the full letter from The Times – with due apology for a full extract – because it is rather interesting. Here is The Times online reference.
Sir,
The decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute peers who may have committed a criminal offence is said to have been brought about by a loophole (leading article, Mar 13). It is no such thing. It would appear to be an extraordinary failure by the DPP to understand what is required to prove a case. The obvious (but not only) charge would have been one of obtaining property by deception, contrary to s15 Theft Act 1968. In order to establish such an offence the prosecution would have to prove that a defendant dishonestly obtained property belonging to another by deception with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it.
The crucial aspect of the deception is the statement supposedly made by the peer that the address in question was that person’s main residence. Whether the address in question was indeed the main residence is a question for the jury. The opinion of someone else — eg, Michael Pownall, the Clerk of Parliaments — as to what constitutes the main address would not be relevant and would be no more likely to be admissible in evidence than Humpty Dumpty’s retort that when he used a word it meant what he chose it to mean.
If the decision not to bring charges was indeed brought about by the inadmissible opinion of the clerk that one visit per month would entitle a peer to designate that address as the main residence, the DPP should seriously consider his position.
I am not a criminal lawyer..but is Cousen’s right? As always, I’d be interested in the opinion of practitioners in the field. It struck me, in the case of Baroness Uddin for…in effect…. appearing to break the law … but a law circumscribed by definitions of ‘a main address’ set down by the Lords … that it would be rather difficult for the CPS to bring a credible prosecution. Over to you….
The Spurn of The Jedi
One of the great qualities of Rioja is that it allows me to read The Sun (and other tabloids) and not feel guilty. It is probably also true that it is rather more difficult to read The Times, Indie, Guardian, telegraph et al after drinking a fair bit of Rioja..but be that as it may… there are no admissions being made this day by me.
The Sun reported..with the headline above…
A JEDI believer won an apology from a Jobcentre which threw him out for refusing to remove his hood.
“Star Wars fan Chris Jarvis, 31, was told he would have to leave if he did not take it down. Chris is a member of the International Church of Jediism – based on the sci-fi films – whose doctrine states that followers should be allowed to wear hoods. But when he protested, security escorted him from his local branch in Southend, Essex. He filled out a complaint form – and received a formal letter from the JobCentre Plus branch’s boss just three days later.”
Far be it for me…of libertarian leanings… to suggest that Chris Jarvis may well have a better prospect of success when he turns up for a job interview and keeps quiet about the fact that he is a Jedi. I rather suspect that even the most liberal of Chambers would find it difficult to take a Jedi on… but… you may know differently? Are there any Jedi barristers, clerks, supernumeries…Chambers butlers?
I am not a religious man…and I mean no offence by what follows to those who are… but I thought it might be interesting to match each of the main political leaders with a well known quote (albeit slightly modified for Clegg) from Jesus Christ….
And finally… may god have mercy upon my soul…mea culpa – but I just had to go back to that poster generating site… it woz the Rioja wot did it, M’Lud…
I may as well finish the bottle… an excellent way to ‘take afternoon tea’…. back later..perhaps….
prosecution – is going to shoulder some of that burden, no matter how ‘tough’ the politicians talk in terms of ‘Law and Order’. Is this, partly a problem caused by the CPS taking work in-house and not relying so heavily on the independent Bar? When I interviewed
Professor John Flod (RATs – Random academic thoughts) has an interesting film on legal education to look at…