CC partner charged with assaulting girlfriend in Gleneagles Hotel
The Lawyer reports: CC partner charged with assaulting girlfriend in Gleneagles Hotel. Clifford Chance Japan corporate head Alan Kitchin has been charged assaulting his partner at Scotland’s Gleneagles Hotel.The Tokyo-based lawyer allegedly injured Misato Yoshida after punching her in the face during a stay at the hotel in June, according to a report the Sunday Mail. Kitchin, who joined the magic circle firm earlier this year having spent more than 20 years as a partner at Ashurst, denies the charge and will now stand trial in November.”
It would seem that The Gleneagles Hotel is attracting very much the right type of guest…. The Lawyer notes: “This is not the first time that a lawyer has faced charges over their behaviour at the exclusive Perthshire hotel. In 2008, former Dickson Minto property partner Philip Anderson pleaded guilty to two criminal acts after exposing himself to a female companion in the hotel’s restaurant. He was later fined £300.”
Is there a UK law against ‘cruel and unusual punishment’?
The Guardian: Shadowfirebird wants to know what constitutes ‘cruel and unusual punishment’ and whether it is disallowed in this country.
Shadowfirebird asks:
“Do we have in this country a principle of disallowing cruel and unusual punishment, and if so, what constitutes “cruel and unusual”? For example, is it cruel or unusual to specify as a condition of your release that you must tell anyone you enter into a relationship with your true identity – when it seems almost certain that this will end the relationship, and threaten your life at the same time?”
The term “cruel and unusual punishment” comes from the eighth amendment to the US constitution . We have no law that uses those exact terms. What we do have is article 3 of the European convention on human rights, now part of our law by virtue of the Human Rights Act, which states: “No one shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”
Human rights: from Europe to the UK
Guardian: Government report highlights vexed issue of implementation of European human rights judgments in domestic law
Harvard Prof Sees Legal Profession in Turmoil
ABA Journal: The legal profession is “seeing the acceleration of large-scale trends which were accentuated [by the recession]. They will have a profound impact on all lawyers’ practices and how we regulate, compensate and train lawyers,” Harvard Law School professor David B. Wilkins told the ABA House of Delegates on Monday.
“We’re much less in control—[lawyers] used to control pretty much everything,” Wilkins said. “Today, in many areas, the state actively intervenes in the way the profession operates.” He cited the Korean government, which made the Korean bar increase the number of lawyers it trains each year.
Cruel and unusual punishments – this was referred to in the Bill of Rights 1688 which sought to stop them and also to prevent excessive bail and excessive fines.
Of course, cruel punishments continued for over 200 years after the Bill of Rights. Quite what the writers of the Bill meant by cruel and unusual is not clear but we know from a reading of history some of the horrific penalties meted out – hanging drawing and quartering after hours on the rack being one example (e.g. Guy Fawkes).
It is very debatable whether the Bill of Rights actually achieved anything in tempering the “Bloody Criminal Code” which ruled in England until well into Victorian times.
The prohibition on torture, inhuman or degrading treatment / punishment is enshrined in Article 3 of the European Convention and the prohibition on slavery and forced labour in Article 4. Both articles have developed quite a bit of case law.
Despite all this, one continues to wonder at just how committed western governments are to ensuring human rights in places where we have military involvement. Maybe the truth will out one day but it is a long time coming.
There remains a large penumbra surrounding the term “cruel and unusual” as we can see with how the USA has wrestled with the death penalty for many years now. Even those favouring the death penalty – (and I do not) – have debated the methods used.
I thought that was one of the conditions imposed on Venables (and presumably Thompson). I can’t remember where I read it though, and a quick Internet search comes up blank.
I hadn’t seen the Guardian comments when I posted that.
cruel punishments continued for over 200 years after the Bill of Rights. Quite what the writers of the Bill meant by cruel
Obiter’s quite right about the Bill of Rights – it’s article 10. I think it’s still good law, too.
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?activeTextDocId=1518621