1. It has been suggested in various Newspaper Articles, Media interviews, Blogs etc that documents revealed during the Catholic Church child abuse scandal have implicated the Church in general and Pope Benedict in particular in a criminal conspiracy to facilitate child abuse or alternatively to obstruct justice by failing to report allegations of child abuse to public authorities.
2. In looking at these allegations I shall principally rely on broad legal principles drawing on examples within English Common or statute law and international law. Though every country has its own particular laws and legal system and the details differ from country to country it is the case that legal broad principles are generally the same across civilised legal systems. In addition by definition if something done by the Church could be held to constitute a crime within one country only by reason of the specific wording of the law of that country then by definition it can hardly constitute an international criminal conspiracy spread across several countries.
3. The Church Documents I shall deal with are “Crimen Solicitonis” issued to all Bishops of the Church in 1962 and “De Delictis Gravioribus” also issued to all Bishops of the Church in 2001 and signed by the then Cardinal Ratzinger; this document was accompanied by a covering letter Sacramentorum Sanctitatis Tutela signed by Pope John Paul II. I shall refer to these documents as the “1962 letter” and the “2001 letter”. As a side point I note that the 2001 letter was published in the 2001 issue of the Vatican Year Book Acta Apostolicae Sedis for 2001 which is a document that has always been publicly available and not secret, and the 2001 letter specifically refers to the 1961 letter
CONSPIRACY etc
4. In English Statute Law the crime of conspiracy requires two or more persons to agree to carry out a course of conduct which “will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence” ( Section 1(1) of the Criminal Law Act 1977) whilst the Common Law definition of conspiracy accepted by the US Supreme Court in Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777 (1975), United States v. Shabani, 513 U.S. 10 (1994) involves “an agreement to commit an unlawful act” and a21 of the Canadian Criminal Code requires “an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose”
5. In his Guardian Article suggesting that the Pope should be arrested when he visits Britain Geoffrey Robinson QC accused the Pope and the Church of “aiding and abetting sex with minors.”. Under English Law “aiding and abetting” requires the accused person to perform “an act capable of encouraging or assisting the commission of an offence” either “intending” or “believing” that the act will “encourage or assist its commission” (ss44 - 46 Serious Crime Act 2007) similar provisions apply in the criminal laws of Canada Australia and the USA.
6. Therefore in order to have the basis for a criminal prosecution either of conspiracy or aiding and abetting it is necessary to prove that the defendant (in this case the Pope and/or other Church officials) did acts (actus reus) which helped sex offenders to commit their crimes and/or to evade justice and that the intention (mens rea) of the Church was to assist in the commission of those crimes or the evasion of justice. In order for there to be a conviction for criminal conspiracy or aiding and abetting, under English law,there must be a deliberate intention that a crime should be committed (Callow v Tillstone (1900) 83 LT 411) and my understanding of the law in USA Australia and Canada is that the principle is the same in those jurisdictions.
7. The importance of intention to assist in a breaking of the law (mens rea) was emphasised in the House of Lords case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority [1986] AC 112 where the House of Lords held that supplying contraceptive advise to under 16 year old girls did not constitute the criminal offence of aiding and abetting unlawful sexual intercourse even though (from a lay point of view) that would be the natural and inevitable consequence of the doctors actions
8. Therefore in order to prosecute the Pope or the Church on the basis of the 1962 or 2001 letters it is necessary to show that the intention behind the letters was to assist crime and careful reading of both letters show that they were in fact mainly aimed at dealing with acts which were not criminal
1962 & 2001 LETTERS
9. When examining the two letters it is important to bear in mind that they apply to the Church throughout the world and as such attempts to apply consistent internal Church rules to countries with a range of different legal rules and cultures. In the 2001 letter for example the age of a minor is set as up to 18 whilst across the world the legal age of consent for sexual intercourse can range from 13 in Spain or Nigeria to 18 in Swaziland or Idaho; similarly whilst consensual homosexual sex between adults is now legal in most countries it is still illegal in many countries and indeed was illegal in England until 1967
10. More importantly the two letters only deal with the internal procedures to be adopted by the Church in deciding whether a Priest accused of acts (which might or might not be criminal in the country in which they occur) should be disciplined by the Church and possibly removed from the priesthood. Nowhere in the letters is there any instruction that the civil authorities (Police) should not be told about allegations of criminal behaviour.
11. There is, of course, the criticism that neither letter gives direct and clear instructions that the civil authorities must be informed however that ignores the fact, already mentioned, that many allegations may be criminal in one jurisdiction but not criminal in another and many of the acts mentioned in the 1962 and 2001 letters are not criminal in any jurisdiction. For example a Priest who has sex with a 14 year old girl in Spain does not commit a crime but would in England, a Priest who has an adulterous heterosexual relationship would not commit a crime in England but would commit a crime in Iran which could lead to him and the woman being stoned to death, similarly with homosexual behaviour by a Priest. All of those would be regarded by the Church as offences contrary to the two letters but would be regarded in entirely different lights by law enforcement officials in different countries.
12. It is also important to remember that the 1962 letter was issued in 1962, when consensual interacial sex was illegal in much of the United States as well as in South Africa, when Communism ruled much of the world and when a person who attended Church could lose their job if the Communist authorities became aware. 1962 was only 4 years before the start of the Cultural Revolution in China when Churches were attacked and Priests killed, only 6 years after the crushing of the Hungarian uprising and 6 years before the crushing of the Prague Spring. In those circumstances it is hardly surprising if Church instructions did not require that all State authorities be automatically informed of any allegations made against a priest.
13. In addition it should be remembered that the 1962 letter was a reissue of an earlier letter issued in 1922 and that year must also be seen in its historical context. The Bolsheviks had just finalised their grip on power and persecution of the Church and Church authorities was intense. In Mexico Anti-clerical violence and state sanctioned murder of priests was beginning (dramatised in The Power and the Glory by Graham Green)and China was in chaos being ruled either by Warlords or Japanese occupation. Once again it is unrealistic to expect that an instruction to the Church throughout the world would give instructions that in every country the civil authorities should automatically be informed that a criminal allegation had been made. After all how does a Bishop report a crime to the Police when being a Bishop is itself a crime ?
Criminal Conspiracy
14. Though the main attention on the 1962 letter has concentrated on the issue of Child Abuse any suggestion that it is intended to assist in a conspiracy of child abuse has to take account of the fact that the 1962 letter primarily deals with “Solicitation in the Confessional” which would not constitute a criminal offence in most legal systems. The letter then mentions in para 71 Homosexual relationships, and deals in para 73 with sexual relationships with minors or with animals and applies the same rules to those offences as it has applied to the (non criminal) practice of solicitation in the confessional.
15. Therefore if the 1962 letter is to be regarded as evidence of a criminal conspiracy that is inconsistent with the fact that its primary focus is on an activity which is not criminal because if the primary focus is on an activity which (though reprehensible) is legal then there is no evidence that the intention of the document or the drafters of the document was to aid unlawful acts.
16. This particular analysis is strengthened by the 2001 letter which besides the offences listed in the 1962 letter also deals with such non-criminal acts as “the taking or retaining for a sacrilegious purpose, or the throwing away of the consecrated species (Host)” (Art 2 1.1 “consecration for a sacrilegious purpose of one matter (ie bread or wine) without the other in a Eucharistic celebration “ Art 2.2. In simple terms it is impossible to establish a case of criminal conspiracy based on a document which is primarily focused on dealing with acts which are not in themselves criminal.
Secrecy
17. An important part of the allegations involving the 1962 and 2001 letters involve the “oath of Secrecy” required of those who give evidence or participate in one of the Churches own Courts dealing with allegations against a Priest. As a lawyer in the Anglo Saxon Common Law tradition I can understand that criticism however once again it is important to remember that both letters apply throughout the world and therefore to countries with vastly different legal traditions. In Portugal for example Article 86 of the Portuguese penal code imposes “Judicial Secrecy” on all witnesses in a criminal investigation, a legal rule which seemed incomprehensible to the British Media during the Madeleine McCann case
18. Similarly in England prior to a trial there are extensive legal restrictions on what the media can report but no such restrictions apply in the United States
19. More pertinently perhaps it must be remembered that in general Church Tribunals have no legal standing within their individual countries and without a promise of secrecy it may be difficult if not impossible for them to operate. If, for example, a Priest was facing an allegation of sexual abuse which, for whatever reason, was not being prosecuted in the state courts then witnesses who gave evidence could potentially be sued by him for slander or, in some countries, possibly even prosecuted for criminal libel. In other jurisdictions the party making the complaint could possibly face execution (if the allegation related to an adulterous or homosexual relationship) or social ostracism. Requiring an oath of secrecy can therefore be justified as providing both witnesses and also the accused with some protection for their reputation and, in some countries, their personal safety.
20. In England Police Disciplinary Tribunals sit in secret (Reg 32(1) Police (Conduct) Regulations 2008). In April 2010 it was discovered that 12 years previously a Police Constable had been convicted of assaulting a suspect but had not been dismissed, he subsequently went on to seriously assault a 19 year old female suspect. Though there was criticism of the Police there was no suggestion that the decision by the (secret) Disciplinary Tribunal was in any way illegal
Summary
21. Church authorities in individual countries can be criticised for responding inadequately to allegations of child abuse and those situations have to be dealt with country by country but the main allegation being made against the Church and the Pope is an allegation of criminal conduct and that allegation is not justified by any proper analysis of the facts, the evidence or the law.
Monday, 26 July 2010
Monday, 12 July 2010
Sharia Law in Britain - How Significant ?
The One Law For All Campaign has recently held a demonstration in Trafalgar Square opposing the spread of Sharia Based Tribunals in Britain and has issued a booklet Sharia Law in Britain a Threat to One Law for All and Equal Rights. Though I have sympathy with some of the objections raised by the campaign I do consider that the issue is rather more complex and subtle than they suggest
Following the demonstration Maryam Namazie who directs the campaign wrote an Article in The Guardian and I was asked to write one in response I hope that both articles are a worthwhile contribution to this complex debate that can inspire very strong feelings on both sides
Maryam Namazie - The Guardian 5 July 2010
Neil Addison - The Guardian 8 July 2010
Following the demonstration Maryam Namazie who directs the campaign wrote an Article in The Guardian and I was asked to write one in response I hope that both articles are a worthwhile contribution to this complex debate that can inspire very strong feelings on both sides
Maryam Namazie - The Guardian 5 July 2010
Neil Addison - The Guardian 8 July 2010
Monday, 5 July 2010
Doe v Holy See - Not as Important as it appears
Many media outlets have been announcing that the Vatican has been stripped of its Diplomatic Immunity by the US Supreme Court of which this Article in the Guardian Newspaper “Without its immunity, can the Vatican survive ?” is fairly typical. Unlike just about everyone else who seems to have commented on the subject I decided to find the facts first and comment afterwards and the actual legal facts are quite different from what is being reported.
Firstly the US Supreme Court has not made any decision for or against the Vatican, or The Holy See as it is more properly termed, what the Court has done is to refuse to review a decision made by a lower Court namely the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and this is simply reported on the Supreme Court website as “Certiorari Denied” along with a large number of other refusals of “cert”. I will deal with the implications of the Supreme Court refusing cert later but for the moment will look at the 9th Circuit decision itself Doe v Holy See No 06-35563
I am, of course, not an American Lawyer but the US and England share a common legal heritage and approach as is well demonstrated in this case which followed exactly the same legal principles applied in an English “strike out” application. A strike out application occurs before a trial and requires the Court to assume, FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, that everything alleged by the plaintiff is true which is exactly the assumption the 9th Circuit was required to make when it was considering this appeal. It is important to be clear on this point, there has been no trial regarding Does allegations or assertions and all the legal proceedings so far have been entirely questions of law.
In the case Doe ( a pseudonym) is alleging that he was abused around about 1965 by a Priest Father Ronan (who is now dead); whilst it is difficult to see how there can be a fair trial on something alleged to have been done 45 years ago that was not the issue before the 9th Circuit. In his claim Doe sued two US Diocese and also Ronans Religious Order which would be the normal defendants in this type of case. What made the case unique was that Doe also sued the Holy See on two basis namely that the Holy See was vicariously liable for the (alleged) acts of the 2 Diocese and the Order which he claimed to be the “agents or instrumentalities” of the Holy See, it was also alleged that Father Ronan was an “employee” of the Holy See and as such the Holy See was vicariously Liable for Ronans (alleged) acts.
Now it is important to understand that the 9th Circuit accepted completely that the Holy See was a Sovereign State under International and US law and as such was entitled to exactly the same diplomatic and legal immunity enjoyed by every other Sovereign State, no more and no less. Under US law no sovereign state enjoys blanket immunity from suit and every sovereign state can be sued under the provisions of the “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act” (Wikipedia summary here) for Torts (Civil Wrongs) committed by its employees unless they are engaged in acts “peculiar to sovereigns” eg acting as an Ambassador or Consul.
To make a comparison, and without getting too technical, if an employee of the UK Government in the USA sexually assaulted a minor whilst visiting an American School in the course of his or her duties then the UK Government could be sued in the American Courts for damages arising from that Tort however that would not affect the status of the UK as a Sovereign independent state nor would it affect the general legal principle that UK Embassy staff cannot be sued for acts committed in carrying out their official duties. Similarly a British Trade mission could be sued for Torts committed by its staff in the course of their duties because the work of a Trade mission is not work “peculiar to sovereigns” [NB 'Sovereigns' in this context means any foreign ruler or Government whether republican or monarchical]
The 9th Circuit made no decision as to whether Father Ronan had or had not done anything wrong nor did they decide whether he was or was not an Employee of the Holy See. As I have already mentioned, there has not yet been a trial and no examination of any evidence and for the purposes of deciding whether the Holy See COULD be liable the 9th Circuit had to accept the bare assertion by Doe that Father Ronan was an employee of the Holy See. On that basis they decided that if (and it is a very big IF) Ronan was an employee of the Holy See then the Holy See would be vicariously liable for his actions. Whilst the question of whether Fr Ronan was an Employee of the Holy See will depend on the exact definition of “employee” in Oregon law it is up to Doe to prove that Fr Ronan was an Employee and I doubt if he will be able to do that especially if Fr Ronan was paid by the Diocese and/or his Order
More significantly the 9th Circuit decided that the American Diocese and the Order were not “agents or instrumentalities” of the Holy See and therefore the Holy See is not vicariously liable for any actions of the Diocese or their employees. That I think is the real core decision in this case and I suspect the lawyers for the Holy See are happy about it because it clearly distinguishes between the status of the Holy See as an Internationally recognised state under International Law and the status of the Diocese etc of the Catholic Church as nationally recognised Religious Organisations under US law. The Court noted for example that the Holy See can only be sued in the US Federal Courts under the defined terms of the “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act” whilst Catholic Diocese etc can be sued in both State and Federal Courts under ordinary Tort liability, conversely American Catholic Diocese etc enjoy the protection of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution whilst the Holy See does not.
In Summary therefore the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (NOT the United States Supreme Court) has decided
PS For my American Legal Readers (if any). If I have misunderstood or misrepresented American Law or procedure please let me know and I will correct the Blog. As an aside I do find the fact that American court Judgments contain “footnotes” very peculiar and unique to US Judgments. Yes I know I'm a Limey and you have just celebrated 4th July but honestly lads it does look weird !
Firstly the US Supreme Court has not made any decision for or against the Vatican, or The Holy See as it is more properly termed, what the Court has done is to refuse to review a decision made by a lower Court namely the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and this is simply reported on the Supreme Court website as “Certiorari Denied” along with a large number of other refusals of “cert”. I will deal with the implications of the Supreme Court refusing cert later but for the moment will look at the 9th Circuit decision itself Doe v Holy See No 06-35563
I am, of course, not an American Lawyer but the US and England share a common legal heritage and approach as is well demonstrated in this case which followed exactly the same legal principles applied in an English “strike out” application. A strike out application occurs before a trial and requires the Court to assume, FOR THE SAKE OF THE ARGUMENT, that everything alleged by the plaintiff is true which is exactly the assumption the 9th Circuit was required to make when it was considering this appeal. It is important to be clear on this point, there has been no trial regarding Does allegations or assertions and all the legal proceedings so far have been entirely questions of law.
In the case Doe ( a pseudonym) is alleging that he was abused around about 1965 by a Priest Father Ronan (who is now dead); whilst it is difficult to see how there can be a fair trial on something alleged to have been done 45 years ago that was not the issue before the 9th Circuit. In his claim Doe sued two US Diocese and also Ronans Religious Order which would be the normal defendants in this type of case. What made the case unique was that Doe also sued the Holy See on two basis namely that the Holy See was vicariously liable for the (alleged) acts of the 2 Diocese and the Order which he claimed to be the “agents or instrumentalities” of the Holy See, it was also alleged that Father Ronan was an “employee” of the Holy See and as such the Holy See was vicariously Liable for Ronans (alleged) acts.
Now it is important to understand that the 9th Circuit accepted completely that the Holy See was a Sovereign State under International and US law and as such was entitled to exactly the same diplomatic and legal immunity enjoyed by every other Sovereign State, no more and no less. Under US law no sovereign state enjoys blanket immunity from suit and every sovereign state can be sued under the provisions of the “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act” (Wikipedia summary here) for Torts (Civil Wrongs) committed by its employees unless they are engaged in acts “peculiar to sovereigns” eg acting as an Ambassador or Consul.
To make a comparison, and without getting too technical, if an employee of the UK Government in the USA sexually assaulted a minor whilst visiting an American School in the course of his or her duties then the UK Government could be sued in the American Courts for damages arising from that Tort however that would not affect the status of the UK as a Sovereign independent state nor would it affect the general legal principle that UK Embassy staff cannot be sued for acts committed in carrying out their official duties. Similarly a British Trade mission could be sued for Torts committed by its staff in the course of their duties because the work of a Trade mission is not work “peculiar to sovereigns” [NB 'Sovereigns' in this context means any foreign ruler or Government whether republican or monarchical]
The 9th Circuit made no decision as to whether Father Ronan had or had not done anything wrong nor did they decide whether he was or was not an Employee of the Holy See. As I have already mentioned, there has not yet been a trial and no examination of any evidence and for the purposes of deciding whether the Holy See COULD be liable the 9th Circuit had to accept the bare assertion by Doe that Father Ronan was an employee of the Holy See. On that basis they decided that if (and it is a very big IF) Ronan was an employee of the Holy See then the Holy See would be vicariously liable for his actions. Whilst the question of whether Fr Ronan was an Employee of the Holy See will depend on the exact definition of “employee” in Oregon law it is up to Doe to prove that Fr Ronan was an Employee and I doubt if he will be able to do that especially if Fr Ronan was paid by the Diocese and/or his Order
More significantly the 9th Circuit decided that the American Diocese and the Order were not “agents or instrumentalities” of the Holy See and therefore the Holy See is not vicariously liable for any actions of the Diocese or their employees. That I think is the real core decision in this case and I suspect the lawyers for the Holy See are happy about it because it clearly distinguishes between the status of the Holy See as an Internationally recognised state under International Law and the status of the Diocese etc of the Catholic Church as nationally recognised Religious Organisations under US law. The Court noted for example that the Holy See can only be sued in the US Federal Courts under the defined terms of the “Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act” whilst Catholic Diocese etc can be sued in both State and Federal Courts under ordinary Tort liability, conversely American Catholic Diocese etc enjoy the protection of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution whilst the Holy See does not.
In Summary therefore the United States 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (NOT the United States Supreme Court) has decided
- The Holy See is a Sovereign State under US Law
- The Holy See can only be sued in the US on the same basis as any Sovereign State and enjoys exactly the same immunity from suit as any other Sovereign State
- Catholic Diocese and Organisations in the US are not “Agents or Instrumentalities” of the Holy See and the Holy See cannot be held liable for their actions
- The Holy See can only be sued with respect to the Acts of its “employees” and not for the acts of Catholic Priests etc generally
PS For my American Legal Readers (if any). If I have misunderstood or misrepresented American Law or procedure please let me know and I will correct the Blog. As an aside I do find the fact that American court Judgments contain “footnotes” very peculiar and unique to US Judgments. Yes I know I'm a Limey and you have just celebrated 4th July but honestly lads it does look weird !
Thursday, 17 June 2010
Singh v Singh
The case of Singh v Singh [2010] EWHC 1294 (QB) is worth a read because it deals with the issue of where the Courts draw the line in becoming involved in issues of religious belief. Mr Hardeep Singh (Defendant) had written an article in the Sikh Times questioning the religious validity etc of His Holiness Sant Baba Jeet Singh Ji Maharaj (Claimant), accusing him of being the leader of a Cult a Blasphemer and of engaging in religious practices which were incompatible with Sikhism. In response Jeet Singh sued Hardeep Singh for Libel.
The Judgment sets out both the particulars of claim and the defence and it is clear from them that any trial would involve an argument about the exact beliefs of Sikhism. For that reason Mr Justice Eady decided that the issues in the case
"cannot be isolated and resolved without reference to Sikh doctrines and traditions" and for that reason the case had to be stopped because Secular Courts cannot decide religious issues.
Interestingly enough the case seems to run counter to another recent case where Dr Taj Hargey of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford brought a claim for libel HERE and HERE against the Muslim Weekly which had accused him of being an Ahmadiyya Muslim (NB Other Muslims do not consider the Ahmadiyya to be Muslims and in Pakistan it is illegal for Ahmadiyya to call themselves Muslim or to call their places of worship Mosques).
Of course the case was settled before coming to trial but nevertheless it does seem that nobody in the Muslim Weekly's legal team thought to argue that the entire issue was outside the jurisdiction of the Secular Courts.
The Judgment sets out both the particulars of claim and the defence and it is clear from them that any trial would involve an argument about the exact beliefs of Sikhism. For that reason Mr Justice Eady decided that the issues in the case
"cannot be isolated and resolved without reference to Sikh doctrines and traditions" and for that reason the case had to be stopped because Secular Courts cannot decide religious issues.
Interestingly enough the case seems to run counter to another recent case where Dr Taj Hargey of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford brought a claim for libel HERE and HERE against the Muslim Weekly which had accused him of being an Ahmadiyya Muslim (NB Other Muslims do not consider the Ahmadiyya to be Muslims and in Pakistan it is illegal for Ahmadiyya to call themselves Muslim or to call their places of worship Mosques).
Of course the case was settled before coming to trial but nevertheless it does seem that nobody in the Muslim Weekly's legal team thought to argue that the entire issue was outside the jurisdiction of the Secular Courts.
Bloody Sunday
In one sense for me to comment on the Bloody Sunday Saville Inquiry means going outside the purposes of this Blog however since the Northern Ireland conflict has been defined in large part by religious differences forming a toxic mixture with racial and political differences the issue is I suppose peripherally relevant so I will comment on the possibility of the Soldiers of Bloody Sunday being prosecuted.
Firstly there is no doubt that what happened on 30 January 1972 was grotesquely wrong and everyone knew that at the time, similarly the Widgery Report was a disgrace and, once again, everyone knew that at the time. The soldiers should have been tried 38 years ago but they were not and the question is should they now be charged 38 years on. In those 38 years there have been many dead bodies in the streets of Northern Ireland and from terrorism in Great Britain and there are many unsolved and unpunished murders from those years. There is now a political settlement which though unsatisfactory in many ways has brought a peace to Northern Ireland the price of that peace has had to include allowing convicted murderers to go free and allowing into government those who have terrorist pasts and who are undoubtedly responsible for terrible murders and maimings in that past. An inevitable consequence of this peace process is that many of the dead of the past will not be given justice but the living of the present have been given peace. There is a trade off here which needs to be applied to the events of Bloody Sunday as much as to any of the other killings of the 30 years of conflict
Most of the discussion on the question of prosecuting the paratroopers of Bloody Sunday seems to concentrate on whether prosecutions should be brought and little attention seemed to have been paid to the question "Would Prosecutions Succeed ?" Merely because Lord Saville has reached the conclusions he has "on a balance of probabilities" after an extensive inquiry does not mean that another Judge and a Jury would reach the same conclusions "beyond reasonable doubt" in the much more exacting evidential framework of a Criminal Trial. The conclusions of the Saville inquiry do not constitute evidence for a Criminal Trial and the witnesses who gave evidence to Saville would have to give their evidence again in a Criminal Trial which could quite possibly lead to verdicts of Not Guilty. Where would that leave both the Peace process and the findings of the Saville inquiry ?
Most of the discussion on the question of prosecuting the paratroopers of Bloody Sunday seems to concentrate on whether prosecutions should be brought and little attention seemed to have been paid to the question "Would Prosecutions Succeed ?" Merely because Lord Saville has reached the conclusions he has "on a balance of probabilities" after an extensive inquiry does not mean that another Judge and a Jury would reach the same conclusions "beyond reasonable doubt" in the much more exacting evidential framework of a Criminal Trial. The conclusions of the Saville inquiry do not constitute evidence for a Criminal Trial and the witnesses who gave evidence to Saville would have to give their evidence again in a Criminal Trial which could quite possibly lead to verdicts of Not Guilty. Where would that leave both the Peace process and the findings of the Saville inquiry ?
I know it has been suggested that instead of prosecutions for murder the soldiers could be prosecuted for perjury because Lord Saville said he believed they had given false evidence however a prosecution for perjury is even less likely to succeed than a prosecution for Murder because in order to establish that a paratrooper lied on oath the prosecution would have to prove what the truth was. In any event trying to prosecute someone for giving deliberately false evidence about something that occurred 38 years ago is problematic in the extreme. Even if their evidence could be shown to be wrong is it a deliberate lie or the simple fallibility of human memory ?
Also a prosecution for perjury does raise the issue of Martin McGuinness because Lord Saville clearly did not believe Mr McGuinness when he denied having a machine gun on the day. The idea of Mr McGuinness and paratroopers sharing the same dock is amusing but not realistic however if there are to be prosecutions for perjury rather than murder then the position re Mr McGuinness cannot be ignored
Finally any prosecution for perjury would have to take place in England and not in Northern Ireland because the Paratroopers gave their sworn evidence in London-England and not in London-Derry. I doubt if an English Jury would rush to convict. People in mainland Britain have accepted the release of convicted IRA etc killers as part of the peace process but if there were to be prosecutions of soldiers sent to Northern Ireland then that could be seen as double standards.
Personally I think Northern Ireland would have benefited from a South African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission rather than the Saville Inquiry but now that the inquiry has finally issued its report I hope that it may provide an end to Northern Ireland looking always at its past when it should instead be looking to the future
Personally I think Northern Ireland would have benefited from a South African style Truth and Reconciliation Commission rather than the Saville Inquiry but now that the inquiry has finally issued its report I hope that it may provide an end to Northern Ireland looking always at its past when it should instead be looking to the future
Monday, 24 May 2010
The autonomy of bishops, and suing the Vatican
Two excellent and detailed articles in an American Catholic journal regarding the current attempts in the USA to sue the Pope and/or The Vatican over American Child Sex abuse. Well worth reading
http://ncronline.org/news/autonomy-bishops-and-suing-vatican
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/obama-administration-sides-vatican-oregon-case
http://ncronline.org/news/autonomy-bishops-and-suing-vatican
http://ncronline.org/blogs/ncr-today/obama-administration-sides-vatican-oregon-case
What have you been saying, homophobic wise ?
The story about a Christian Street preacher, Mr Dale Mcalpine, who was arrested fro saying "Homosexuality is a sin" is a worrying reflection of the current obsession by Police and officialdom with the murky concept of "Hate crime".
The actual facts of the arrest of Dale Mcalpine were recorded on video and make worrying watching
The uniformed official grinning vacantly in the background is apparently the PCSO (Police Community Support Officer) who had actually called the Police to report Mcalpine preacher for "Homophobia". The first words of the Police when they arrive is
"Hello sir. What have you been saying, homophobic wise ?"
which hardly constitutes any form of articulate meaningful question and the conversation then gets worse
"McAlpine: I spoke to your officer earlier and he was upset that I was saying homosexuality was a sin – which is what the Bible says. And I affirm that’s what I say because that’s in the Bible. And there’s no law, there’s no law…
Police: Well there is.
McAlpine: No there isn’t.
Police: There is. Unfortunately, mate, it’s a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act"
following which Dale Mcalpine was arrested taken to a Police station, made to give his DNA and Fingerprints and eventually charged only to have that charge unceremoniously dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service once the facts of the case were examined by lawyers and Police officers who were capable of using more than one Brain Cell at a time.
If the arresting Police officer had been correct and it was a breach of s5 of the Public Order Act for someone to say that "Homosexuality is a Sin" that would raise some interesting questions; since when did it become the role of the law to decide what is or is not "a sin" and when did it become illegal to say that any form of behaviour was "a sin". If someone says that adultery is a sin can a serial womaniser demand their arrest, can a fat lazy slob demand the arrest of anyone who says that gluttony and sloth are 2 of the seven deadly sins ?
The real question is of course "Were the 3 Police Officers and 2 PCSO's involved in this situation all idiots or is there a problem with the wording of the law itself" ?
Section 5 which is the law that the arresting Police Officer referred to is one of the most common offences used in the Criminal Courts and most Police Officers and Criminal Lawyers can recite it from memory, What it actually says is.
"Public Order Act 1986, s. 5 Harassment, alarm and distress
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he–
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove–
(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) (arrest provisions now irrelevant)
(5) (arrest provisions now irrelevant)
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
S6(4)Mental element: miscellaneous)
A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly"
So the arrest of Dale McAlpine depended on the Police deciding that he had used "threatening, abusive or insulting words" when he said that "homosexuality was a sin". There is no legal definition of "threatening, abusive or insulting" because the Courts take the view that words are to be interpreted using their normal and natural meaning. On that basis the words "homosexuality was a sin" were clearly not "threatening" and they were not "abusive" but they could, I suppose, be regarded as "insulting" so the question I pose is "should it be an offence to use words that are insulting ?"
The concept of "insult" is after all very subjective and almost anyone can feel insulted by something. If somebody was to say "Geoffrey Robinson is a much better lawyer than Neil Addison" I might well feel insulted but should I therefore be able to demand that persons arrest, similarly when Nick Clegg denounced David Cameron for having joined up with "nutters" in the European Parliament should he have been arrested ?
To ask the question is itself to state the answer, insults should not of themselves be even considered as criminal. Looking back on the large number of s5 cases I have either prosecuted or defended over the years I cannot think of any "normal" public order situation which could not be covered by the words "threatening and abusive". Most cases under s5 involve people (often drunk) yelling aggressively and making frequent use of the "F" word and that is the sort of situation that s5 and indeed the entire Public Order Act was supposed to deal with, it was never supposed to deal with the situation where individuals, whether street preachers or otherwise, were expressing their personal opinions.
In the case of the Mohamed Cartoons those who objected to them said they were "insulting" and certainly the flexible, and highly subjective, nature of "insult" was one of my main reasons for opposing the proposed religious hatred law which, as originally proposed by the Labour Government, would have criminalised "threatening, abusive or insulting" words.
In one sense the real problem thrown up by the McAlpine case as with the numerous similar incidents of Police over-reaction to complaints of Homophobia, Islamaphobia, racism etc etc is the abysmally low standard of training of Police officers regarding the nebulous concept of "hate crime"; their lack of training about their duty to defend the legal right of free expression and a simple lack of old fashioned common sense.
Improving Police training in this area is therefore a priority however that improved training might benefit from a simple change in the law namely the removal of "insulting" from all offences in the Public Order Act 1986. If the new government is looking for a way of dealing with situations such as those of Dale McAlpine which tend to bring the Police into disrepute then removing "insulting" from the POA is my suggestion and for those who might want to oppose the suggestion I pose the question "what possible situation can you conceive of where a prosecution would be justified for the use of words which are 'insulting' but which are neither 'abusive' nor 'threatening'
PS I this Blog I have used words that could well be considered "insulting" by the PCSO and Police officers involved in the arrest of Dale McAlpine. Will I be arrested next ? I hope not but with the modern Police force one can never be sure.
The actual facts of the arrest of Dale Mcalpine were recorded on video and make worrying watching
The uniformed official grinning vacantly in the background is apparently the PCSO (Police Community Support Officer) who had actually called the Police to report Mcalpine preacher for "Homophobia". The first words of the Police when they arrive is
"Hello sir. What have you been saying, homophobic wise ?"
which hardly constitutes any form of articulate meaningful question and the conversation then gets worse
"McAlpine: I spoke to your officer earlier and he was upset that I was saying homosexuality was a sin – which is what the Bible says. And I affirm that’s what I say because that’s in the Bible. And there’s no law, there’s no law…
Police: Well there is.
McAlpine: No there isn’t.
Police: There is. Unfortunately, mate, it’s a breach of Section 5 of the Public Order Act"
following which Dale Mcalpine was arrested taken to a Police station, made to give his DNA and Fingerprints and eventually charged only to have that charge unceremoniously dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service once the facts of the case were examined by lawyers and Police officers who were capable of using more than one Brain Cell at a time.
If the arresting Police officer had been correct and it was a breach of s5 of the Public Order Act for someone to say that "Homosexuality is a Sin" that would raise some interesting questions; since when did it become the role of the law to decide what is or is not "a sin" and when did it become illegal to say that any form of behaviour was "a sin". If someone says that adultery is a sin can a serial womaniser demand their arrest, can a fat lazy slob demand the arrest of anyone who says that gluttony and sloth are 2 of the seven deadly sins ?
The real question is of course "Were the 3 Police Officers and 2 PCSO's involved in this situation all idiots or is there a problem with the wording of the law itself" ?
Section 5 which is the law that the arresting Police Officer referred to is one of the most common offences used in the Criminal Courts and most Police Officers and Criminal Lawyers can recite it from memory, What it actually says is.
"Public Order Act 1986, s. 5 Harassment, alarm and distress
(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he–
(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
(2) An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and the other person is also inside that or another dwelling.
(3) It is a defence for the accused to prove–
(a) that he had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress, or
(b) that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the writing, sign or other visible representation displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling, or
(c) that his conduct was reasonable.
(4) (arrest provisions now irrelevant)
(5) (arrest provisions now irrelevant)
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.
S6(4)Mental element: miscellaneous)
A person is guilty of an offence under section 5 only if he intends his words or behaviour, or the writing, sign or other visible representation, to be threatening, abusive or insulting, or is aware that it may be threatening, abusive or insulting or (as the case may be) he intends his behaviour to be or is aware that it may be disorderly"
So the arrest of Dale McAlpine depended on the Police deciding that he had used "threatening, abusive or insulting words" when he said that "homosexuality was a sin". There is no legal definition of "threatening, abusive or insulting" because the Courts take the view that words are to be interpreted using their normal and natural meaning. On that basis the words "homosexuality was a sin" were clearly not "threatening" and they were not "abusive" but they could, I suppose, be regarded as "insulting" so the question I pose is "should it be an offence to use words that are insulting ?"
The concept of "insult" is after all very subjective and almost anyone can feel insulted by something. If somebody was to say "Geoffrey Robinson is a much better lawyer than Neil Addison" I might well feel insulted but should I therefore be able to demand that persons arrest, similarly when Nick Clegg denounced David Cameron for having joined up with "nutters" in the European Parliament should he have been arrested ?
To ask the question is itself to state the answer, insults should not of themselves be even considered as criminal. Looking back on the large number of s5 cases I have either prosecuted or defended over the years I cannot think of any "normal" public order situation which could not be covered by the words "threatening and abusive". Most cases under s5 involve people (often drunk) yelling aggressively and making frequent use of the "F" word and that is the sort of situation that s5 and indeed the entire Public Order Act was supposed to deal with, it was never supposed to deal with the situation where individuals, whether street preachers or otherwise, were expressing their personal opinions.
In the case of the Mohamed Cartoons those who objected to them said they were "insulting" and certainly the flexible, and highly subjective, nature of "insult" was one of my main reasons for opposing the proposed religious hatred law which, as originally proposed by the Labour Government, would have criminalised "threatening, abusive or insulting" words.
In one sense the real problem thrown up by the McAlpine case as with the numerous similar incidents of Police over-reaction to complaints of Homophobia, Islamaphobia, racism etc etc is the abysmally low standard of training of Police officers regarding the nebulous concept of "hate crime"; their lack of training about their duty to defend the legal right of free expression and a simple lack of old fashioned common sense.
Improving Police training in this area is therefore a priority however that improved training might benefit from a simple change in the law namely the removal of "insulting" from all offences in the Public Order Act 1986. If the new government is looking for a way of dealing with situations such as those of Dale McAlpine which tend to bring the Police into disrepute then removing "insulting" from the POA is my suggestion and for those who might want to oppose the suggestion I pose the question "what possible situation can you conceive of where a prosecution would be justified for the use of words which are 'insulting' but which are neither 'abusive' nor 'threatening'
PS I this Blog I have used words that could well be considered "insulting" by the PCSO and Police officers involved in the arrest of Dale McAlpine. Will I be arrested next ? I hope not but with the modern Police force one can never be sure.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
