BarristerBlogger

Exaro News has been drip feeding allegations and rumours of a paedophile sex ring in high places for many months.

Today – in collaboration with the Sunday People – it has alleged that it was not only a sex but a murder ring. A Tory MP strangled a 12 year old brown haired boy in a central London town house in 1980. Apparently,18 months to two years later two other men murdered a second boy in front of another Tory MP, “a cabinet minister.” Both MPs, are “still alive.” Its source is a man in his 40s to whom they have given the pseudonym “Nick”. Exaro even mentions rumours of a third child murdered by being run over in the street, though I don’t think Nick claims to have actually seen more than one murder.

The scene was set yesterday when the BBC decided to join Exaro News in broadcasting an interview with a man in his 40s known as “Nick” who alleges that he was repeatedly raped by Conservative MPs and other “VIPs” in the 1970s and 80s. Nick, it is said, is grateful to Exaro News and to his counsellor for “allowing” him to tell his story in public, and wants to encourage others to go, as he has now gone, to the police to corroborate his account. According to the BBC he has been “in counselling on and off since he was in his twenties” and has only now “found the strength to come forward.” There was no mention in the BBC interview of any murder and Exaro have never previously revealed that Nick witnessed a murder. Continue reading “Exaro News is playing a dangerous game with its paedophile murder story”

Jon Robins, who many readers will know of as the editor of the excellent www.justicegap.com, has written a first class book, The First Miscarriage of Justice, which pulls off three tricks. First he tells a riveting and rather sad story of an ordinary man whose life was shattered by an outrageous miscarriage of justice. Secondly, he takes us back in time to a Life on Mars world of Cortinas, Mini Coopers, bent coppers and biased judges. Thirdly, he reminds us that whilst the Cortinas may have vanished the modern judiciary is by no means as clever or as fair as it sometimes likes to imagine itself.  Four times Tony Stock’s case has been to the Court of Appeal. Four times, disgracefully, it has been rejected.

The facts that gave rise to his conviction for robbery are simple enough. At about 6.45 p.m. on a wet Saturday evening in January 1970 two employees of Tesco were taking the day’s takings to the bank. They were suddenly attacked from behind by robbers wielding iron bars. They dropped the cash, which was picked up by the robbers who made off in a Ford Cortina. The car which had been stolen, was later found abandoned in another part of Leeds, while a holdall containing money-bags from the robbery was found close to the A58 Wetherby to York road, about 12 miles away. Continue reading “Tony Stock: a flagrant and appalling miscarriage of justice compounded four times by the Court of Appeal”

The criminal lawyers’ “bible”, Archbold’s Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice no longer includes the law on High Treason because “it seems unlikely in the extreme that there will in the foreseeable future be any prosecutions.” Curious readers are referred to earlier editions.

Recent events, however, have led others to disagree and there have recently been calls, for example by the persuasive and provocative Melanie Phillips in today’s Times, for prosecutions for treason to resume. And last week Foreign Secretary Phillip Hammond revealed that “discussions have taken place in government” about trying British jihadis for this ancient crime.

Although it is no longer to be found in the pages of Archbold, the Treason Act 1351 defines the crime in a way that could hardly be clearer if it was written in Minoan Hieroglyphics:

Auxint p’ceo q diʋses opinions ount este einz ces heures que cas, q’nt il avient doit estre dit treson, & en quel cas noun, le Roi a la requeste des Seign’s & de la Coe, ad fait declarissement q ensuit, C’est assavoir; q”nt hōme fait compasser ou ymaginer la mort nře Seigne’ le Roi, ma dame sa compaigne le Roi, ou de lour fitz primer & heir; ou si hōme violast la compagnie le Roi, ou leisneisce fill le Roi nient marie, ou la compagnie leisne fitz & heir du Roi; & si hōme leve de guerre contre nře dit Seign’le Roi en son Roialme, ou soit aherdant as enemys nře Seign’le Roi en le Roialme, donant a eux eid ou confort en son Roialme ou p aillours, & de ceo pvablement soit atteint de oʋt faite p gentz de lour condicion … et si hōme tuast Chanceller, Tresorer, ou Justice nře Seign’ le Roi del un Baunk ou del autre, Justice en Eir & des assises & toutes auťs Justices assignez a oier & ťminer esteiantz en lours places en fesantz lours offices: et fait a entendre qen les cases suisnomez doit etre ajugge treson [q sestent] a nře Seign’ le Roi & a sa roial Majeste; …

That, of course, is the definitive text from the time of Edward III, although for those whose Norman French is a little rusty there is a generally accepted translation into modern, or at least modernish, English:

Whereas divers Opinions have been before this Time in what Case Treason shall be said, and in what not; the King, at the Request of the Lords and of the Commons, hath made a Declaration in the Manner as hereafter followeth, that is to say; When a Man doth compass or imagine the Death of our Lord the King, or of our Lady his Queen or of their eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do violate the King’s Companion, or the King’s eldest Daughter unmarried, or the Wife the King’s eldest Son and Heir; or if a Man do levy War against our Lord the King in his Realm, or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm, giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm, or elsewhere, and thereof be attainted of open Deed by the People of their Condition: and if a Man slea the Chancellor, Treasurer, or the King’s Justices of the one Bench or the other, Justices in Eyre, or Justices of Assise, and all other Justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their Places, doing their Offices: And it is to be understood, that in the Cases above rehearsed, ought to be judged Treason which extends to our Lord the King, and his Royal Majesty:

Until 1814 the punishment for High Treason, though not set out in the 1351 Act itself, was the appalling one of “hanging, drawing and quartering.” The preamble to The Treason Act 1814 (which abolished the punishment) records what this involved for traitors:

“… that they should be drawn on a hurdle to the place of execution and there be hanged by the neck, but not until they are dead, but that they should be taken down again, and that when they are yet alive their bowels should be taken out and burnt before their faces, and that afterwards their heads should be severed from their bodies, and their bodies be divided into four quarters, and their heads and quarters to be at the King’s disposal.”

In practice the punishment was sometimes made even worse – if that were possible – by the traitor’s “privy members” being cut off and burned before the evisceration commenced.

 

The 1814 Act abolished hanging, drawing and quartering and substituted simple hanging as the punishment for High Treason.

Mr Hammond, who has always seemed a decent and humane man, if a little monochrome, has not publicly called for the restoration of the death penalty (which, for treason, was abolished by S.36 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998). On the other hand Philip Hollobone MP, the most prominent Parliamentary advocate of using the Treason Act, has sponsored a bill reintroducing hanging although he has not, at least not yet, suggested drawing, disembowelling or even quartering.

Quite properly The Foreign Secretary has not revealed many details of the discussions that have taken place. In answer to a Parliamentary question from Mr Hollobone he said:

“We have had a discussion about the allegiance question. We have seen people declaring that they have sworn personal allegiance to the so-called Islamic State.

That does raise questions about their loyalty and allegiance to this country and about whether, as my honourable friend rightly says, the offence of treason could have been committed.

I will certainly draw his remarks to the attention of the home secretary, who ultimately will be the person who needs to look at this.”

As well as the drawing the attention of the Home Secretary to Mr Hollobone’s remarks Mr Hammond will presumably ask the Attorney General, Jeremy Wright QC, to advise whether British jihadis who have “sworn allegiance to the so-called Islamic State” have committed treason. Mr Wright, whose legal experience extends to being junior counsel in a fraud trial and involvement in a few “cases involving a video link,” appears to have been promoted to his post on the basis that he will go along with whatever madcap ideas are suggested to him, so it may be that he will be quite happy to endorse the idea.

If he is wise, however, he will warn that any such prosecutions would almost certainly be ill-advised.

It is entirely possible that there has never been a fair trial for treason. As Gerald Slade K.C. said in argument in the leading case of Joyce v. DPP [1946] A.C. 347 “Of all the cases which have disfigured our legal history and outraged the common law, treason trials have been the worst.” Perhaps one should not expect mediaeval justice to have complied with all the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, but even by the standards of their time treason trials have almost always been notably unfair.

Thomas More, for example, was largely convicted of treason because of his silence. Although the indictment against him was so long “… it contain’d all the Crimes that could be laid to the charge of any notorious Malefactor; and Sir Thomas professed it was so long, that he could scarce remember the third part of what was objected therein against him,” it boiled down to refusing to say that Henry VIII was Head of the Church.

Even the Attorney-General accepted that he had done nothing treacherous:

Sir Thomas, tho’ we have not one Word or Deed of yours to object against you, yet we have your Silence, which is an evident sign of the Malice of your Heart: because no dutiful Subject, being lawfully ask’d this Question, will refuse to answer.

That is what would criminal lawyers would now call drawing an “adverse inference” from silence, and it proved very adverse indeed for the saintly More.

 

The Bloody Assizes

One hundred and fifty years after Henry VIII, in the aftermath of Monmouth’s rebellion against James II, the appalling Lord Chief Justice Jeffreys presided over a series of treason trials on the Western Circuit, now collectively known as the “Bloody Assizes.”

Jeffreys boasted that he had hanged more traitors than all his predecessors put together, and he may well have been right. Not one of his victims had a fair trial and the result, for example in Somerset, was vividly described by Macaulay:

Somersetshire, the chief seat of the rebellion, had been reserved for the last and most fearful vengeance. In this county two hundred and thirty-three prisoners were in a few days hanged, drawn, and quartered. At every spot where two roads met, on every marketplace, on the green of every large village which had furnished Monmouth with soldiers, ironed corpses clattering in the wind, or heads and quarters stuck on poles, poisoned the air, and made the traveller sick with horror. In many parishes the peasantry could not assemble in the house of God without seeing the ghastly face of a neighbour grinning at them over the porch. The Chief Justice was all himself. His spirits rose higher and higher as the work went on. He laughed, shouted, joked, and swore in such a way that many thought him drunk from morning to night. But in him it was not easy to distinguish the madness produced by evil passions from the madness produced by brandy. …

One wretched man moved the pity even of bitter Tories. “My Lord,” they said, “this poor creature is on the parish.” “Do not trouble yourselves,” said the Judge, “I will ease the parish of the burden.” It was not only against the prisoners that his fury broke forth. Gentlemen and noblemen of high consideration and stainless loyalty, who ventured to bring to his notice any extenuating circumstance, were almost sure to receive what he called, in the coarse dialect which he had learned in the pothouses of Whitechapel, a lick with the rough side of his tongue. Lord Stawell, a Tory peer, who could not conceal his horror at the remorseless manner in which his poor neighbours were butchered, was punished by having a corpse suspended in chains at his park gate.

Even those who had harboured fleeing rebels were indicted for treason. Alice Lisle, for example was an elderly widow, who was indicted:

“ … well knowing John Hicks, of Keinsham, in the County of Somerset, Clerk, to be a false Traitor, and to have Conspir’d the Death and Destruction of the said King, and to have levy’d War against him, within his Kingdom of England, Did, in her Dwelling House, at Ellingham aforesaid, Traiterously Entertain, Conceal, and Comfort, the said John Hicks, and cause Meate and Drink to be deliver’d to him, against the duty of her Allegiance, the King’s peace, &c.”

When one of the Crown witnesses, an unfortunate labourer called Dunne, failed to give sufficiently damning evidence Jeffreys (who had long since taken over the examination of the witness) exploded:

“Why you vile wretch! … But, it seems the Saints have a Charter for Lying; they may Lie and Cant, and Deceive, and Rebel, and think God Almighty takes no Notice of it. A Turk has a better Title to an Eternity of Bliss than the Pretenders to Christianity; for he has more Morality and Honesty in him. Sirrah! I charge you in the presence of God, tell me one true, What other Persons did you see that Night?”

These days it is customary for Judges to say something to witnesses once they have concluded their evidence. Usually it is along the lines of “thank you very much for giving your evidence, these courts could not function without people who give up their time to assist in the administration of justice.”

The official transcript records Judge Jeffreys’s rather crisper observation:

Jeffreys: Thou art a strange prevaricating, shuffling snivling, lying Rascal.

 

Two Twentieth Century Traitors: Casement and Joyce

The two most famous treason trials of the twentieth century each managed to demonstrate the flexibility of a Norman French parchment. Just as in the days of Henry VIII, judges were able to interpret it as freely as they wished when the objective was to hang traitors.

Sir Roger Casement was tried for treason in 1916. Whilst in Germany he had arranged to land German weapons in Ireland for use in rebellion against the British. Whilst the evidence that he had done so was overwhelming, he had not done anything treacherous in the United Kingdom because he had been arrested the moment he stepped foot in Ireland. Casement’s treachery had been committed entirely abroad. Generally speaking an Act of Parliament is considered to confer jurisdiction only over crimes done within this country and whilst various distinguished jurists had expressed opinions, there was no satisfactory precedent for prosecuting a British subject for acts of treason done outside the United Kingdom.

Casement was convicted but appealed on the the grounds that the Treason Act 1351 conferred no jurisdiction to try him for a crime committed overseas. It seems exceedingly unlikely, especially during wartime, that any Court would have allowed his appeal but he had the particular misfortune to have it heard by a Court including one of the worst judges since Jeffreys, Mr Justice Darling, “a microcosm of conceit and empty-headedness” as one contemporary journalist accurately described him.

Darling had to construe the crucial Norman French original words of the statute, which were unpunctuated:

ou soit aherdant as enemys nře Seign’le Roi en le Roialme donant a eux eid ou confort en son Roialme ou p aillours …

these are generally translated as:

or be adherent to the King’s Enemies in his Realm giving to them Aid and Comfort in the Realm or elsewhere ….

Without punctuation the statute is ambiguous: does it merely criminalise the King’s subjects “in the King’s Realm” who give aid and comfort to his enemies wherever the enemies might be; or does it apply to the King’s subjects wherever the subjects might be? Unsurprisingly Darling J and his colleagues (including the far better judge, Atkin J) favoured the statutory construction which led to to Casement’s execution, leading to the widespread view that Casement was “hanged by a comma.”

In fact, argument at the appeal turned not so much on a comma as on how the Roll on which the original statute was written had been folded.

There was, for example, this extraordinary exchange:

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN: If you look at the Statute Roll in that 
place where there is an undoubted break in the Parliamentary
 Roll there is a mark which we looked at very carefully with a 
magnifying glass. It is not certain that it is a break just as it 
appears in the Parliamentary Roll, but we were inclined to think
 it was a break, not made with a pen, but a break which had come
 by the folding in the course of all these six centuries. If you put
 that break after " donant a eux eid ou confort en son roialme " 
it is very much the worse for your argument. 

Mr. SULLIVAN If anything can be inferred from that, but 
I understood brackets did not exist in the sense of brackets. 

Mr. JUSTICE DARLING They are not brackets in the sense 
that they have not got a transverse line that runs at right angles,
 but there is a very distinct line drawn right through the line of 
writing, and that occurs every here and there where we should 
now perhaps put what I think are called breaks in the print. 
Where we should put brackets these old scribes put a transverse
line. It was very natural. They were doing it with a pen. 

Mr. JUSTICE ATKIN I think they really are to represent 
commas; they are reproduced in the reprint of the statute as 
commas. The Statute Roll is printed in the revised statutes 
exactly correctly. I suppose you would infer, if there was any 
importance to be attached to the difference, that they corrected 
the Parliamentary Roll from that which is the authority, namely,
 the Statute Roll. 

Mr. SULLIVAN It ought to be so, but I submit you cannot 
draw any inference from punctuation. The whole matter will
 have to be determined without any theory as to punctuation
 arising from a fortuitous circumstance which is not the same
 in the two rolls, and, at all events,when your lordships are
 dealing with a penal statute, I humbly submit that crimes
 should not depend on the significance of breaks or of commas.
 If a crime depended on a comma, the matter should be 
determined in favour of the accused, and not of the Crown. 

Their Lordships disagreed.

But if Casement’s conviction was a little dubious, that of William Joyce, otherwise known as Lord Haw-Haw, in 1945 was even more so, though it must be conceded that he was hardly a very attractive figure.

Joyce was an American citizen with an Irish mother. He grew up in Ireland (at a time when it was part of the United Kingdom). In 1933 he applied for a British passport, falsely declaring that he was a “British subject.” He applied for a renewal of the passport in 1938, again falsely declaring that he was a British subject. Days before the outbreak of war he used the passport to travel to Germany. Once the war started he broadcast Nazi propaganda to Britain, doing so in “English of the haw-haw, dammit-get-out-of-my-way variety.” The charge on which he was convicted related to the period from 1939 – early 1940, before he acquired German citizenship.

Despite never having been a British subject Joyce was convicted of treason, the House of Lords holding, with one somewhat half-hearted dissenting speech, that having acquired the benefits of a British passport, albeit fraudulently, he owed a corresponding duty of allegiance to the Crown.

The other notable treason trial of 1945 was that of John Amery an Harrovian drop-out who, despite having a Jewish grandfather, supported Germany during the war and tried to raise a pro-German battalion from British prisoners of war. Instead of arguing a defence (which would anyway have been hopeless) based on his attempt to gain Spanish citizenship, he pleaded guilty and tried to rely on insanity to avoid execution, so his case set no legal precedent. He does, however, deserve a footnote in history for his laconic and appropriately English last words, uttered to Albert Pierrepoint the hangman: “I’ve always wanted to meet you Mr Pierrepoint, although not, of course, under these circumstances.”

Could it be used today?

 If history is any guide, the Norman French of the Treason Act has been interpreted, twisted and indeed literally folded so much that it might well be malleable enough to make British jihadis guilty of treason. On the other hand it is also sufficiently opaque to ensure that any such prosecution would be legally dubious have an uncertain outcome and, like almost every other treason trial in history, unfair.

To identify just one or two obvious potential problems:

Are jihadis “the Queen’s enemies?”

We are not at war with the “Islamic State” so the relatively modern precedents of Casement and Joyce would not assist. Prosecutors would have to look instead to precedent from the murky archives of long forgotten political trials from the eighteenth century and earlier. The ghost of Judge Jeffreys (a well respected lawyer as well as a sadist and a drunkard) might return to the Old Bailey to be cited as binding authority.

Whilst it could be said that members of IS are “the Queen’s enemies,” at least when we are trying to bomb them in Iraq, there is plenty of scope for arguing the contrary. There is very little evidence that they are actively fighting against Her Majesty, and in Syria we are not even fighting against them. It is hard to see any precedent, even if one goes back to the time of Henry VIII, for bringing treason charges against people assisting those with whom we were not at war, or who were not at least accused of trying to overthrow, or trying to undermine, Her Majesty’s Government.

If a jihadi has formally renounced British Citizenship can he still be guilty of treason?

It was accepted by those prosecuting Joyce that once he had acquired German citizenship he was no longer capable of committing treason. On the other hand, the “Islamic State” is not internationally recognised so it may be that any transfer of allegiance to IS, or renunciation of British citizenship, would be legally irrelevant.

Is a fair trial possible when the statute creating the relevant crime is written in a language that nobody any longer speaks?

There would seem to be at least the strong possibility that such a charge would breach the provisions of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Unless the law is reasonably certain, a trial is unfair.

Under the S.3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the 1351 Act would now have to be “read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Convention rights.” My guess is that for this reason, were the Act to be invoked today all previous case law on its meaning, including all the interesting arguments about the way it has been folded and creased, would be rendered irrelevant and the Supreme Court would have to take upon itself the difficult task of construing its meaning all over again. Edward III would spin in his Westminser Abbey tomb and the litigation would last for years.

Since we have perfectly good laws of murder and wide-ranging Terrorism Acts there should be no need to invoke the Treason Act.

Quaint though it may be to have a 14^th Century Act of Parliament still in force, laws should not exist to populate some sort of park for endangered Statutes.

However appropriate it might seem to prosecute those who wish to return to a mediaeval state with our very own mediaeval law, it would not be right to do so.

The time has come not to use the Act, but to repeal it and perhaps rewrite a replacement in comprehensible modern English.

Until that is done the Treason Act 1351 should be left to gather dust.

As Brooks Newmark checks into a psychiatric hospital it is worth remembering that it is exactly a month since Boris Johnson was selected as the Conservative Parliamentary candidate for Uxbridge.

Mr Johnson is one of the most popular of all politicians and opinion polls regularly show that if he was the party leader Conservative prospects would, in the short term at least, be a great deal better than they are at present.

Mr Johnson, of course, is a man with a rather chequered marital history – he has even fathered a child out of wedlock. When it was alleged that he had had an affair with Petronella Wyatt. He famously denied it, saying:

“I have not had an affair with Petronella. It is complete balderdash. It is an inverted pyramid of piffle. It is all completely untrue and ludicrous conjecture. I am amazed people can write this drivel.”

In fact the story was completely true. Continue reading “Kicking a man when he is down. The bullies who have turned on Brooks Newmark”

Regular readers of barristerblogger may recall that I have previously written rather sympathetically about Stephen Gough the booted and bearded ex-Marine, better known as “The Naked Rambler.” Who has just been gaoled for another two and a half years.

Well I apologise for doing so again because there are of course any number of more important issues, except to him. Mr Gough is a strange obsessive, whose determination never to wear clothes has apparently even alienated him from his own children.

 

His obsessiveness is matched by the determination of Hampshire Police and Wessex CPS who have been relentless and very successful in their attempts to ensure that the sensitive residents of Winchester are not caused any distress by the sight of Mr Gough’s private parts. They have persuaded a court to impose an indefinite anti-social behaviour order, or ASBO, on him, which means that he commits a criminal offence if he does not wear his clothes in public. The only exceptions are that he is allowed to go naked in a changing room, on a nudist beach or for a medical examination.   Continue reading “Stop wasting public money prosecuting and gaoling the Naked Rambler.”

Chris Grayling announced today that the Conservative Party will fight the next election on a promise to introduce a “British Rights and Responsibilities Bill” that will “completely change the way in which our human rights laws work.”

In essence his plan is to make the European Court of Human Rights “only an advisory body in the UK – able to make recommendations to us and no more.”

He plans to do so, if possible, without leaving the Convention:

“… we will discuss our plans with other European nations, and engage with them on how we intend to handle human rights matters in the future. We hope they will accept our plans. But if they cannot, then we will invoke our treaty rights to withdraw from the Convention altogether, to coincide with the passage of the new Bill into law.”

There are so many problems with Mr Grayling’s ideas that it is hard to know where to start but the idea that we could remain part of the Convention while treating the rulings of the Court as “only advisory” is as good a place as any. Continue reading “Grayling’s Human RIghts Law is a stupid and incoherent gimmick that could destroy the Union”

The weekend’s press was dominated by the Sunday Mirror’s scoop that Brooks Newmark MP, the Minister for Civil Society, had sent what the paper describes as “graphic” and “below the waist” selfies to an undercover reporter who was posing as a young female Conservative activist. Mr Newmark – no doubt mortified with embarrassment – has resigned from his very lowly government job and has presumably spent the weekend trying to explain himself to his wife and children.

 

Of course it is wrong that a married man should flirt, and more than flirt, with another woman: but it is not criminal. It is also, as a general rule, wrong to trick people – even married men – into exposing their genitals to complete strangers, and if there are occasions when it can be justified they are probably rather infrequent. And unlike adultery, tricking someone into sexual activity is potentially criminal. Continue reading “Tricked into sex by fraud. Was the Sunday Mirror’s sting of Brooks Newmark criminal?”

English criminal lawyers were transfixed by the spectacle of Judge Thokozile Masipa delivering her judgement on Oscar Pistorius.

Her calm and authoritative handling of the trial had been exemplary; something that could not be said for the absurdly aggressive prosecutor Gerrie Nel who played to the gallery while, as tends to happen with bullies, losing the sympathy of the court.

Not that Judge Masipa was above a little court-room drama herself. Many judges might have announced the verdict and then given the reasons; instead she delivered several hours of legal reasoning, rendered the more gripping by occasional stumbles over her script and the taking of unexpected breaks. Her occasional pauses to sip water seemed invested with significance; and she eventually arrived at a verdict that confounded expectations: not guilty of murder, guilty only of culpable homicide.

It has also divided opinion, with many questioning how she could possibly have failed to convict Pistorius of murder. Here I found her reasoning a little hard to follow. Once she had – rightly in my view – acquitted him of intending to kill Reeva Steenkamp, she confused me, and perhaps to some extent herself, with the alternative of dolus eventualis murder. It an unfamiliar phrase in English courts, equating to knowingly and unlawfully taking the risk of killing someone. In English law that is not murder but manslaughter: in this country murder requires nothing less than an intent.  On the other hand, if discharging a gun in the direction of someone behind a toilet door – even if you believe that person to be an intruder – is not overwhelming evidence of knowingly taking the risk of killing, it is hard to know what would be.

Pistorius was, perhaps, a lucky man.

Judge Masipa’s finding that Pistorius was guilty of culpable homicide was based on her finding that he had acted only “negligently”. Here again the law of South Africa, superficially so similar to English law, differs significantly. In England you can commit manslaughter by negligence, but it has to be gross negligence. If you kill someone through ordinary carelessness that is generally speaking not a crime at all (although there are exceptions, notably causing death by careless driving). The South African law of culpable homicide, on the other hand, seems to be made out even if the negligence in question is less than gross. That does not mean, of course, that Judge Masipa did not in fact think that he was negligent to a very high degree.

Perhaps her thoughts will become more apparent at the sentencing hearing. In the meantime, anyone looking for a lucid explanation of the verdict need look no further than Dan Bunting.

The Howard League for Penal Reform has been a constant thorn in the flesh of Justice Secretary Chris Grayling. He regards it as a left wing pressure group forever trying to frustrate his plans. There is nothing particularly left wing, however, about objecting to men being raped in gaol, the subject of the League’s latest report. According to data taken from Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons “between 850 to 1,650 prisoners” could be raped or sexually assaulted each year.

It is true that the figure is vague but the main reason for that is that Mr Grayling, in stark contrast to his predecessor Ken Clarke, refused to allow prisoners to co-operate with it. Rather than discover the truth, Grayling is reported to have said bluntly: “prisoners aren’t going to have sex on my watch,” conjuring up a creepy image of the Justice Secretary slinking along the Scrubs landings, occasionally pressing a puffy eye to a Judas hole to make sure his no sex edict is not being flouted. Continue reading “Grayling’s “Spartan but Humane” Prisons: Rape, Vermin, Overcrowding, Violence, Idleness and Suicide.”