In my observation of UK courts over a number of years from the point of view of victims of white collar crimes, public confidence can only be restored, if culprits admit to their shortcomings, ask for forgiveness and offer compensation. A kind of “Courts Jubilee”.

Meanwhile, however, David Dunlop, a smart barrister defends Peter Hain MP in an Irish court against the Northern Ireland Attorney General John Larkin. The former Northern Ireland Secretary of State Peter Hain is being prosecuted for critical comments about a Hight Court judge in his autobiography.

But his barrister is suggesting:

  1. Does the “archaic” offence of ‘scandalising the court’ still exist?
  2. Criticism of judges or of judicial decisions does not in itself constitute contempt of court.
  3. The fair criticism of judges and judicial decisions is not only quite clearly a right, there are also occasions when there may be a duty to do it.
  4. “Citizens are entitled to have confidence in the administration of justice, they should not be improperly deprived of this entitlement or have it endangered.”

As reported by the Press Association, the full case will be heard on June 19.

On his website, Peter Hain MP says that bigotry and discrimination under apartheid inspired him to get involved in politics. His commitment to social justice and equality made him join Labour.

In Parliament, Conservative David Davis MP has tabled Freedom of Speech for Hon. Members as EDM 2984 in support of Peter Hain MP. To date, it has been signed by 151 MPs! Support them to defend the House’s rights against such attacks!!!

And maybe ask why Article 1 of the EU Convention on Human Rights is missing of the UK version. For that would, in theory, offer protection. In reality, it seems that the Rule of Money has replaced the Rule of Law completely.

Remarkable what wigs make out of men: the right to be above everybody else who’d be in ‘contempt of court’, if they dare to question their ‘wisdom’. They even like to ‘section’ or label them ‘vexatious litigant’, even if they were the accused, like Geoffrey Scriven in 1999 as an abuse of their wig power.

No wonder Caul Grant claims Judiciary Guilty of Criminal Acts. And he is far from alone, as all the victims do have their evidence. They may just not be able to present it as well as a trained barrister…

About these ads