It's interesting to note these two High Court rullngs which occurred on Friday regarding the judicial and government processes. They provide an interesting contrast in decisions. During the day, the High Court ruled in favour of a jury inquest involving the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Dodi Al Fayed thus interjecting democracy into this inquest determination. Later that night a single judge in the High Court granted an injunction against the BBC prohibiting it from reporting a story in the public interest about the cash for honours inquiry investigation being carried out by the police. Today all injunctions were off thanks to the Guardian, and the Diana/Dodi inquest will be delayed to permit full preparation of evidence to be presented before a jury. The process of justice in a democracy is slow, but it grinds forward nonetheless in the interest of transparency and justice itself which can be seen to be just. A free press is critical to that process. Without it there would be neither democracy nor justice.
Needless to say these are key issues which are relevant to the fact of the surveillance technology abuse carried out against me for eight and one-half years 24/7 based upon a presumption of guilt to imprison, punish, torture and ultimately execute outside the democratic rule of law without any court proceedings in which I am involved. There is still quite a ways to go in this democracy to ensure that any one with a legitimate grievance such as mine can get a full, fair and transparent hearing in the High Court in order to ensure that the democratic rule of law, law enforcement and the judicial system are preserved and protected. The public interest is only served this way by making certain that those who are truly guilty are so determined and brought to justice under the law while those who are innocent are protected from the vengeance of the vigilante mentality and mob who would seek to establish a tyranny outside the democratic rule of law.
`1. Alan Rusbridger, the Guardian's editor, said: "The Guardian was today given a significant story about the cash for honours inquiry which we checked both with Lord Levy and with the police. Our story was referred to the attorney general's office, who told us it was "similar" to another story which was the subject of an injunction. We asked to see the court order and were told it was confidential to the parties to the original action.
"The story was well-sourced and clearly in the public interest. In this country there is a well-established principle that the state cannot exercise prior restraint on newspapers. If the attorney general - who may be a player in this action - is seeking to gag newspapers he must give the precise reason for doing so. In the absence of any specific details we decided to publish.
"Secret orders and prior restraint on the press have no place in an open society."BBC News Tuesday, 6 March 2007, 08:30 GMT
Judge rejects honours injunction
 The police inquiry began a year ago |
The Metropolitan Police have failed to stop a national newspaper from publishing an account of developments in the cash-for-honours inquiry.
A judge declined to grant an injunction on Monday night because printing of the Guardian had already begun.
The paper published the story, which it said was well-sourced and significant, about the continuing police inquiry.
The Metropolitan Police said they remained concerned that publication might undermine their investigation.
The Guardian's editor, Alan Rusbridger, said his journalists had checked the contents of the item with both Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser, and with the police.
The paper had argued that in this country the state could not, in law, seek to prevent newspapers in advance from publishing material.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6421733.stm
The Guardian Tuesday, 6th March 2007
Cash for honours: key document names Levy
Memo from Blair aide says peer tried to influence her evidence
By Patrick Wintour
Detectives are investigating whether Lord Levy, Labour's chief fundraiser, urged one of Tony Blair's most senior aides to shape the evidence she gave to Scotland Yard, the Guardian has learned.
Police have been investigating whether Ruth Turner, the prime minister's director of external relations, was being asked by Lord Levy to modify information that might have been of interest to the inquiry. Officers have been trying to piece together details of a meeting they had last year. Ms Turner gave an account of it to her lawyers and this has been passed to police.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2027366,00.html
The Guardian Tuesday, 6th March 2007
Judge refuses to gag the Guardian
The Guardian last night successfully resisted an attempt by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to prevent the publication of today's lead story.
The attorney's lawyers had wanted to stop the paper from running an article which they argued was similar to the story they prevented the BBC running last Friday.
They demanded an undertaking that the paper would not publish this story, though the Guardian was given no explanation as to why this was necessary, or the nature of the legal problem.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/funding/story/0,,2027421,00.html
2. A couple hours ago the injunction was lifted against the BBC who has now been reporting its original story that became subject to an injunction Friday night last. Lord Levy has issued a statement as have the Attorney General and the police. All injunctions in this matter are now recognised as being "lifted" and are ignored by the police who obtained them, but they still express concern over the possibility of interference with its ongoing investigation by such reporting which might be put into jeopardy along with any future prosecution.
The story of the injunction process, the Guardian's publication last night and everyone's reaction to it have attained equal status with the issues being investigated for better or worse. The press should not have been subjected to any interference which has now developed into a significant issue itself with its own implications. There are two stories running now about this issue with public interest at the core of each of them. In this case the public interest was served by publication as it has turned out because keeping it secret led to speculation in the minds of the public which could have meant anything and tainted all aspects of the core of the government at Number Ten.
As it is, the issue with regard to the document in question is revealed as one of whether or not there was an attempt by Lord Levy to influence an explanation of events that might have been misunderstood or have been intended to mislead thereby creating a crime. This was the analysis from BBC News24 as it began to report on this story it originally developed Friday last. Read the article below in its entirety at the URL provided. This puts the issue in some degree of perspective.
It's a shame that it was blown up so much by the injunctive relief process. It's really up to the police to evaluate all the evidence within the context of their total investigation. In some sense they distracted themselves by obtaining the injunctive relief which proved to be futile and only focussed national attention on the whole set of issues instead of just continuing with their investigation. Now every one is becoming au courant whether they want to or not. In the end this can only be beneficial for the public interest in a democracy which requires an open society to function.
BBC News Tuesday, 6 March 2007, 13:52 GMT
Blair aide's 'concern over Levy'
 Lord Levy denies any "wrong-doing whatsoever" |
Tony Blair's aide Ruth Turner expressed concern that Lord Levy had put to her a version of events over cash-for-honours which she believed to be untrue.
The concern was put in a document which the BBC has not seen, but which has been supported by more than one source.
The injunction barring BBC reporting of the story was lifted on Tuesday.
Labour fundraiser Lord Levy denies "any wrong-doing whatsoever" and criticised the "prejudiced and distorted" picture presented by recent media reporting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6423225.stm
3. Last Friday during the day before the BBC injunction "squelch," the High Court ruled in favour of Mohammed Al Fayed granting his application for a jury decision in the coroner's inquest involving the death of his son, Dodi, and Diana, Princess of Wales. This was a decision for democracy. As I've heard one judge describing the jury process while serving as a possible juror once upon a time, the jury brings democracy into the justice system.
The jury brings the public into the courtroom who provide a fundamental discipline to the judicial process for its procedures, presentation of evidence and determination of a judgment. I was pleased to hear about this decision. Lady Butler-Sloss had decided earlier that she would preside alone over the inquest without a jury. This decision was successfully challenged. It means that the process of justice will be transparent and seen to be just whatever the outcome. Now there is a problem with respect to evidence which has resulted in a further delay to the beginning of the inquest which will run for months.
BBC News Tuesday, 6 March 2007, 14:35 GMT
Full Diana, Dodi inquest delayed
 The inquest will take place after the 10th anniversary of the crash |
The full inquests into the deaths of Diana, Princess of Wales and Dodi Fayed are to be delayed until October.
Coroner Lady Butler-Sloss wanted a May hearing but lawyers for Mohammed Al Fayed, Dodi's father, requested more time to allow them to prepare.
Mr Al Fayed alleges the August 1997 Paris road crash which claimed the couple's lives was part of a secret plot by the British establishment.
However, the coroner said she had not heard evidence to support the theory.
In a written decision, Lady Butler-Sloss, the deputy royal coroner, said the inquests will take place "on or about" 1 October.
The hearings are expected to last between four and eight months.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6423557.stm
4. During the last week of July and the first week of August 1970, I did jury service in the criminal courts in Manhattan as was part of most people's lives who were on the voter register in New York City. This particular time provided a fascinating experience with respect to some problems and enlightenment about the jury system and justice. Some problems come from the judges themselves, yet there are many who are extraordinarily talented and deeply committed to justice and seeing justice done.
Prisoners were kept in the basement of the criminal court building in lower Manhattan before and during trial. These jail cells were called the Tombs. This saved transporting these prisoners back and forth from Riker's Island where they were held pending trial if not granted bail to the Manhattan criminal courts. Both these detention centres were well known and had a terrible reputation for places being almost unbearable for human inhabitation. In the summer in Manhattan where the temperature could be daily in the 90s F with hot sweltering nights, the basement Tombs had to be insufferable. In August 1970 after I had served my two weeks for jury duty and did not serve on a jury, I went back to work. Just after I did so, the Tombs erupted with rioting which from my experience was easy to understand.
During those two weeks of my jury duty, the judges did not want to take on cases that might result in trials lasting for a length of time which would spoil their summer holiday. There was a natural transition period of judge rotation at the end of July 1970 so that those who were scheduled to rotate elsewhere did not take on new cases. Thus, nothing really got done, and I was not called for a jury pool. Also, the inmates whose trials were pending were confined to the hot, sweltering cells in the basement Tombs of Manhattan's criminal court building.
There were about 200 people summoned to do jury duty each week. From this 200 jury pools were selected and sent to the various courts for the jury selection process at the start of various trials. During the last week of July, this did not happen very much if at all, and we were usually sent home after a couple hours after the needs or lack thereof of the day's jury pools were known. Such was not the case during the first week of August, however, as the new month and new period for the judges service terms (four weeks in summer) got underway. While there was activity, there still wasn't as much as it might have been had it not been summer holiday time.
I was selected for a jury pool in a criminal case but bounced off as a potential juror where police evidence was crucial in a drug arrest since my father had been a police officer. The defense thought I might be partial to a police officer's testimony. It was during this trial when the judge was talking to the court filled with its jury pool, that he described how important juries were by bringing democracy into the court room. My sense of this situation was that everyone took their job quite seriously and juries made every effort to be as fair, impartial and objective under the law as possible although I did not have a direct experience of serving on a jury.
There was also another aspect of jury service which had just started at that time. The Supreme Court had ruled jury trials were to be extended to misdemeanor criminal and civil trials. These were to be six person juries and were optional. The misdemeanor criminal jury trials option had already been implemented. While I was there, this was begun for the first time for some civil trials and was touted as historic by interjecting this option throughout the judicial system. Some of use went over to the civil court building as part of the first six member jury selection process. I did not get on a jury there either. In ths instance all six were selected before I became a potential juror. Thus, those of us left went back to the criminal court building to be available as possible jurors.
What was interesting about this situation involved the trend to bring the jury system into all trials in the judicial system which is quite a contrast now with the current moves in the UK to remove jury trials. I consider this a move against democracy. Another interesting aspect about this experience was the fact that while everyone was present and dedicated to doing their best in the judicial system, the judges appeared to be the ones who were slowing down justice for personal reasons of summer holidays. It wasn't just those awaiting trial in the Tombs' basement cells in the criminal court building who were impacted, but there was also the cost to all those like myself who came to serve as jurors who were left with nothing to do but go home during the last week of July 1970. Not only had we taken time off work keeping us from getting on with that work for our employers at a cost, but we were paid a minimal amount per day for jury service which was wasted by the government. This also invovled all the court staff who were not being fully utilised and left idle.
All of this activity was explained to us as part of letting us know what to expect and what to do as part of the jury service programme which included this new form of juries as a result of the Supreme Court ruling. We were told about the judges' reluctance to take on cases at the end of the month which accounted for our coming down to lower Manhattan each morning only to be sent away after a couple hours. One of the guys acting as a coordinator for us potential jurors indicated that the judges were afraid of the press getting wind of this story. The judiciary were terrified about press coverage because this shined a light on what was actually happening which was something that occurred continuously in the court system.
Here was acknowledgement of the effectiveness and beneficial activity by the press and media. I seriously thought about writing a letter to The New York Times about this delay in justice which was being created by the judges themselves. I deeply regretted not doing so after the Tombs erupted in riots c mid-August 1970 after I was back at work. A key contributing factor appeared to be the judges who were not taking cases when they and everybody else were ready and available to do so.
This was unknown to the public, and the prisoners were being blamed most of whom if not all were considered innocent until proven guilty by being convicted at trial yet were imprisoned without bail for whatever reason. I believed that they deserved not to be delayed by a general concern for holidays from the judges when a full effort to hold trials could have been made. Of course, no doubt there were many other factors involved, but I thought this was a major contributing factor. Justice advances in some respects and is held back in others as is seen in the events described above.