3 ms·

In the UK, defense lawyers aren't allowed to reveal details if it harms future police operations. So again you don't need parallel construction.

pc86 5y ago
Does this result in a lot of sealed/private hearings where methods of gathering evidence are discussed? I'd imagine the majority of criminal prosecutions would involve at least some "trade secrets" (for lack of a better term) on the part of the police.
- pjc50 5y ago
  There have been various rather nasty trials in which vital defense info was ruled both secret and inadmissible; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity covers the most famous examples, particularly Matrix-Churchill which I'm just about old enough to remember. I believe ECHR 1998 has improved the situation a bit, although the existence of a court outwith the UK to which people can appeal their human rights violations is controversial and unpopular with the right.
  - bobthepanda 5y ago
    Railing against the ECHR is arguably one of the things that sparked Brexit.
    - nojokes 5y ago
      Can you elaborate this a little?
      - bobthepanda 5y ago
        A key point of Brexit is to "restore sovereignty." At least some of that ire is directed at the ECHR, which can issue rulings that override British rulings and parliament. One of the examples of this occurring is when the ECHR overturned a British ban on voting for prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2) Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e0577d5-e617-471a-8e00-5c964741965c https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e0577d5-e617...
        LatteLazy 5y ago
        (it's worth nothing that ruling was in 2005 and prisoners still can't vote so it's not as much of an override as people might imagine)
        kergonath 5y ago
        > Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet. Independence from the ECHR does not follow from leaving the EU. To get out of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK would have to leave the Council of Europe. The Convention is also in the Brexit agreement. Though of course whether the tories will follow the provisions of the treaties they sign is another matter.
        bobthepanda 5y ago
        I know that but that's certainly not what was sold. The link I provided says as much.
        kergonath 5y ago
        Indeed. Well, I didn’t know you knew but the article said as much. I just wanted to put it explicitly here. Some other comments here show that it is still a common misconception.
        nojokes 5y ago
        Interesting. But UK was not the only country in Europe that does not allow inmates to vote. The list includes Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Liechtenstein and Russia. Three of them belong to EU and do not plan to leave or change their stance on this issue. Allowing inmates to vote is a strange proposal for me. Could we then argue that a leader of a criminal organization should be able to keep leading it from the prison? Eliminating the imprisoned from the society is one of the core principles of the imprisonment and it feels therefore counter productive to let inmates to vote, especially on local government election where a single vote counts the most. Now if imprisonment would be altered for example to an involuntary reeducation and readaptation program, then keeping the right to vote would make much more sense.
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        We're sick of having rights and we've had enough of EU monsters telling us we can't all die from drinking posion. What is this, Nazi Germany? - standard brexiteer position despite the ECHRs not actually being an EU body.
    - formerly_proven 5y ago
      The ass of that joke is the UK being very influential in creating the ECHR in the first place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA
    - kergonath 5y ago
      Which is very funny because the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. But hey, that’s brexit logic for you.
adolph 5y ago
That sounds airtight—the defense lawyers surely wouldn’t say a word because it isn’t allowed.
- toyg 5y ago
  It's sadly more common than one would think. There are some very undemocratic bits in the bowels of the UK justice system, and nobody that matters has any intention of fixing them. In fact, they are busy trying to import all the worst elements of the US system, removing legal aid so that poor people won't be able to bother the rich and powerful anymore.

pc86 5y ago

Does this result in a lot of sealed/private hearings where methods of gathering evidence are discussed? I'd imagine the majority of criminal prosecutions would involve at least some "trade secrets" (for lack of a better term) on the part of the police.

pjc50 5y ago
There have been various rather nasty trials in which vital defense info was ruled both secret and inadmissible; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public-interest_immunity covers the most famous examples, particularly Matrix-Churchill which I'm just about old enough to remember. I believe ECHR 1998 has improved the situation a bit, although the existence of a court outwith the UK to which people can appeal their human rights violations is controversial and unpopular with the right.
- bobthepanda 5y ago
  Railing against the ECHR is arguably one of the things that sparked Brexit.
  - nojokes 5y ago
    Can you elaborate this a little?
    - bobthepanda 5y ago
      A key point of Brexit is to "restore sovereignty." At least some of that ire is directed at the ECHR, which can issue rulings that override British rulings and parliament. One of the examples of this occurring is when the ECHR overturned a British ban on voting for prisoners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hirst_v_United_Kingdom_(No_2) Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e0577d5-e617-471a-8e00-5c964741965c https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=7e0577d5-e617...
      - LatteLazy 5y ago
        (it's worth nothing that ruling was in 2005 and prisoners still can't vote so it's not as much of an override as people might imagine)
      - kergonath 5y ago
        > Like many things independence from the ECHR has not actually happened yet. Independence from the ECHR does not follow from leaving the EU. To get out of the European Convention on Human Rights, the UK would have to leave the Council of Europe. The Convention is also in the Brexit agreement. Though of course whether the tories will follow the provisions of the treaties they sign is another matter.
        bobthepanda 5y ago
        I know that but that's certainly not what was sold. The link I provided says as much.
        kergonath 5y ago
        Indeed. Well, I didn’t know you knew but the article said as much. I just wanted to put it explicitly here. Some other comments here show that it is still a common misconception.
      - nojokes 5y ago
        Interesting. But UK was not the only country in Europe that does not allow inmates to vote. The list includes Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Liechtenstein and Russia. Three of them belong to EU and do not plan to leave or change their stance on this issue. Allowing inmates to vote is a strange proposal for me. Could we then argue that a leader of a criminal organization should be able to keep leading it from the prison? Eliminating the imprisoned from the society is one of the core principles of the imprisonment and it feels therefore counter productive to let inmates to vote, especially on local government election where a single vote counts the most. Now if imprisonment would be altered for example to an involuntary reeducation and readaptation program, then keeping the right to vote would make much more sense.
    - LatteLazy 5y ago
      We're sick of having rights and we've had enough of EU monsters telling us we can't all die from drinking posion. What is this, Nazi Germany? - standard brexiteer position despite the ECHRs not actually being an EU body.
  - formerly_proven 5y ago
    The ass of that joke is the UK being very influential in creating the ECHR in the first place. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA
  - kergonath 5y ago
    Which is very funny because the ECHR has nothing to do with the EU. But hey, that’s brexit logic for you.

adolph 5y ago

That sounds airtight—the defense lawyers surely wouldn’t say a word because it isn’t allowed.

toyg 5y ago
It's sadly more common than one would think. There are some very undemocratic bits in the bowels of the UK justice system, and nobody that matters has any intention of fixing them. In fact, they are busy trying to import all the worst elements of the US system, removing legal aid so that poor people won't be able to bother the rich and powerful anymore.