Author Archives: Neil Hickman

We do have a two tier system, Part 2

One of the changes to civil court procedure which was made following Lord Woolf’s report in 1996 was to require a party’s statement of case to be verified by a statement of truth.

To put forward a case which you know to be a pack of lies, in other words, became a contempt of court and punishable by imprisonment.

There have been any number of cases in the last few years where people have put forward lying and fraudulent personal injury claims, and the courts have taken a pretty stern line. Thus the Court of Appeal in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Zafar  (2019) “We say at once, however, that the deliberate or reckless making of a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth will usually be so inherently serious that nothing other than an order for committal to prison will be sufficient”. 

Similarly Lord Justice Moses in  South Wales Fire and Rescue Service v Smith  (2011): “Those who make such false claims if caught should expect to go to prison. There is no other way to underline the gravity of the conduct. There is no other way to deter those who may be tempted to make such claims, and there is no other way to improve the administration of justice”.

Now, those with long memories may recall the case of Mr Afzal, the defeated Labour candidate in Aston, Birmingham, in 2022. He had the brass neck to bring an election petition complaining that the Lib Dems had made false allegations against him during the campaign. He withdrew the petition after video footage emerged showing that the Lib Dem allegations had been absolutely true. The judge angrily commented that Mr Afzal “… had the audacity to issue these proceedings in the knowledge that the allegations quite properly made by the Respondents in the course of the election campaign were truthful. He persisted with the Petition and served evidence from himself and others which was and he must have known to be false”.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged | 1 Comment

We do have a two-tier system

I think Nigel Farage is right. We do have two-tier policing.

No, let me finish, as the man himself is fond of saying.

A couple of years ago, Lucy Connolly, a troubled and not especially clever individual, posted an unpleasant and inflammatory tweet in the aftermath of the Southport murders. She thought better of it and deleted it after a few hours. And it is difficult to believe that anybody sought to set fire to anything simply because of what an obscure woman from Northampton posted on Twitter.

What Connolly wrote was deeply unpleasant, but I can’t help feeling that the most appropriate thing to do with her would have been to tear her off a strip and tell her not to be such a fool in future. Given the very prescriptive approach to sentencing which now applies, of course, the judge’s hands were tied and she was jailed for two and a half years.

A few days ago, Nigel Farage ignored the request of Henry Nowak’s family not to make his murder the cause of division. With all the authority of the leader of a party that polled 17% at the last election, he made an Emergency Address To The Nation, which, because it was Good Old Nige, didn’t provoke gales of laughter. And he called for people to display “pure cold rage”. Unlike Ms Connolly, Farage is a highly intelligent wordsmith, who chooses his words with care. And he did not invite people to be angry. He invited them to display rage.

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged and | 16 Comments

Palestine Action – a lawyer writes

Chambers’ Dictionary defines terrorism as “an organized system of violence and intimidation, especially for political ends, and the state of fear and submission caused by this”. The Terrorism Act 2000 has a rather wider definition. Section 1 includes action designed to influence the government, and includes serious damage to property.

That means that Yvette Cooper was almost certainly within her powers in asking Parliament to proscribe Palestine Action; but the actions of that group are not within the everyday understanding of the concept of terrorism. When I learned of the events at Brize Norton, my reaction was not “I am terrified” but “Whatever was the RAF playing at, that a group of peaceniks could hop over the perimeter fence, walk up to several million pounds’ worth of warplane, and trash it?”

And while proscribing the organisation was probably lawful, it doesn’t seem to have been remotely sensible. Proscription has led to some entirely predictable over-reach, exemplified by Jon Farley’s arrest for holding up a copy of a Private Eye cartoon, and Roger Cauthery being refused admission to the Royal Albert Hall for wearing a small lapel pin bearing the Palestinian flag. And it has also led to an entirely predictable embarrassment for the Metropolitan Police as hundreds of eminently respectable people very publicly hold up placards proclaiming “I OPPOSE GENOCIDE…” The dilemma is that either you arrest all these people and look ridiculous, or you don’t and acknowledge that the law is a meaningless nonsense.

The Terrorism Act 2000 was another in a long line of badly thought out pieces of legislation seeking to address terrorist threats. The first of them, of course, was the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974, the first achievement of which was the framing of the Guildford Four. The 2000 Act hasn’t caused too much difficulty up to now because it has generally been applied with good sense. What appears to have been an angry reaction to what was admittedly a serious and reprehensible piece of criminality did not involve good sense.

Interviewing Jonathan Porritt on Newsnight, Victoria Derbyshire rather sententiously suggested that you can’t pick and choose what laws to obey. It’s understandable that history, and the BBC, appears to have forgotten the post-war saga of identity cards. These were introduced as an emergency measure at the outbreak of World War 2. The post-war Labour Government “omitted” to repeal the relevant legislation, and the practice grew up of the Police routinely demanding the production of identity cards whenever they stopped someone. One Harry Willcock, an unrepentant Liberal member of the Awkward Squad, was stopped for speeding and refused “on principle” to produce his identity card. On his appeal from the inevitable conviction before the Magistrates, Lord Goddard, no wet liberal (and indeed, in my book, possibly one of the worst Chief Justices of all time) said:

Posted in Op-eds | Tagged , and | 13 Comments
Advert

Recent Comments

  • Jason Connor
    The Greens, Lib Dems and Conservatives are all standing. They all see sense and believe in democratic choices....
  • Mick Taylor
    @Lawrence Cox. To read your comment one might want to believe that the Triple Lock has ensured pensioners have decent pensions. It hasn't and UK state pensions ...
  • Chloe
    A Blue Labour response recent events in Hampshire. Well worth a read. https://www.paulembery.com/p/for-the-race-obsessed-british-state...
  • theakes
    A new strategy/approach requires a new leader...
  • Kira Collins
    You use the phrase “fiscal federalism” and “financial autonomy” but have not used the phase I had hoped to see that is drawn out of both: fiscal autonom...