My law Degree is almost 20 years old now! I got it at a time when jury
trial
was sacrosanct, innocence till found guilty, no dentention without trial,
Cabinet government, no restrospective legislation .... How old-fashioned
all
of this now seems!

What retrospective legislation has been passed?

Who is not innocent till found guilty?

Your first question: all legislation that criminalises conduct which, at the
time it was performed, was not a criminal act; e.g. Sexual Offences Act 2003,
which criminalises certain conduct restrospectively.

Your second question: the same Act is an example: people (usually men) can now
be subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order even if acquitted of the
offence with which they have been charged. The Order can prohibit anything from
travelling on public transport to owning or using a telephone, camera,
computer, television: there is no exhaustive list so the Court an literally
order anything at all.

Another example is the various money laundering and proceeds of crime
legislation that requires someone to prove that money or property they have in
their possession is not the proceeds of crime: unless it is so proved it is
confiscated by the State.

And, under the new proposals, we will all be deemed "non persons" until we can
prove, by production of an identity card, who we are.

Marc.

Mait001 wrote in article
...
My law Degree is almost 20 years old now! I got it at a time when
jury
trial
was sacrosanct, innocence till found guilty, no dentention without
trial,
Cabinet government, no restrospective legislation .... How
old-fashioned
all of this now seems!

2004 - 19 = 1985, was there a "Modern developments" (ie since 1924)
exam ?

no-jury Diplock Courts from 1972 (and the Special Court in Dublin), Sir
Oswald Mosley interned 1940-1943 and various IRA suspects in Northern
Ireland after 1964.
Doubt has been cast on whether Cabinet government really exists from
"Parkinson's Law" at least. Retrospective legislation in civil matters
since before 1914, in criminal matters see the Nuremburg trials but
(with a special exception for this) now forbidden by the ECHR.


What retrospective legislation has been passed?

Who is not innocent till found guilty?

Your first question: all legislation that criminalises conduct
which, at the
time it was performed, was not a criminal act; e.g. Sexual Offences
Act 2003,
which criminalises certain conduct restrospectively.

Your second question: the same Act is an example: people (usually
men) can now
be subjected to a Sexual Offences Prevention Order even if acquitted
of the
offence with which they have been charged. The Order can prohibit
anything from
travelling on public transport to owning or using a telephone,
camera,
computer, television: there is no exhaustive list so the Court an
literally
order anything at all.

Another example is the various money laundering and proceeds of crime
legislation that requires someone to prove that money or property
they have in
their possession is not the proceeds of crime: unless it is so proved
it is
confiscated by the State.

Customs & Excise law allowed just that (from before 1787) prove you
paid import duty on this foreign product or it is confiscated. The
American 'civil confiscation' legislation was ruled in conformity with
their constitution because of this.

And, under the new proposals, we will all be deemed "non persons"
until we can
prove, by production of an identity card, who we are.

National Identity Cards 1939-1950

Have a word with your Bar Council Chairman (New or old, both seem to be
"sound bite and run" folks) about the obvious need for more continuing
professional education especially wrt 20th Century history.

--
Mike D

In article 01c4e6ec$ba3f56c0$LocalHost@default,
"Michael R N Dolbear" wrote:
Mait001 wrote in article
...
My law Degree is almost 20 years old now! I got it at a time when
jury trial was sacrosanct, innocence till found guilty, no
dentention without trial, Cabinet government, no restrospective
legislation .... How old-fashioned all of this now seems!

2004 - 19 = 1985, was there a "Modern developments" (ie since 1924)
exam ?

no-jury Diplock Courts from 1972 (and the Special Court in Dublin),

Never mind that, what about the introduction of criminal offences
which were summarily triable only? That was some time in the 1980s;
before then, a defendant could insist on a jury trial for literally
anything.

Sir Oswald Mosley interned 1940-1943

One of about 2,000 UK citizens interned under Defence Regulation 18B.
There was internment under Defence Regulation 14B in World War I and
before then when Habeas Corpus was suspended. There were many more
enemy aliens interned during WWII using Royal Prerogative powers -
at least 18B was approved by the Privy Council.

and various IRA suspects in Northern Ireland after 1964.

NI Internment 1971-1975; previously existed during the Irish Civil
War.

Doubt has been cast on whether Cabinet government really exists from
"Parkinson's Law" at least. Retrospective legislation in civil matters
since before 1914, in criminal matters see the Nuremburg trials but
(with a special exception for this) now forbidden by the ECHR.

A good example of a really appalling piece of clearly retrospective
legislation is the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. Thousands of
people retrospectively stripped of UK citizenship and absolutely the
worst thing ever done by a Labour government.

--
http://www.election.demon.co.uk
"The guilty party was the Liberal Democrats and they were hardened offenders,
and coded racism was again in evidence in leaflets distributed in September
1993." - Nigel Copsey, "Contemporary British Fascism", page 62.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 02:52:29 +0000, David Boothroyd
wrote:


no-jury Diplock Courts from 1972 (and the Special Court in Dublin),

Never mind that, what about the introduction of criminal offences
which were summarily triable only? That was some time in the 1980s;
before then, a defendant could insist on a jury trial for literally
anything.

You got a problem with that ?

A good example of a really appalling piece of clearly retrospective
legislation is the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1968. Thousands of
people retrospectively stripped of UK citizenship and absolutely the
worst thing ever done by a Labour government.

Agreed. A despicable disgraceful act of cowardice.

Made it more than plain that we are all subjects at the mercy of political
whim and not citizens with fundamental immutable rights.


greg



--
Yeah - straight from the top of my dome
As I rock, rock, rock, rock, rock the microphone

David Boothroyd wrote
[...]
Never mind that, what about the introduction of criminal offences
which were summarily triable only? That was some time in the 1980s;
before then, a defendant could insist on a jury trial for literally
anything.

Nope, summary only and/or no defendant's option offences from 1879 or
before I understand.

The general rule from 1952 was all offenses with a maximum sentence of
three months imprisonment or less (with lots of exceptions).

Think Assault or no TV license.

My reference says the Criminal Law Act 1977 reduced the number of
categories from five to three, so as with the other examples of modern
legal degeneration it's far older than you think.

--
Mike D

"Mait001" wrote in message
...

What retrospective legislation has been passed?

Who is not innocent till found guilty?

Your first question: all legislation that criminalises conduct
which, at the time it was performed, was not a criminal act;
e.g. Sexual Offences Act 2003,
which criminalises certain conduct restrospectively.

I didn't know that, the *******s. How can we live our lives free of fear if
we never know what the *******s are going to retrospectively criminalise
next? I hope the next Tory Prime Minister makes the passing of retrospective
legislation retrospectively illegal, and then locks up Blair and every MP
who "aye'd" that bill. The only purpose of retrospective legislation is to
please bullying politicians who get a kick out of making the general public
afraid.

Your second question: the same Act is an example: people
(usually men) can now be subjected to a Sexual Offences
Prevention Order even if acquitted of the offence with which
they have been charged. The Order can prohibit anything
from travelling on public transport to owning or using a
telephone, camera, computer, television: there is no
exhaustive list so the Court an literally order anything at all.

Can't both of these points be overturned in the European Court Of Human
Rights?

--
John Rowland - Spamtrapped
Transport Plans for the London Area, updated 2001
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acro...69/tpftla.html
A man's vehicle is a symbol of his manhood.
That's why my vehicle's the Piccadilly Line -
It's the size of a county and it comes every two and a half minutes

John Rowland wrote
"Mait001" wrote
[...]
Your first question: all legislation that criminalises conduct
which, at the time it was performed, was not a criminal act;
e.g. Sexual Offences Act 2003,
which criminalises certain conduct restrospectively.

I didn't know that, the *******s. How can we live our lives free of
fear if

nobody else did either perhaps ?

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/uk-expa.htm

we never know what the *******s are going to retrospectively
criminalise
next? I hope the next Tory Prime Minister makes the passing of
retrospective
legislation retrospectively illegal, and then locks up Blair and
every MP
who "aye'd" that bill. The only purpose of retrospective legislation
is to
please bullying politicians who get a kick out of making the general
public
afraid.

Sure you havn't got a penkife in your briefcase ?

Bullying pressure groups rather.

Your second question: the same Act is an example: people
(usually men) can now be subjected to a Sexual Offences
Prevention Order even if acquitted of the offence with which
they have been charged. The Order can prohibit anything
from travelling on public transport to owning or using a
telephone, camera, computer, television: there is no
exhaustive list so the Court an literally order anything at all.

Strange, it has been possible since 1485 or so to bind over a acquitted
person 'to keep the peace' and there is no "exhaustive list" of
conditions that may be imposed there either (was used against 'peeping
toms', so same subject matter).

Can't both of these points be overturned in the European Court Of
Human
Rights?

If they are indeed ex post facto criminal laws then yes (or declared
'incompatible with the ECHR' under the Human Rights Act 1998 by our
appeal courts as per this month's example).

As per my other post I suspect that what the group's barrister and the
previous and new chairman of the Bar Council say is more sound bite
with ten minutes thought and no historical memory than contribution to
public discussion with citations and references.

The latest wish to jail anyone with a penknife (no 3 inch blade
exception) is a bigger threat to the public.

--
Mike D