FAO Orsenkhat... This is where I DO fall out with the justice system...

It raises some interesting issues, does this. First up, I think it is a matter of importance as to how we treat those who have been incarcerated. The punishment is the deprivation of liberty and I'm not one of those who believes that the state should be able to treat prisoners however it feels even when the prisoner (as here) has committed despicable crimes. The minute we do that we're reducing ourselves to their level. And we don't want to become a state which mistreats individuals and disregards their rights simply because they are in prison. Cameron (I think) made noises only last week about restricting the rights of prisoners to sue for compensation for what he described as comparatively trivial matters. We ought to be wary about that, because it seems to me that this government is a little bit blase about removing people's rights (see current anti-union bill, the pricing of people out of employment appeal tribunals, and numerous other instances).

The report doesn't say this lady has obtained legal aid, but it looks a pretty fair assumption. It is becoming harder and harder to get legal aid for civil actions, and the Legal Aid Agency will have had to decide whether assistance is justified. They seem to have decided yes here, and also that representation should be via a QC. That in turn has meant that in order to achieve equality of arms, the MOJ has also had to hire a QC to defend the action. I have to say that that looks disproportionate to me, and I can't see why a competent barrister below the level of QC couldn't have dealt with this matter. That would still be an expensive business, and it makes you wonder whether there couldn't be an arrangement to review issues like this - perhaps by an independent body of lay visitors (as with some other prison issues) at much lesser public cost.

As to whether compensation should be payable should this lady win, I share your concern, but perhaps for different reasons. If solitary confinement is not justified in this situation then I would have thought that the appropriate remedy would be to order that it ceases without delay. It's going to be a long time before this lady will be in a position to benefit from any financial award. I seem to recall victims in another case suing where a prisoner had come by money unexpectedly, so maybe that would resolve matters?

In summary, it does seem that a lot of public money will be expended on what may well be an unmeritorious cause, but I'm afraid I can't share your implied view that criminals (even fairly dastardly ones) should forfeit any right to be treated properly while they are incarcerated.

 

If she had been tried in 1955 we would have no problem.

 

I remember the late great Lord Denning once saying "If we hadn't have done away with hanging we wouldn't have had all these miscarriages of justice!"

 

There were some, admittedly, however the number of freed murderers committing murder again once freed, plus the advent of DNA, makes me an advocate for the reintroduction of the death penalty.

 

What is the number of freed murderers who commit murder again, out of interest?

 

Again a personal opinion on my part Tekktyke, but I'd be against you on the voting rights. There is a practical issue that someone might have been sent away for say, 12 months but the election is appointing a government for five years. He/she will therefore be affected by it's decisions for four years after release. But the stronger exception I take is that you really want criminals to be engaging in issues such as elections and participating in them if you want part of their reform/rehabilitation to include becoming interested in society and respectful of it's laws. That might be idealistic on my part, but we should at least try. I had a similar objection to idiot boy Grayling's idea to prohibit prisoners from having books.

Removal of compensation after overturned convictions was another Grayling gem. He promoted a change in the law so that those whose convictions were overturned now have to prove they were innocent in order to be recompensed for any time spent inside as a result of a discredited conviction. An outrageous reversal of the normal burden of proof, in my opinion.

 

Human Rights Act again, as enshrined into British law by New Labour, to make more money for Mrs Blair.

 

No personal dig intended here GS, but most of the criticism of the HRA is a result of lazy thinking. Before we adopted the HRA 1998 state decisions were still capable of challenge via the ECHR in Strasbourg. That was an expensive way to challenge or defend decisions, and not a particularly speedy one. The HRA 1998 attempted to ensure that new UK laws were convention-compliant in the first place, and that when they (or other government decisions) were challenged on human rights grounds, the dispute was resolved via the less expensive route of domestic UK courts.

The problem that has come with the HRA has been in the judicial interpretation of it. Nearly all of the individual articles are qualified to cater for situations where the general public good demands the overriding of the individual's perceived convention right. The usual qualification (written into each article) is along the lines of the qualification to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life): "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." I find it difficult to believe that some of the whackier decisions of the higher courts in this country couldn't have been avoided by a sensible application of those qualifications by the judiciary.

If you abolish the Human Rights Act, you then have to put in place a similar guarantee that will probably include most, if not all of the same rights! In any event, if we vote 'remain', UK decisions would revert to being challngeable in the Strasbourg court in any event. So to me, the way forward is that if you can't trust the judges to balance the interests of the individual and the wider public, then tweak the HRA to provide further steering for the judiciary in the way in which they are to interpret and balance HR decisions. Parliament is after all, democratically elected (another can of worms, I know!).

 

I was going to give my own thoughts on this, but you've written everything I wanted to say, far better than I could.

 

To be fair you're unlikely to steer him away from anarchy if you take away his access to democracy

 

This is the biggest problems with our political system, Tekktyke. Reform/rehabilitation is likely to bring about benefits and cost savings to society across a longer time span. But politicians are elected for (and focus their efforts on) a five year timescale. Thinking beyond that requires longer term vision - and budgeting.

One of the most moving things I ever heard about this issue was at a meeting where Sarah Payne (mother of the murdered teenager, and later became Victims' Champion) spoke. She said that while she did believe in appropriate prison sentences, if we fail to combine that with addressing offenders' underlying issues, "all we do is create more victims". Considering what she had suffered, that blew me away.

 

Think this would fall under the different types of, in this case she seems a particularly evil cow, more like something out of an horror film really

 

Alternatively we could just have life without parole!

 

Or Vice-versa to be honest.

Oh, I have a vote? That seems far more effective than blowing people up!