The Government has launched a damaging attack on the judiciary in its increasingly desperate legal battle to stop the public from seeing evidence of Britain's involvement in torture.This won’t end well…
Lawyers acting for the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, yesterday accused two High Court judges of acting "irresponsibly" when they delivered a ruling in favour of disclosure of sensitive material relating to the alleged torture of Binyam Mohamed, a British resident, by US agents.Picking a fight with two High Court judges may seem like a good bet to a Labour Party increasingly on the ropes. They may think that they’ve found even less sympathetic characters than bankers.
But they’d be wrong. The public is already in no mood to be lied to for political gain any more, after first Iraq, and now global warming.
They may find they’ve fatally overreached themselves here…
The case, which is supported by media groups including The Independent, has been lost by the Government in the High Court but ministers have repeatedly tried to overturn the decision. Yesterday the Government dramatically raised the stakes when its barrister, Jonathan Sumption QC, told the Court of Appeal that the judges' stance was "both, in many respects, unnecessary and profoundly damaging to the interests of this country. I would go so far as to say their views were irresponsible."Let’s see how this shot over the judiciary’s bows is taken. I think the response will be slow in coming, but pretty devastating when it comes.
6 comments:
How about them jailing the little shit for contempt?
"Un-necessary", "profoundly damaging", "irresponsible"
Since when were these legal arguments?
He's going to have to do better than that.
"Be you ever so high, the law is above you": we need a new Lord Denning I think.
But they’d be wrong. The public is already in no mood to be lied to for political gain any more, after first Iraq, and now global warming.
Aye. But here we go again.
Come the elections, as far as "the public " are concerned, you may as well bring up "the Profumo case".
If it is no longer in the papers, for the dolts we allow to vote, it is ancient history.
All that interests them, is that "party A" has promised a twopenny tax decrease.
There really SHOULD be an I.Q test before they allow people to get the vote.
von Spreuth.
so i guess having the cuckoo in the nest has some useful outcomes?
"Since when were these legal arguments?"
Quite! Even for NuLabour's debased law, that's reaching a bit...
"If it is no longer in the papers, for the dolts we allow to vote, it is ancient history."
I fear you're right...
"so i guess having the cuckoo in the nest has some useful outcomes?"
Occasionally!
The Government tried for years to overcome the Judges when they wanted to deport the Afghan plane hijackers, they lost that in the end too.
Post a Comment