Friday, 1 May 2009

"Let justice be done, though the...Ah, who cares anyway?"

Via 'Devil's Kitchen' (who got it from 'Englishman's Castle'), the latest in a long, long line of assaults on the once-proud concept of 'English justice':
On Thursday, Ferry was cleared of the witness intimidation charges, which had seen him locked up for four months, after the prosecution said it was offering no evidence on both counts.

Prosecutor Kerry Barker told Gloucester Crown Court: "I don't intend to explain in a public court why those instructing me took the decision they took.

"The reasons why are not a matter that is or should be in the public domain."
Excuse me....?

Let's get this straight here - Ferry is accused of witness intimidation over an assault on a hunt saboteur (a case he will later stand trial for) and has been on remand, occupying a cell that could more usefully house a junkie, rapist or illegal immigrant for four months, and no-one is allowed to ask why they've suddenly decided 'Ooopsie!'...?

We pay your wages, you jumped up little lickspittle. We should be entitled to know why you've apparently taken leave of your senses, and why you don't seem to realise the harm you do to the already-devalued justice system.

5 comments:

Mark Wadsworth said...

Y'see, if they hadn't banned fox-hunting, none of this would have happened.

Mark said...

I always thought there was something odd about Otis Ferry's remand. You will recall last year that one of the defendants in the gang rape/acid dousing case in Tottenham was out on remand- and was then stabbed to death by a fellow 'youth of no appearance' in broad daylight in Oxford Street.

No room in the cells for him, but space for Mr Ferry eh ! That's what you get when you make security in the House of Commons a laughing stock and subsequently have a charge on pinned on you.

Our criminal justice system's prime concern is the security of the law abiding citizen- NOT !

JuliaM said...

"I always thought there was something odd about Otis Ferry's remand."

IIRC, he was remanded only for the witness intimidation charge, not the alleged smacking of a hunt saboteur.

Now, you can reasonably expect the courts to take a rather dim view of the former, and insist on severe restrictions. But you'd expect them to have some damned good evidence first....

Chalcedon said...

This is bloody disgusting and a terrible abuse of habeas corpus. I hope he sues big time. If there was insufficient evidence or more likely fase witness then a) we should know about it and b) if it is lies the lier should be prosecuted.

Prodicus said...

Sue, Chalcedon? Those were the days.