Day 48 on Grayling Dangerous Idiot Watch: But in this particular case, if there is a really good reason, if it is in the interests of justice for the judge to take a decision one way or the other, so be it, thats why we have them. Thats why we trust the judges, thats why we have them, to take the right decisions of behalf of all of us. Subject to those decisions being transparent, is what he forgot to say. Open justice has been a fundamental principle of our civil society since Magna Carta. I cannot imagine an act a terrorist would be capable of on our soil that would undermine our liberty to the extent this decision does. A decision that Grayling champions. We are talking about two unnamed persons being tried in total secrecy, with not even the verdict being able to be reported. The prosecution - and Grayling - contend that if they had to try the case in open court then they may choose not to prosecute. That is their excuse to proceed in secret, but surely that, in itself, is the safeguard that open justice is supposed to afford us all? There is no British value that this justice secretary will not defile. The recent legal aid fraud trial showed that we have a right to a competent defence, apart from when we dont. Now we have a right to a public trial. Apart from when we dont. Grim, grim times.
Posted on: Thu, 05 Jun 2014 11:30:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015