On 25 Mar, 17:40, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
>
> > If Gregg v. O'Gara is establishing in law the precedent that we have
> > no legal right to say a man has been wrongly convicted, because it
> > automatically implies that someone is (a) incompetent or (b) corrupt,
> > then we have entered dangerous legal and societal territory in terms
> > of the implications for civil liberties in this country.
>
> It is not establishing any such thing. First-instance decisions very rarely
> create precedent, and then only persuasively. This decision binds no other
> court.
=====================================================
But it gags us all because it signals to all of us that if we oppose a
miscarriage of justice in the future, we risk a libel suit and a
massive bill for costs which very few can absorb.
(I typed the following before coming on line:)
Do people not understand what we are sleepwalking into if the juryless
Gregg v. O'Gara judgment is not successfully appealed and reversed?
In England, the euphemism for a 'stitch up' is 'miscarriage of
justice.'
To rectify a miscarriage of justice, you have to state that a citizen
has been wrongly convicted, which automatically implies that one or
more of those responsible for the conviction is either incompetent or
corrupt. Given that you have to imply it, it's more effective to
simply say it directly.
To take an example, one of the most evil 'miscarriages of justice' in
England was the Stefan Kiszko affair. To obtain Stefan's eventual
release, obviously it was necessary to state that Dick Holland was a
liar, that Dick Holland was corrupt, that Dick Holland deliberately
and consciously concealed evidence that would have exonerated Stefan
at the time of his trial. Just to complete the picture, it is a true
statement of fact that Dick Holland was a murderer, and everybody
knows it, because we can safely say that Dick Holland's sneaky,
corrupt actions caused the premature deaths of Stefan and his Mum. And
that's even before we mention Dick Holland's role in the Yorkshire
Ripper cover up, which means Dick Holland shares the responsibility
for the murders of women committed by the Yorkshire Ripper in the
years following the phoney Peter Sutcliffe trial.
The point is - we were never going to get Stefan out of jail without
stating in quite direct language that Dick Holland is a liar, Dick
Holland is corrupt, etc.
Can you see where this is taking us?
If the Gregg v. O'Gara juryless judgment is not successfully appealed
and reversed, WE CAN NO LONGER OPPOSE MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE IN THIS
COUNTRY IN ANY EFFECTIVE MANNER.
'Precedent' or not, this judgment sends a dangerous signal to us all,
to the effect that if we oppose a miscarriage of justice in the
future, we risk bankruptcy by a crippling bill for legal costs in a
libel suit by the person responsible for the miscarriage of justice.
That a senior police officer has embarked on a course that is leading
us all into this Orwellian nightmare, this disastrous contamination
and degradation of the British justice system - is a bit surreal.
Miscarriages of justice are a fact of life, to put it politely.
HOW DO WE CORRECT MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE AND GET INNOCENT PEOPLE OUT
OF JAIL WITHOUT SAYING THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR JAILING INNOCENT
PEOPLE IS EITHER INCOMPETENT OR CORRUPT?
And if we risk bankruptcy by saying that, what kind of a country are
we living in?
What Dick Holland did to Stefan in the past might easily be done to
you in the future. It's the way the world works under present
conditions.
If you ever have the misfortune of being wrongfully jailed, do you
really want your friends and supporters to be - effectively - gagged
and banned from telling the truth about what has happened to you, for
fear of being bankrupted if they speak the truth?
Whoever you are, it is in your interest to ensure that the juryless
Gregg v. O'Gara judgment is successfully appealed and reversed.
--------------------------- |