I know we are not allowed to discuss ongoing legal cases so I will stick to the general. Is it fair that it takes over six months to get a trial just to the plea and case management stage? It might as well be Guantanamo if someone who is supposedly innocent until proven guilty spends so long behind bars with bail rejected.
Are we better than Guantanamo
- Thread starter F169
- Start date
No it's not fair but it's the way the system works in practice. However I should have thought Defendent X would have had a preliminary hearing in a Magistrates Court well before that, if only to set the trial date and start the process rolling... but I've only studied the theory... can some legal practitioners help?
On the Guantanamo comparison however there is no similarity. We do not engage in routine torture or degradation of defendents and those in custody (who are only held in custody if they are deemed a danger to the public). Remand prisoners ultimately face a trial in a civil court subject to certain basic legal standards and are entitled to a fair trial. They may not be held either incomunicado or indefinately without trial. Where they are held, it is to give the police time to accumulate evidence against them and for the CPS to make a case against them that will stand-up in court. The legal system's viewpoint is that is the defendant is released having been found to be not guilty, either by a jury or more often by the judicial panel hearing the case, then his liberty is sufficient compensation. I know this is hopelessly out-of-date today but even the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Court have not indicated in past rulings that they look upon this unfavourably.
On the Guantanamo comparison however there is no similarity. We do not engage in routine torture or degradation of defendents and those in custody (who are only held in custody if they are deemed a danger to the public). Remand prisoners ultimately face a trial in a civil court subject to certain basic legal standards and are entitled to a fair trial. They may not be held either incomunicado or indefinately without trial. Where they are held, it is to give the police time to accumulate evidence against them and for the CPS to make a case against them that will stand-up in court. The legal system's viewpoint is that is the defendant is released having been found to be not guilty, either by a jury or more often by the judicial panel hearing the case, then his liberty is sufficient compensation. I know this is hopelessly out-of-date today but even the European Court of Human Rights and the EU Court have not indicated in past rulings that they look upon this unfavourably.
I would concur with you on all those points GR - I'd forgotten about the PTA. In general however it is not the case. With asylum seekers the problem is that these are people who have committed no crime yet are treated as if they have. This would have been the position of anyone the government labelled as dangerous or antisocial had the government not been defeated in the Lords on that clause in their Mental Health Bill. This does then suggest an administrative disregard for human rights which is top-down led by the government's failure to marry assurances with facts. I would suggest that their mistreatment should perhaps come under another heading: a violation of Britain's obligations under international law and if not a de jure violation of the European Convention on Human Rights, then at least a breach of the spirit of human rights law.
The PTA is a bad piece of law enacted for the right reasons but open to misuse,as has frequently been proven.The holding of assylum seekers is is requiresd because of the time it takes to process an application.in regard to remand,all offenders have to gobefore a Magistrate soon after arrest and only those who are a public danger or who are likely to abscond are put on remand
It must be remembered that most of the asylum seekers have entered the country illegally, frequently having passed through one or more other countries before entering the UK. Not all asylum seekers are placed in detention centres, it is usually the ones that are likely to disappear into the community. These detention centres looked to me to more than adequately provide for the needs of the inmates, at least until they are set alight.
Please expand on your definition of ill treatment.
Please expand on your definition of ill treatment.
Those asylum centers that are so roundly condemned by a few, are in far better nick than most of our Armed forces accomodation. That is until it has been trashed by the people who live in them. Yes I have been in one or two in my time with the Prison Service. Most are quite happy to have a roof over their heads and three squares a day until the CR lawyers and Welfare teams get to them.
I agree we have a moral duty to sort out the genuine from the chaff, but by God aren't we being abused?
RoofRat
I agree we have a moral duty to sort out the genuine from the chaff, but by God aren't we being abused?
RoofRat
1. Guantanamo - if they hadn't been fighting in 'stan they would not be in Guantanamo, there are therefore far more people deserving of our sympathy than them. Those other inhabitants of Guantanamo probably get better treatment there than they would have where they came from e.g. Egypt, Algeria etc.
2. Asylum seekers - if they enter illegally they are criminals and should therefore be locked up until they are deported. Asylum should be handled by the UNHCR allocating refugees to the stable countries and handle their repatriation when their own country is stabilised.
3. Human Rights - what about Human Responsibilities, this all seems out of balance.
2. Asylum seekers - if they enter illegally they are criminals and should therefore be locked up until they are deported. Asylum should be handled by the UNHCR allocating refugees to the stable countries and handle their repatriation when their own country is stabilised.
3. Human Rights - what about Human Responsibilities, this all seems out of balance.
Even if I am known as a tree hugging liberal I agree with Phil. Bail does not apply as these men are incarcerated for being Prisoners of War even if no war was ever declared that is what they are not suspects of a crime or Illegal immigrants so lets get real.
Would we have bailed Germans in WW11
Nutty
Would we have bailed Germans in WW11
Nutty
Can't understand why they wasted all that money taking them to Cuba, found in theatre, drumhead court martial, guilty - slotted. Not guilty - chuck'em back out the door.
As to asylum seekers, they are supposed to seek asylum in the first country outside their own where their life is not in danger! Not several countries away, so unless they come by air they are economic emigrants! If illegal return 'em to the nearest safe haven to their own country (from which they will NOT be deported to their own country) in the case of Zimbabweans it's probably this one! We allowed in a lot from Uganda under the same rules, so why not these people? the rest - start walking!
As to asylum seekers, they are supposed to seek asylum in the first country outside their own where their life is not in danger! Not several countries away, so unless they come by air they are economic emigrants! If illegal return 'em to the nearest safe haven to their own country (from which they will NOT be deported to their own country) in the case of Zimbabweans it's probably this one! We allowed in a lot from Uganda under the same rules, so why not these people? the rest - start walking!
Unfortunately, too much of this refers to human rights, which IMHO, should not exist in the form currently espoused as normal. We signed up to a ridiculous piece of legislation.
Nobody has the right to be in UK unless they have been invited. Nobody has the inalienable right to a job, but those who need one will find one. It may be that they are qualified for all sorts of employment but can only find menial jobs, but for now it will do. No other country in Europe allows the nonsense that we put up with, because no other country in Europe obeys the nonsense laws that Europe has enacted other than us.
We need to leave the EU and deal with our own problems.
Nobody has the right to be in UK unless they have been invited. Nobody has the inalienable right to a job, but those who need one will find one. It may be that they are qualified for all sorts of employment but can only find menial jobs, but for now it will do. No other country in Europe allows the nonsense that we put up with, because no other country in Europe obeys the nonsense laws that Europe has enacted other than us.
We need to leave the EU and deal with our own problems.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Why guns are better than women | Land Ops | 1 | |
|
|
Why Chocolate is better than SEX | Miscellaneous | 0 | |
|
|
Whats Better | Miscellaneous | 0 |
