The Supreme Court and another squalid little ZanuLabour Law!

twisting and subverting the wording and purpose of a United Nations measure. introducing into domestic law under an Order in Council for which no statutory authority nor Parliamentary scrutiny could attach. The formation of a secret committee, the identity and composition of which is unknown to determine whether or not it ‘reasonably believes’ that a man or woman it finds unpleasant has taken part or might take part in an action likely to endanger the life or property of others, or take action detrimental to the economy, to order all of that person’s financial assets frozen for an indeterminate time, allow a sum to live on which falls below the poverty line and submit a receipt for each item upon which any such sum is spent. Allow no appeal against such a decision and deny the individual access to the court. The resulting damage is the destruction of the person’s family and complete isolation from everyone else within the prison of his home.

A scene from Kafka’s novel ‘The Trial’? A description of the worst excesses of life in Stalin’s Russia? Life in present day Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe perhaps?

No, the routine treatment of Crown Subjects by the governt‘Nomenclature’ in the United Kingdom, demonstrating yet again to the world just what a cheap and nasty little authoritarian dictatorship this country has become save for the independence of our judiciary who yesterday, told the truth to power in Her Majesty’s Treasury (Respondent) v A and others (FC) (Appellants) and others [2010] UKSC 2

Per Lord Hope (with whom Lord Walker and Lady Hale agree): “[This] case brings us face to face with the kind of issue that led to Lord Atkin’s famously powerful protest in Liversidge v Anderson [1942] AC 206, 244 against a construction of a Defence Regulation which had the effect of giving an absolute and uncontrolled power of imprisonment to the minister. In The Case of Liversidge v Anderson : The Rule of Law Amid the Clash of Arms (2009) 43 The International Lawyer 33, 38 Lord Bingham of Cornhill, having traced the history of that judgment, said that –

“we are entitled to be proud that even in that extreme national emergency there was one voice – eloquent and courageous – which asserted older, nobler, more enduring values: the right of the individual against the state; the duty to govern in accordance with law; the role of the courts as guarantor of legality and individual right; the priceless gift, subject only to constraints by law established, of individual freedom.”

The consequences of the Orders that were made in this case are so drastic and so oppressive that we must be just as alert to see that the coercive action that the Treasury have taken really is within the powers that the 1946 Act has given them. Even in the face of the threat of international terrorism, the safety of the people is not the supreme law. We must be just as careful to guard against unrestrained encroachments on personal liberty.”

Similar threads