Document:The Mind Numbing Hypocrisy of the Supreme Court
| So the Supreme Court has ruled that there must be a right to appeal against imprisonment, unless your name is Craig Murray, you are connected to Julian Assange or you are a "war on terror" whistleblower. |
blog post by Craig Murray dated 21 December 2021Subjects: UK/Supreme Court, Tim Crosland
Source: Craig Murray's blog (Link)
★ Start a Discussion about this document
In July, the Supreme Court refused to hear my appeal against eight months imprisonment for Contempt of Court by the High Court of Edinburgh. And yet yesterday they issued a judgment stating in the strongest possible terms that there should be a right of appeal in Contempt of Court cases.[1]
33. If there were no right of appeal from the decision on contempt of the First Instance Panel, that would represent a serious lacuna in the law. That is because it is well-accepted that there ought to be a right of appeal by the defendant in a contempt matter that may result in imprisonment or a fine. This was expressed in very strong terms by the 1959 Report entitled Contempt of Court by Justice (chaired by Lord Shawcross). The Justice Report preceded section 13 of the Administration of Justice Act 1960 and said, at p 35:
- “At present there is no right of appeal against any decision or punishment for any criminal contempt whether it is committed in the presence of the court or out of court. As no human being is infallible, and as any sentence of imprisonment involves a basic question of civil liberty, it is not surprising to find that in every system of law of any civilised State there is always a right of appeal against any sentence of imprisonment. For contempt of court alone can an Englishman be sent to prison by a court from whose decision there is no appeal. … Even in enemy-occupied territory in time of war, there must, under the Hague Convention, always be some right of appeal or petition against any sentence of imprisonment …”
“in every system of law of any civilised State there is always a right of appeal against any sentence of imprisonment.” That is the maxim they quoted with approval. They used it to allow an extraordinary appeal from the Supreme Court to the Supreme Court for the solicitor, Mr Tim Crosland, who had been fined £5,000. (Having agreed to hear the appeal, they found against him).[2]
So the Supreme Court has ruled that there must be a right to appeal against imprisonment, unless your name is Craig Murray, you are connected to Julian Assange, you are a "war on terror" whistleblower, a fundamental Scottish Independence supporter or otherwise regarded by the state as a dissident outside the normal realm of respectability.
Remember that the fine words above are from the same Supreme Court that refused me a right of appeal. What a bunch of stinking hypocrites.
