• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Convicted without evidence of a crime?

#1
News item in question

Apparently new powers are being sought that will allow the Police (more accurately the Organised Crime Squad) to apply for control orders of suspects on whom there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction in court.

So now you can be prejudged? Conviction of an offence without trial?

Bloody marvellous... I wonder how long it would take for these powers to be abused and used against "normal" folk (as the anti-terror legislation was).
 
#2
Semmy said:
News item in question

Apparently new powers are being sought that will allow the Police (more accurately the Organised Crime Squad) to apply for control orders of suspects on whom there is not enough evidence to secure a conviction in court.

So now you can be prejudged? Conviction of an offence without trial?

Bloody marvellous... I wonder how long it would take for these powers to be abused and used against "normal" folk (as the anti-terror legislation was).
I wonder how long it will take for a Lawyer to take it to the European Court of Human Rights!. It smells of failure to me.
 
#3
They were designed to tackle people who were suspected of involvement in serious organised crime but on whom there was not enough evidence to prosecute.

Will it apply to things like Cash for peerages perhaps?
 
#7
Warrior_Poet said:
They were designed to tackle people who were suspected of involvement in serious organised crime but on whom there was not enough evidence to prosecute.
How many times have we hard similar lines recently?
 
#8
This sounds similiar to "These new powers will help us in the fight against terror, under no circumstances will these new powers be abused" unless your a 67yr old man or a protestor at the cenetaph.... Again the plight of the Natwest 3 comes to the fore, sent to the States guilty with no evidence produced to CPS.
 
#9
Warrior_Poet said:
They were designed to tackle people who were suspected of involvement in serious organised crime but on whom there was not enough evidence to prosecute.

Will it apply to things like Cash for peerages perhaps?
Or insider dealers, tax fiddlers and other white collar crimes
 
#10
Sven, Sven, Sven. (plus others) you seem to be missing one minor teensie weensie point, a judge will be able to implement restrictions on a person even though there is not enough evidence to convict them in a court of law.

Lets break it down into easy stages for you.

1) A person is deemed guilty of an offence when proven in court beyond reasonable doubt.
2) If there is not enough evidence to convict in a court of law (see no. 1 above), does this mean the new act could apply to cases where there could be reasonable doubt?
3) These proposals would incur legal penalties upon folk without recourse to the court of law (due process et al).
4) It does not clearly define who, what, where and why, this is left to the Judges discretion (the fault of woolly wording within the proposed act).

So all in all you agree with placing legal restrictions upon a person even though they might not be guilty of anything... How very..... Fascist.
 
#11
It does rather avoid the inconvenience and expense of actually gathering evidence and then having to discharge a legal and evidential burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt!

Being 'suspected' has, of itself almost become a substantive offence in it's own right!

This should leave no one in any doubt that Britain is a totalitarian state disguised as a democracy accepted with bovine docility by the vast majority of people who would rather watch 'Big Brother' on the television than contemplate the idea that they are living it in real life!

When I hear a serving Police officer say: "what's innocence got to do with it" - that just about sums it up for me!

I presume this is the sort of 'democracy' the government has in mind for Iraq and Afghanistan?

Regards and best wishes
 
#12
So, if there isn't enough evidence to bring charges in "cash for peerages" or the criminally negligent manslaughter of a Brazilian and subsequent cover-up, can we expect to see Bliar, Levy, Powell, Turner, Bliar 2 and Dick subject to control orders?

Perhaps they are not designed to be used on the snout-troughs and their stormtroopers..... :evil:
 
#13
The Home Office also wants a new offence of encouraging or assisting a criminal act to help strengthen the current law and make it easier to bring to justice those involved in the margins of organised crime.
This also sounds like one of those catch-all phrases that could be applied to practically anybody. All you have to do is to live next door to some gangster and that's you Donald Ducked!

I'm sure there'll be the usual assurances that the new powers won't be abused! :D :D :D

MsG
 
#14
Semmy said:
Sven, Sven, Sven. (plus others) you seem to be missing one minor teensie weensie point, a judge will be able to implement restrictions on a person even though there is not enough evidence to convict them in a court of law.

Lets break it down into easy stages for you.

1) A person is deemed guilty of an offence when proven in court beyond reasonable doubt.
2) If there is not enough evidence to convict in a court of law (see no. 1 above), does this mean the new act could apply to cases where there could be reasonable doubt?
3) These proposals would incur legal penalties upon folk without recourse to the court of law (due process et al).
4) It does not clearly define who, what, where and why, this is left to the Judges discretion (the fault of woolly wording within the proposed act).

So all in all you agree with placing legal restrictions upon a person even though they might not be guilty of anything... How very..... Fascist.
You couldn' t be further from the truth. My arguement was against ANY removal of a persons rights, especially with regard to control orders. I was simply emphasising that the 'nice middle class people' commit crimes and these crimes have less chance of conviction
 
#16
Sounds like more New Labour spinning. We hear the same old recycled anouncements year in, year out. Tony will be promising to be 'tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime' next.

Like or loathe the proposed law, it does not stand a chance of surviving the first challenge under HRA 1998. It does not even have to go to the ECHR. If HMG cannot devise anti-terror control orders that the courts deem are compatible with Convention Rights, they have no hope for organised crime.
 
#17
Semmy said:
So all in all you agree with placing legal restrictions upon a person even though they might not be guilty of anything... How very..... Fascist.

Not good. We cannot defend our democracy by subverting it ourselves. The rule of law may be inconvenient but its what we are supposed to be fighting for.
 

Latest Threads