Sunday, November 30, 2008

Davis: Charge Damian & Subpoena Blair & Brown

David Davis has an absolutely superb article on the Damian Green affair in the Mail on Sunday today. This is the headline...

SO LET THEM CHARGE DAMIAN, PUT HIM BEFORE A JURY,
AND SEE HIM SUBPOENA THE WHOLE DAMN LOT OF THEM
- FROM BLAIR TO BROWN

David Cameron has a trenchant article in the News of the World.

"When it comes to vigorous opposition, if this approach had been in place in the 1990s, then Gordon Brown would have spent most of his time under arrest. He made his career from passing on Whitehall leaks. And he’ll be guilty of hypocrisy if he doesn’t speak out. On the right to publish information in the public interest, people are asking valid questions about where this will all lead. After all, if they arrest a politician for passing on information, will they next arrest the journalists who publish it?"

16 comments:

David Boothroyd said...

The Judge would refuse to issue any witness summonses in those circumstances. Judges do not like defendants trying to get themselves off criminal charges by arguing that, regardless of actual guilt, they were politically justified. They do not permit them to summon witnesses on that basis.

Faustus said...

David Davis pulls his punches. His article is far from superb.

The arrest of Damien Green is not a party political matter.

The arrest of an MP is an affront to the supremacy of The High Court of Parliament.

We, the people, elect MPs to govern.
The police cannot arrest or interfere with our MPs doing our business.

Parliament must act against the policemen involved, who should be called to the bar of the house and asked to explain what they were doing.

If they refuse to go to the bar, or refuse to answer the questions, then they should be arrested for contempt of Parliament and held in gaol to purge their contempt for as long as Honourable Members decide.

Parliament has neglected the interests of the British people for long enough. Parliament must now act against the police.

David Davis - this means YOU.

Tony

DespairingLiberal said...

Smith is quoted on the BBC website as saying "In my book, Stalinism and a police state happens when ministers direct and interfere with specific investigations that the police are carrying out."

What spectacular ignorance. Stalinism is when the the government USES the police to harrass and interfere with politics.

Now she isn't actually a stupid woman, so I presume this is feigned ignorance. But it chills the blood that she would deliberately misconstrue such an important point. It indicates that neither she nor the government care about the political implications for democracy of their actions.

As was of said of the Major government, they care about only one thing. Staying in office.

DespairingLiberal said...

Faustus is right. Now is the time for Parliament to flex it's muscles.

(1) The Speaker should go. He is unfit to hold that office.

(2) The Serjent at Arms needs to be called to a committee hearing.

(3) Parliament needs to get the senior police officers, the PM and Jacqui Smith to committee investigations.

(4) Parliament needs to form defence committees to sweep the place for surveillance and organise to repel further police raid attempts.

Mike Hobday said...

How often did civil servants allegedly tell the police that Gordon Brown had asked them to break the law?

norman said...

DB

So you are the judge, jury and Stalin Gordo' executioner. Your Gordo has another Justice Hutton lined up for Damian case? You Labourites have no shame in defending this wicked tribal cyclope. There is crime written all over this man as it appears according newspaper reports that he let Balls to have security pass when Balls was working in a charity. There will be another raid on Tory offices for daring to question Stalin.

Raedwald said...

It's not often I agree with David Boothroyd, but I think he's right here.

However, I'd expect either the Home Affairs Select committee and / or the Standards and Privileges Committee to summon whomsoever they feel may usefully give evidence. Failure to answer such a summons is a very serious matter indeed.

Arkangel said...

David Boothroyd said...

The Judge would refuse to issue any witness summonses in those circumstances. Judges do not like defendants trying to get themselves off criminal charges by arguing that, regardless of actual guilt, they were politically justified. They do not permit them to summon witnesses on that basis.

And upon what do you base that deduction?
Personal experience?
Quote the Act and Section please!

David Boothroyd said...

Arkangel: PREM 16/621

DespairingLiberal said...

I can't remember the act and section, but I think it is true that judges tend to frown on attempts to stack up witnesses just for point scoring purposes. Perhaps it's under the Administration of Justice act or some such?

Interesting all this stuff in the papers about public protest during the Queens Speech. I think we need to apply pressure to our MPs to get Mr Labour Speaker Martin out and then a reform of the H of C procedures which apparently have become managerial and are seen by the staff who work in them as a branch of the civil service, rather than working for a Sovereign Parliament, which is in fact the case.

We need a written constitution - this simply could not have happened in the US. Federal Marshalls would have intercepted the police at the door and told them to push off.

strapworld said...

David Boothroyd. You do talk utter tripe.

IF, as it is alleged, Brown especially and other parliamentarians have received leaks from Government departments and used them for 'parliamentary purposes' as is the 'defence' so to speak of Mr Green then he can subpoena as many witnesses to help his defence as he and his solicitors wish.

They would, in certain circumstances, and especially in the case of Brown, ask that he be dealt with as a hostile witness!

You do really come up with juvenile rants.

Gallimaufry said...

Didn't the Soviet Union have a splendid constitution with protection for its citizens from abuses of power by the State? And didn't many dissidents ask the State to obey the constitution?

norman said...

DB is the resident Lord Sleazy and Sex up Campbell's rep here in Iain' blog ready with rebuttals and legal pointers etc.. There is a crowd of brown shirts working in his office with lap tops linked to Labour HQ. The evil troika: Stalin Brown, Lord Sleaze and Sex up Campbell have made resources available to DB so that they do not want the issue boomrung on them.

What if there is no support for what says DB in the law as it is an ass? There is always a Hutton like judge that Brown can whistle up to do a white wash at the criminal court and pass judgement on Green. The Labour toadies want 1000year Labour Reich, does not matter how they get it. Shamless Labour lectures democracy for the rest of the world while using deceitful means to muzzle any revelation about their incompetence here.

It is not surprising that DB adopts the same attitude to Green's arrest as Stalin Brown and jackboot Jaqui. It is the line the Labour agreed to take. It is wasteful to answer DB as there is entire Labour rebuttal machinery sitting behind him. Didn't we see their charade when Dr Kelly committed what I will call 'assisted suicide'
you know who were involved and Hutton like Mugabe Judge let go this entire mob through a white wash. The worship of these Labour toadies is nothing less than what Castro, Hitler and Stalin enjoyed. They want power, if through foul means, so be it.

Ed Balls seem to be deep in s**t up to his b**ls! Wait for another raid.

African Mum said...

David Boothroyd, please confine your deluded and Nuremberg style defences to LabourHome or whatever cesspit you ZanuLabour idiots frequent. Please stop trolling around here. You're making us all sick!!

MattyT said...

"Judges do not like defendants trying to get themselves off criminal charges by arguing that, regardless of actual guilt, they were politically justified"
DB's insights into the judicial mind are fascinating but totally miss the point, which would not be to argue political justification, rather to expose the equivalence in guilt of a whole raft of Liebour politicians.

Gallimaufry: the USSR had a splendid written constitution that among other goodies abolished the death penalty (until later amended by Stalin if memory serves). Unfortunately this did not cover being beaten to death in the cellars of the Lubyanka which was therefore descrived as 'death from heart failure'.

DB should consider what happened to the majority to Stalin's apologists.

Ace Reporter said...

LABOUR TROLL (DB) said:
"The Judge would refuse to issue any witness summonses in those circumstances. Judges do not like defendants trying to get themselves off criminal charges by arguing that, regardless of actual guilt, they were politically justified. They do not permit them to summon witnesses on that basis."

Is this not what happened in the case of the Kingsnorth Power Station trial?
The 'activists' (vandals)did not seek to deny the damage done, but rather that it was justified politically on account of the (supposed) environmental damage that would result from the power station's operation. So-called 'expert' witnesses (eg Hansen of NASA) were, in fact, 'political' witnesses.