Category Archives: Government

Britain, Economic, Government, Politics

UK Government Spending Plans 2015-16…

SECOND SPENDING REVIEW

The Chancellor, George Osborne MP, will unveil his second spending review tomorrow when he will set out spending plans for 2015-16.

Mr Osborne’s problem is that this is the review he never wanted to deliver. The original plan was that the deficit would be under control in time for the election with no more cuts needed. Weak growth and lower tax receipts have blown that plan out of the water.

The result is that Mr Osborne will be announcing more deep cuts to public services. That is a given. And to put the scale of those cuts into perspective they will be, if anything, a little deeper than the average cuts experienced each year during this parliament.

For a number of key areas of public spending, including the Home Office, Ministry of Justice and the Department for the Environment, this will mean cuts of more than 30 per cent since 2010.

By any standards those are large budgetary chunks to be dispensing with. The question that many will be asking is why the cuts needed are so big? The scale of these cuts cannot be explained by deficit cutting alone. For the remarkable fact is that total government spending is not falling at all.

Some bits of spending are continuing to rise, while others are not falling – due to debt interest payments rising as debt levels continue their upward trend. Public service pensions are also rising, with state pensions, the NHS and schools ‘ring-fenced’.

In effect, this means that all of the strain is being taken by a limited range of areas. That is why cuts in defence, police, justice, local government, and welfare have been so deep already. And it is for this reason that further deep cuts will be a priority for a Chancellor anxious to balance the books.

We have already been told that this pattern will continue. Health and pensions will again be protected. The longer these two budgets are left untouched the greater the pain that others will feel.

Unless the Government can deliver some truly surprising plans for health, pensions or social security, most other government departments can expect cuts averaging around 8 per cent in 2015-16 – a big cut in any year but all the more so in being layered on top of what has already happened.

There are some in Whitehall, though, feeling rather emboldened by their success so far. Not only have all of the planned cuts actually happened, but in many areas there has been over delivery.

Government budgets were significantly under-spent last year even in the face of extremely tight plans. And so far at least the budget cuts have not provoked visible crises or the sort of public demonstrations and backlashes seen in some other countries.

Equally, it is not surprising that gaining agreement with all Cabinet ministers for a further tightening of the screw in their departments has not been easy. We have been told that all departments have settled, and know that the small ones, on average, have settled for the required 8 per cent cut.

But we are yet to get the details of some big and very difficult departments – education, local government and business among them. Decisions here will make big differences.

Within education it is only schools that are protected. Other services for children and young people could lose out.

The business department – which pays for skills, training, universities and research – has made the case that its spending is uniquely important for growth.

Local government spending has been squeezed hard already and ministers have expressed concern about the effects of a further squeeze on vital social care services.

But even after all that, tomorrow’s spending review will only raise the curtain on at least another two years of tough choices. For much more extensive cuts will be needed if the deficit is to be dealt with in the planned time horizon.

Unless, of course, the next government chooses to raise taxes, or gets fortuitous with an unexpectedly-strong economic upturn.

Standard
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