Karadzic before UN court
31 July 2008 at 22:47 | In Criminal Justice, Criminal Law, Human Rights | Leave a CommentFormer Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic appeared before a UN war crimes judge for the first time today to answer genocide charges and said he had been kidnapped and feared for his life.
Karadzic intends to represent himself during the trial and will take advice throughout.
He will be back before the court on 29 August 2008 when he must enter a plea to the charges against him.
changes to the law proposed following World’s End case
31 July 2008 at 10:10 | In Criminal Justice, Legal System, Scots Law | Leave a CommentProposals published today could see prosecutors in Scotland having the right to appeal the decision of a judge, when they decide to stop a case without the jury delivering a verdict.
This proposal follows the collapse of the World’s End case after the judge, Lord Clarke, ruled that the Crown had failed to supply sufficient evidence to allow for a conviction. This could not be challanged by the Crown. Following the collapse of this case the Lord Advocate made an unprecedent statement to the Scottish Parliament defending the Crown’s handling of the case and said that, had the option been available to her, she would have appealed Lord Clarke’s decision.
In November 2007, the Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAskill MSP, asked the Scottish Law Commission to look at the issues surrounding the World’s End case.
The commission’s chairman, Lord Drummond Young, said:
The trial judge rightly has the power to bring the prosecution to an end where the Crown does not present sufficient evidence against the accused; but, at present, the trial judge’s decision cannot be reviewed.
In rare cases, this may result in a well-founded prosecution being wrongly dismissed and the accused person not being properly held to account.
We recommend, therefore, that the Crown should be able, with leave of the trial judge, to challenge a number of judicial rulings, including a ruling that there is no case to answer.
The Scottish Law Commission is also looking into the double jeopordy rule (the rule that means a suspect cannot be tried for the same crime twice). They will report back on this issue next year.
Mr MacAskill welcomed the report, which sets out a draft bill to change the law. Mr MacAskill
We are now giving careful consideration to the details of the report and its proposals for legislation.
The Scottish Government commissioned this report because a number of concerns have been expressed about these issues, not least following the World’s End case.
We took action quickly by asking the Scottish Law Commission to consider all the questions in their broad context and make any recommendations for reform as they see fit. We asked the SLC to respond swiftly, and they have done so.
Karadzic flown to The Hague
30 July 2008 at 10:38 | In Criminal Justice, Criminal Law, Human Rights | Leave a CommentAt Rotterdam airport today a flight landed from Serbia. On board the flight was the former Serbian leader Radovan Karadzic who is to stand trial at the war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia at The Hague for probably the single most serious crime in the world: genocide.
Karadzic faces 11 counts including genocide, extermination and persecution. The prosecution aledges that Karadzic was the mastermind behind atrocities such as the 1995 massacre of 8,000 Muslim men and boys in the Bosnian town of Srebrenica and the deadly siege of Sarajevo.
A spokesperson for the UN has confirmed that Karadzic is in UN custody at the detention centre near the court where he will stand trial.
—————————
UPDATE: Karadzic will appear before the tribunal at The Hague on the afternoon of Thursday 31 July 2008 to hear the charges against him. He will then have a period of 30 days to enter his plea in answer to the charges. This is going to be a long and complex case. We will know tomorrow the exact details of the indictment against him.
UK Government ’should follow Scots example’
30 July 2008 at 08:36 | In Criminal Justice, Criminal Law, English Law, Human Rights, Legal System, Scots Law | Leave a Comment“Britain’s DNA database needs to be held independently and operated under much tighter safeguards more in accordance with the Scottish model, according to a government-backed inquiry.” (The Herald, 30 July 2008)
The above reccomendeation has come out of the citizens’ inquiry held into the forensic use of DNA and the UK database. The inquiry was commissioned by the Human Genetics Commission (a body which advises the UK Government).
The inquiry also rejected the plans for DNA profiling everyone in the UK, called for wholescale changes in the procedures relating to DNA evidence and for juries to hear of the limitations of DNA evidence before hearing from expert witnesses.
In Scotland, the authorities are only allowed to store DNA samples on a permanent basis of those convicted of crimes, with the exception of certain suspected sex offenders. The Police can keep samples of those charged, but not convicted of serious sexual and violent offences. However, there is a strict time limit as to how long the samples in this category can be kept on record before they have to be destroyed.
DNA is dodgy when we talk about ethics. Yes, DNA evidence can be very useful in solving crimes and crimes which have remained unsolved for many years have been solved when a smaple hs been aded to the DNA database in an unrelated matter. However, we must also balance this with the human rights of the citizens of the United Kingdom. The police, and others, often criticise the Human Rights Act as being a barrier to crime detection and conviction. I agree that on some occasions it is. However, the idea of a big DNA databse conatining the DNA of every single person living in the UK does not sit well with me at all(as any regular readers of my blog will know).
Child pleads ’stop mummy driving’
29 July 2008 at 23:57 | In Criminal Law, Scots Law | 1 CommentWhilst browising the BBC Scotland News pages this evening before heading to bed I discovered a story that I wanted to blog on before I went to bed.
On Sunday afternoon, Central Scotland Police stoppsed a car in Falkirk. The driver, who had been carrying her five-year-old daughter in the car, was almost four times the legal limit (the legal limit being 35 microgrammes of alcohol per 100ml of breath). The BBC reports that a member of the public removed the five-year-old from the rear of the car and the car was stopped by officers from Central Scotland Police shortly after.
The driver appeared at Falkirk Sherff Court on Monday and entered a guilty plea in answer to three charges, which included charges relating to drink driving and putting the child at risk.
Chief Inspector Donald McMillan, of the area’s road policing unit, said:
This motorist was prevented from causing serious injury to herself, her child and other road users.
The child was in an extremely distressed state and we are thankful the incident didn’t result in serious injuries.
However, this should serve as a reminder to motorists that as soon as they get behind a wheel they have a responsibility to themselves, their passengers and other road users.
I agree totally with the tone of Chief Inspector McMillan’s comment and particulalry the content of the final sentence quoted above. This is a responsibility often forgotten by many drivers, drunk or sober, and it is worth highlighting. Drivers should remember that when behind the wheel of a car they are in-charge of a potentially lethal weapon. That weapon is leathal to not only them, but to any other road user.
Assistant Chief Constable Jim Green of Strathclyde Police, who is secretary of the Association of Chief Police Officers road policing business area, said:
Never in my 29 years of policing, have I ever heard of such an incident where such a young child has alerted members of the public to a parent’s totally unacceptable and inexcusable behaviour.
While the court will address the driving consequences of this woman’s behaviour, it is the underlying issues that have to be addressed by all our partners who are concerned with this driver and many other motorists’ well-being as well as that of the general and motoring public.
The mother shall return to court next month to be sentenced.
Blogroll additions
29 July 2008 at 23:38 | In Random | Leave a CommentThis evening I have added two new links to my blogroll.
The first is Iain Nisbet. Iain is a solicitor and partner at the Govan Law Centre and specialises in education law. His blog can be found at http://www.absolvitor.com.
The second is Jonathan Mitchell QC. Jonathan is an advocate at the Scottish bar, in Edinburgh. He is member of the Murray Stable and his professional infromation can be found here. His blog can be found at http://www.jonathanmitchell.info.
Both blogs are full of fascinating information and well worth a read.
Shake-up for murder laws proposed
29 July 2008 at 18:34 | In Criminal Justice, Criminal Law, English Law | Leave a CommentIt’s rare that English Law leades the way in chaging the law so that it is more socially just. Usually, the law of Scotland is one-step ahead of English Law (another natable example of where this has been the case is regarding rape). However, the Attorney-general, Baroness Scotland, has outlined proposed plans to change the way murder is defined in law.
As it stands vitcims of long-term and systematic domestic violence who eventually snap and kill their partner are really guilty of murder, rather than manslaughter. However, under the proposed plans cases such as this would have special defences open to them which would lead to a manslaughter, rather than murdre, conviction.
This is more appropriate and how it should have been for a long time.
Defendants who successfully claim they were “seriously wronged” by the “words and conduct” of their victim would instead be convicted of manslaughter. Also, under the plan, long-term domestic abuse victims can also use a partial defence of “fear of serious violence”.
999
29 July 2008 at 00:03 | In Legal System, Random | Leave a CommentHere are some videos released by Avon and Somerset Constabulary highlighting the inapropriate things that people dial 999 for and expect the police to respond to.
It actually makes me angry to think that these people think it is appropriate to tie up an Emergency line with such things while someone in genuine need could be trying to get through.
More of these videos can be found here
Go and deal with some proper criminals!
28 July 2008 at 17:49 | In Legal System, Rant | 4 CommentsNightjack raised a very interesting issue in his blog. He said:
The comment so often thrown at Police as we haul the latest public order / minor assault arrestee away from their loved ones is “Why don’t you go out and arrest some proper criminals like murderers and rapists.”
Nightjack then went on to make a very interesting entry on the National Crime Recording Standard and it is worth reading (and can be read here). I want to take the above quote and look at it from a different angle – be warned this is going to be a rant. I nearly went into this in the comment I left on NJ’s blog, but decided it was going to be rather long and that I wanted to post about it on my blog.
The question “Why don’t you go out and arrest some proper criminals like murderers and rapists?” really bugs me. It is essentially the criminal trying to ditch their responsibility (in my opinion). Anyone who breaks a law is a real criminal whether that be a breach of the peace, a minor traffic offence or something more serious such as murder or rape. If you get caught then you should just accept that you broke a law of the land and as such that has consequences for you. When you drank 4 pints of beer putting you over the drink drive limit and got into your car to drive home from the pub you knew that it was against the law to drink and drive when you started drinking in the pub and when you got into the car. Why are you then so shocked when the police pull you over and arrest you when you fail the breath test? Why is it you only think about your job when the Sheriff is about to ban you from driving? Yes, there are some stupid laws in the books, but that doe snot detract from the fact that while they are still law there are consequences for you should you break that law. Ignoring a “bad” law (whether that be your own opinion or an opinion shared by many) is not the way to go about changing it!
It’s the motorists who annoy me most, especially when on the subject of Speed Cameras. Yes, Speed cameras are annoying, but if you don’t break the speed limit then YOU DON’T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT THEM. They only generate a large revenue for the government because people break the speed limit and therefore break the law. As a driver, i don’t particulalry like speed cameras, but I don’t worry about them because I drive within the speed limit at all times! When I was learning to drive my driving instructor (who was a recently retired police driving instructor at the Scottish Police College) it was drilled into me that driving within the speed limit means you still get to your destination – often just as quick (or sometimes quicker) than those who speed. Also, there is less of a chance of me being killed or killing someone else (the risk isn’t wiped out, but is greatly reduced).
That’s a tangent for another day I think. So, back to the original point. Regardless of what crime you comit, you are a criminal and all criminals are real criminals. The police don’t necessarily target motorists because they are easy targets (in fact given the massive reductions in spending on Roads Policing in many areas around the country I’d suggest that the police are doing anything but targeting motorists) and the same goes for the drunks at the weekend fighting, breaking windows and destroying other parts of the centre of town. If you commit a crime you should expect the police to deal with you appropriately, not to let you off just in case someone decides to break into a strangers house and rape them before knifing them to death!
I did warn you that it would be a bit of a rant, if you’ve managed to get the point of the blog entry then good for you. I tend to go off on tangents and loose my point when I start ranting.
Caution or Court?
28 July 2008 at 17:04 | In Criminal Justice, Criminal Law, English Law | Leave a CommentAt the risk of increasing my blood pressure to dangerous levels I ventured onto the BBC’s Have Your Say (HYS) page today. One of the questions they are asking is:
Are fixed penalty fines fair punishment for serious offenders?
Thankfully, the page isn’t in the usual format and is asking for readers’ stories to be sent to the editors via an online form. I particularly hate it when the BBC invites lay people to talk about the CJS as the most people understand about the CJS (unless they’ve been through it) is from what they see on The Bill and Judge John Deed (and they’re not the most authoritative or reliable sources).
Now, the answer to the question posed by the BBC is a failry straight forward and simple one…NO! FPNs are not fair punishments for serious offenders and should never be used for serious offences (although, I have a feeling that sometimes they are). The BBC says:
Offenders carrying out serious crimes such as violent assault are being cautioned or given fixed penalties.
That is what the BBC has learned from lawyers and magistrates. Do you have experience of this?
Now, this concerns me greatly if this is the case. I’m not really surprised, or at least I shouldn’t be, at the journalistic integrity of the BBC. Latley it has been more about gutter style tabloid "news" than actual news and as such often publishes sensationalist headlines in orider to stir up anger amongst people who know no better.
I will admit that my knowledge of the English CJS system only extends so far as what is similar to that of the system in Scotland – and there are many great differences between the two systems. However, I find it hard to believe that such practises take place often (although I am willing ot be disproved by people with more expertise). However, even if it happens just the once it would be of great concern.
Anyone, in the know, wish to share their knowledge?
Facebook
Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.
