Judge-only terror courts mooted

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by PartTimePongo, Aug 9, 2005.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4133564.stm

    Just another 'swiiiiiisssssh' on the slippery slope.
  2. Next thing you know, it's going to be guilty until proven innocent...seems TCB and his cronies have no respect for anything they didn't dream up.
  3. You can bet your arrse that, if they had been around in 2003, Andrew Gilligan and Dr Kelly wouls have been in front of one...and we'd be none the wiser as to all that went on.
  4. Don't see whats wrong here. All they are doing is

    Is it not fair for judges to review the evidence and decide if there is enough to proceed with a full trial (with a jury to decide on innocence or guilt) or should we leave it to the CPS who have a endency to mess up large and complex cases through miniscule mistakes?
  5. Need a little bit of clarification here…

    Will the judges be sitting after a suspect has been arrested and charged thus deciding if the CPS evidence is enough to go to trial on and if not will the suspect then be released but still be able to be re-arrested and re-charged with the same crime on better evidence?

    Will the judge be selected to only deal with this level of crime or will they be the common or garden aged variety that seem to nod off from time to time?

    Who will decide which level of crime is a terrorist related crime that should be pre-trial by this method and which is basic enough for the normal process?

    Is this, as previously discussed in another thread a step towards a greater Diplock system? I recall it was also suggested for complex fraud cases a while ago.

  6. I think in the case of complex fraud, it was proposed to allow the judge alone to make the decision on guilt (rather than allow a jury to become bamboozled by the complexities).

    As far as i can see, in this context, the judge would only decide if there was enough evidence to proceed to a full jury based trial.
  7. Was the Diplock System not introduced as a temporary measure to deal with 'complex' cases but ended up dealing with just about everything for a rather longer period?

    I think I maybe on PTP's side on this one. Slippery slope. I'd need much more validation as to the depth of need.

  8. I see what your getting at beeb.

    It's all very well introducing these new policies, but unless their scope for use is defined, i guess they could be banded about for any old crime (with a minimalistic justification) that was half way near terrorism.
  9. And we never seem to be in full possession of the facts at the moment, it all has an 'on the back of mass hysteria' feeling to it.....

  10. Legislation for legislations sake?

    Just remeber that those that propose these new laws are those that will benefit from them (Mr & Mrs Blair both being lawyers?)

    Although on the face of it, this one does appeal to me as it would hopefully cut down on the number of unprepared cases being sent before a jury.
  11. Ah shades of Diplock all over again......
  12. Sounds like Diplock courts all over again to me.

    We certainly managed to build strong concensus with the minority communities us that time, didn't we :?: :?:
    :oops: :oops: :oops: :oops:
  13. Something about the fact that it will be held in secret worries me.
  14. The Serious and Organised Crime Act is being used to round up soapdodging protestors in Parlaiment Square.
  15. The Home Office says any idea of moving towards a French-style inquisitorial, rather than adversarial court system, is "very long term" and not being actively considered.

    1. Is it "very long term" or is it "not being actively considered?" It can't be both. They're either "considering" it or they aren't.

    2. "Very long term" = right after the next subway bombing.