Monthly Archives: June 2013

Britain, Defence, European Court, Government, Military, National Security

ECHR verdict for British troops on the battlefield…

BRITISH troops could be prevented from carrying out vital missions after an explosive human rights ruling.

The Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond MP, said military commanders will be ‘living in fear’ of being prosecuted.

Mr Hammond believes our forces risk being reduced to Continental-style peacekeeping roles – which see some countries refuse to let their personnel go out after dark – after judges in Strasbourg at the European Court decreed that the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies on the battlefield.

The Defence Secretary is understood to be so furious at the Supreme Court ruling that he is considering demanding a revocation – and believes it strengthens the case for Britain quitting the ECHR. Mr Hammond said:

… We can’t have troop commanders living in fear of how lawyers back in London might interpret their battlefield decisions that are vital to protecting our national security.

… There could be serious implications for our ability to work with international partners not bound by the ECHR.

If the ECHR ruling applies to personnel on operations it is feared that commanders may be reluctant to make decisions in the field that will then be second-guessed by lawyers sitting behind a desk in London. Commanders will not want to be tied up by health and safety rules that prevent troops patrolling at night or only with certain items of equipment.

Families of some British soldiers killed or injured fighting in Iraq have been given the go-ahead to bring compensation claims against the Government.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

A British Snatch Land Rover of the type used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Supreme Court has ruled that cases of troops killed while driving Land Rovers could be brought under the ‘right to life’ enshrined in article two of the ECHR. This potentially outlaws future deployment of troops with outdated equipment.

It also ruled that families of soldiers killed by ‘friendly fire’ from Challenger tanks could sue for negligence.

The mother of Private Phillip Hewett, 21, of Tamworth, Staffordshire, who died in July 2005 after a Snatch Land Rover was blown up, said it meant soldiers could no longer be treated as ‘sub-human with no rights.’

Conservative MP Dominic Raab, a lawyer, and who seeks reform of human rights law, said:

… The Supreme Court ruling will endanger our forces and undermine democratic accountability.

Colonel Richard Kemp, former head of British forces in Afghanistan, said:

… We cannot allow a constricting health and safety culture to creep in and prevent the vital job our soldiers do.

COMMENT 

Is it still a matter of great shame to Britain’s political class that, in Iraq and Afghanistan, soldiers were sent to fight and die without being properly equipped?

But, there is a dichotomy. While it is vital that ministers should be held to account, it’s impossible not to be alarmed by the Supreme Court’s ruling that soldiers in warzones should, for the first time, be given protection under the Human Rights Act.

Doubtless, the judges felt that giving soldiers and their families the right to sue the Ministry of Defence would focus the minds of the Government and Army on minimising risk.

On the face of it, it appears that they have failed to accord due weight to the fact that military commanders are regularly tasked with making instant life-or-death decisions. Any fear of future litigation which might cause them to hesitate for even a moment could have disastrous consequences.

What is more, if the Defence Budget is drained by fighting vexatious claims brought by city lawyers, there will inevitably be less to spend on equipment and training.

The great fear of Defence Secretary Philip Hammond is that the ruling could diminish Britain’s standing in the world, as our forces are reduced to that of a peacekeeping role. He understandably questions how we can continue to work side-by-side with our US allies, when they are not beholden to the same human rights edicts.

Standard
Government, Legal, Scotland

Scotland: Ancient rights of Scots Law to be swept away…

CORROBORATION

One of the fundamental principles of Scots criminal law is likely to be abolished under sweeping reforms of the justice system in Scotland.

Justice Secretary, Kenny MacAkskill MSP, has published a Parliamentary Bill setting out plans to remove the requirement of corroboration, the need for two separate sources of evidence to secure a conviction in criminal cases in Scotland.

The move to scrap the medieval principle is based on a desire to improve rape conviction rates. Lack of corroboration can prevent successful prosecutions.

The Criminal Justice Bill also sets out plans to increase the number of jurors required for a guilty verdict. This would go up from a simple majority to two-thirds of jury members.

Tougher sentences for crimes committed by early release prisoners would also be introduced, and there will be a review into the controversial ‘not proven’ verdict, which Sir Walter Scott famously called the ‘bastard’ verdict.

Many in the criminal justice system, however, including police officers, judges and lawyers, believe that ending corroboration would make miscarriages of justice and unsafe convictions more likely.

Mr MacAskill said:

… I have made clear a number of times that I believe that the requirement for corroboration should be abolished as it can represent a barrier to justice.

… It is an outdated rule which can deny victims the opportunity to see those responsible for serious crimes being brought to justice. Removing the need for corroboration represents a move towards focusing on the quality of evidence rather than quantity.

The issue was a key recommendation of Lord Calloway’s 2011 review of Scots Law and practice, which called corroboration ‘an archaic rule’.

Lord Carloway said it had remained at the heart of Scotland’s criminal justice system ‘since time immemorial’ but was based on ‘medieval’ thinking which had no place in a modern legal system.

But The Law Society of Scotland has described corroboration as a ‘fundamental principle’ of the justice system, and warned that removing it could make some convictions insecure.

A statement issued by the society’s criminal law committee, said:

… We believe that removing the requirement for corroborated evidence, without including sufficiently strong safeguards in the Bill, could simply result in a contest between two competing statements on oath and, as a result, bring increased risk of miscarriages of justice.

… The requirement for corroborated evidence is not an antiquated, outmoded legal notion but is a fundamental principle of our justice system.

… It’s clear that the concerns expressed by the society and others about juries have been recognised as the Bill proposes a move to a weighted majority from a simple majority, but we don’t believe this is sufficient to remove the risks created by abolishing corroboration.

Lib Dem MP Sir Menzies Campbell, who practised as a legal advocate for many years in Scotland’s High Court, said these proposals amount to populism at its worst. Sir Menzies said that corroboration is an essential component of the presumption of innocence and a necessary bulwark against false accusation and injustice. The former leader of the Lib Dems also highlighted that, as the power of the state increases, the protection of the rights of the citizen has become ever more imperative.

A spokesperson for Rape Crisis Scotland, backed the proposals, saying:

… It can’t be right to have a justice system where three-quarters of rapes reported to the police can’t be prosecuted.

… However, we need to be realistic about the prospect of this leading to increased convictions; this Bill will remove a barrier to cases getting to court, but it will still be for juries to make a decision beyond reasonable doubt.

… With the change to jury majority, it is even more important that we consider how to ensure jury decision-making in rape cases is informed and free of stereotypes and prejudices.

… We are disappointed, however, that the legislation will not be retrospective.

… This means that, even after the requirement for corroboration is abolished, survivors of historic sexual abuse will continue to face this barrier to justice, as their cases will continue to require corroboration.

ANALYSIS

Loss of key safeguard in the Scottish justice system.  

Our Government in Scotland welcomed the report by Lord Carloway in 2011 that looked into aspects of our justice system. This came following the Cadder case when the UK Supreme Court pointed out that, like almost everywhere else, Scotland should allow a suspect to speak to a solicitor before being interviewed by the police.

The report by Lord Carloway contained much that would modernise our legal system and make it human-rights proof in many ways. But the report also recommended the abolition of corroboration due to it being ‘archaic’ and a barrier to the conviction of some guilty people.

Some legal practitioners and analysts saw this change as involving a necessary rebalancing of the system to compensate for the convictions that previously depended on confession evidence, typically rape cases where the fact of sexual intercourse must be corroborated.

Others suggested this was too simplistic a view, and, in any event, even after the Cadder ruling, most suspects were still interviewed without legal advice and representation, as many seem not to understand their rights and the implications of being interviewed without proper advice.

Corroboration is accepted by the rest of all of our High Court judges, and is seen as an essential safeguard against miscarriages of justice. The Scottish Government, though, agreed it had to go.

Statistically insignificant and artificial testing done for the Carloway Review suggested there would be more convictions without corroborating evidence. Little thought seems to have been given to the quality of the convictions in the absence of corroboration.

Any system can increase the conviction rate by removing essential safeguards, but a safeguard-free, target-led justice system will guarantee the conviction of the innocent along with the guilty. Convictions should always depend on the quality of the evidence; any dilution can only increase the chances of a miscarriage of justice.

It has been suggested that corroboration was only about quantity of evidence – but to many it offered a quality check and avoided prosecutions being mounted on the word of a single witness.

With only now a rather submissive justice committee in the way, a key safeguard against miscarriages looks likely to be abandoned without any satisfactory answer or provision as to its replacement.

The Criminal Justice Bill seems certain to amend the majority required for a guilty verdict in Scotland – ten rather than eight out of 15 for a guilty verdict – but, how much comfort will that give to the wrongly accused in such a tinkering of the system?

And, most cases don’t involve juries. What safeguards are in place for them? The High Court judges suggested a proper review of the whole system of safeguards but that was politically overruled by the Scottish Government.

Standard
Biotechnology, Britain, Environment, European Union, Government, Health, Research, Science, Technology

Genetically modified foods and technology – kick it into the long grass…

Despite deep public hostility in Britain, the UK Government is stepping up its campaign in favour of genetically modified foods. Masquerading as champions of progress and prosperity, ministers want European Union controls on GM produce to be drastically relaxed.

According to the Environment Secretary’s public relations spin, once these anachronistic restrictions are abolished and public scepticism and anxieties are overcome, then we will enter a brave new world of abundance.

The propaganda being put out by the UK Government remains hopelessly unconvincing. Far-fetched assertions and hyperbolic claims won’t feed the world, or protect our health. The hollowness of the ministerial case has been exposed with scientific argument as opposed to the Government’s flimsy, if not ridiculous claims, why the world needs genetically-modified foods. Owen Paterson’s assertions are nothing more than to promote the corporate profitability of elite biotech companies.

Paterson comes across as an ill-briefed, rather hysterical mouthpiece for the GM industry. He has tried to argue that science was on his side, yet he can only back up his arguments with outrageous emotional blackmail.

Melodramatic is one word that springs to mind. At one stage he argued that, without the acceptance of GM crops, young people in Asia ‘will go to bed blind and some will die’. Does Mr Paterson regard genetic modification as some kind of miracle cure?

Many will assume that Owen Paterson has resorted to such nonsense precisely because his case is so pitifully weak. GM technology is no panacea for the world’s ills. Even after almost two decades of its intensive use in large parts of the world, particularly the United States, there is scant evidence that it increases crop yields, assists global development or combats disease. The exact opposite is true.

There is now a growing amount of research demonstrating that genetic modification has the potential to cause serious health problems and widespread environmental degradation. Remaining sceptical is surely the right approach as we cannot be sure that GM food is safe to eat. Despite the scientific sophistication, genetic engineering remains a rather crude technique of manipulating biology.

The process involves moving genetic material across species barriers, which undoubtedly carries the risk of triggering unpredictable and irreversible changes in DNA, proteins and biochemical composition. It is radically different from all previous methods of improving plants and breeds.

The notion that such an approach can be completely safe is either dangerous wishful thinking, or a denial of reality motivated by vested commercial and political interests.

It is the pro-GM lobby who are seeking for the public to make a leap of faith. But as time has moved on, the case against genetic engineering becomes more persuasive.

Just this month, for instance, a report from Flinders University in Australia revealed that genetically modified food given to pigs may lead to severe stomach inflammations and far heavier uteruses, which can be an indicator of serious disease.

Some farmers claim that stomach inflammations and irritations can also lead to pigs becoming more aggressive. Farmers have reported that, for as long as GM crops have been in the food supply of animals, they have seen increasing digestive and reproductive problems in their livestock.

What is especially worrying is not that most of us eat pork, but that the digestive system of pigs is similar to that of humans.

The Australian report backs up other evidence about the health risks of GM technology. Studies on laboratory animals show that GM food can cause allergies and be toxic. Rats fed GM tomatoes, for instance, have developed stomach lesions, while new research from New Zealand has found that one GM wheat variety has the potential to cause liver disease.

Human health may also be threatened by the damage that genetic engineering inflicts on the balance of the environment’s delicate ecosystems. One of the most insidious aspects of genetic modification is that, contrary to the claims of being environmentally friendly, it actually encourages the aggressive use of herbicides.

The top-selling weedkiller glyphosate is marketed by the giant biotechnology company Monsanto as ‘Roundup’. This company is a leading campaigner for the relaxation of EU controls on genetic modification.

Monsanto has also developed a range of crops that are genetically resistant to glyphosate. This supposedly means that farmers can spray the herbicide over their land and kill all the weeds without damaging their crops.

Yet there is a real risk that the environment and the consumers could be the losers. Studies have shown that glyphosate leaves a dangerous residue on food, as well as leaching into the groundwater. Glyphosate exposure has been associated with birth defects, hormone imbalances, Parkinson’s disease and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a type of blood cancer.

What is more, the excessive use of glyphosate appears to have promoted the evolution of a destructive breed of ‘superweeds’. No fewer than 24 glyphosate-resistant weed species have been identified since Roundup-tolerant GM crops were introduced in 1996. Tampering with nature is leading to unforeseen consequences.

The arguments put forward by the GM-lobby even falter on increases to production. Their promises of even-higher yields are unfounded. What usually happens with genetic modification is an initial series of good harvests, followed by a dramatic decline. A study published just last week showed that for the production of maize, soy beans, oil seed rape and cotton, European non-GM crops have significantly outperformed American GM crops.

Far from representing exciting modernity, the irony is that genetic modification is unworkable, bankrupt technology. There are far better ways of driving progress in agriculture.

Scientists at Britain’s National Institute of Agricultural Botany, for example, have used a non-GM, natural process involving pollen from wild grass to produce a stronger, and more productive form of wheat. Early studies show that the yield could go up by 30 per cent.

Other organic, non-GM success stories include drought-resistant maize, blight-resistant potatoes, and a new variety of African rice which is four times as productive as traditional types.

This is where the future should lie. Non-GM technology has real promise, whereas genetic engineering has brought only failure and frustration.

Standard