As Saint Dom offers his unique brand of self-exculpatory truth to the country today, a reminder that his self-interest and wholesale ignorance of the rule of law posed a very real threat to our justice system during his fifteen minutes of power. [THREAD]
👇
After the Supreme Court ruled that the government acted unlawfully in proroguing Parliament without offering a single reason (let alone a good reason) for doing so, Dom started briefing that he was going to “get the judges sorted”. ft.com/content/6ac426…
When Priti Patel’s Home Office acted unlawfully, and the courts ruled that her Home Office had acted unlawfully, Dom waded in with his size sevens again, briefing (or allowing it to be briefed without correction) that he was plotting “revenge”. mirror.co.uk/news/politics/…
When Dom appeared to have committed a criminal offence by breaching lockdown regulations, he was happy for the Attorney General to abuse her office by intervening in an independent police matter to try and help him out: theguardian.com/politics/2020/…
What has followed is a naked assault on judicial review by the government. JR is the means by which unlawful acts by government are held to account.
First the government established an “independent” review on judicial review, chaired by a former minister and avowed critic of JR:
When the independent review reported that, actually, JR worked well and the government’s repeated claim that judges were being “too political” was unsubstantiated, the government simply ignored the report and announced the “reforms” it was always going to. rozenberg.substack.com/p/faulks-defen…
In fact, worse than simply ignoring the report, the government made false and misleading statements about its conclusions in Parliament, pretending the report had said something that it hadn’t, as the Chair had to correct (h/t @JoshuaRozenberg):
These “reforms” will make it harder for individuals to hold government to account, and for people to seek redress when ministers act unlawfully in ways that affect them.
This government’s antipathy towards constraints on its power and the notion of accountability is well known. Dom was at the heart of government when it was threatening to break international law with the Internal Market Bill. politics.co.uk/comment-analys…
And when he was just a blogger in search of an editor, he ranted about leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, another fetter on the power of politicians to act as they please.
All of this is the product of a mind that struggles to grapple with the fundamental precepts of the rule of law.
The inevitable plug: #FakeLaw is out in paperback TOMORROW. It explains the truth about justice for those, like Dom, in need of a bit of help. amazon.co.uk/Fake-Law-Truth…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In what is looking spookily like a tandem publicity campaign for the paperback release of #FakeLaw, the Mail on Sunday offers a classic from Chapter 7.
The Burden and Standard of Proof in criminal cases.
Or Why A Not Guilty Verdict Does Not Mean A Complainant Has Lied
[THREAD]
Lavinia Nourse was acquitted by a jury last week of serious criminal charges relating to child sexual abuse.
Amanda Platell’s thesis is that this acquittal proves that the Crown Prosecution Service were wrong to prosecute.
Let’s start with the basics.
When deciding whether to charge a criminal allegation, the CPS apply a two-stage test.
1) Is there a realistic prospect of conviction based on the evidence?
2) If so, is it in the public interest to prosecute?
Oh boy. It’s been a while since we’ve had one of these.
Presumably this is in honour of the paperback publication of #FakeLaw next week, 27 May 2021.
Let’s look at why this trash from the Mail is as misleading as it is dangerous.
[THREAD]
1. Readers are invited to conclude that £66,000 (not £70k) is too much to spend on this very serious case, in which a child was killed. A “vast sum of taxpayers’ money”, we’re told.
And there’s a quote from this chap.
(We’ll come back to his searing legal analysis, don’t worry)
2. But the journalist has not bothered to tell you any of the context that you would need to even *begin* to assess whether that cost is too high, too low, or about right for a criminal trial like this. Such as...
Get your own box of delicious paperback legal nutrition at all good bookstores from 27 May 2021.
Ideal for friends and relatives currently disposed towards a #FakeLaw-rich diet.
Publicity/rampant egotism requires that the paperback cover includes all those rave reviews from across the political and media spectrum (you guys! Sooo embarrassing).
But in the interests of balance, I should disclose the negatives too.
Like, don’t eat this book.
I also apologise in advance for the postal service damaging your copy in transit.
For those struggling (and there are seemingly many), he has cited the maximum theoretical sentence for damaging a statue, and compared it to a figure plucked out of the air, but significantly below the average sentence imposed, for rape.
Intellectually dishonest.
You can make the point that increasing the maximum sentence for low-value damage of statues to 10 years is idiotic, populist guff.
You can make the point that the criminal justice system fails to tackle sexual violence (for many reasons).
Any politician of any party who claims that the answer to tackling violence against women is simply a matter of “tougher sentences” is not being honest with the public.
Let me tell you about a case I’m currently prosecuting. [THREAD]
The case involves allegations of serious domestic violence and coercive/controlling behaviour. The offences go back to 2016. They were reported in 2017. This is not unusual in cases of domestic abuse - often victims delay reporting out of fear.
It then took eighteen months for the police to investigate.
Eighteen months.
Why? Partly because this case, like many of its type, relied on mobile phone evidence. Texts to show the defendant’s behaviour, or to prove contemporaneous complaint by the complainant to her friends.
There’s understandably a lot of concern over this case given the reported facts. As ever, full details are unacceptably thin on the ground, but taking this report at face value, there are serious questions over the sentence. [THREAD]
This is the description of the offence. It was charged as sexual assault (section 3 Sexual Offences Act 2003), which carries a maximum of 10 years.
And here is the Sentencing Guideline:
On the reported facts, this was a violent sexual assault in the street. Category 1 harm.
He followed her for at least a minute before attacking her. I struggle to see how this is “opportunistic”. There was clearly some planning, although perhaps not a “significant degree”.