View printer friendly version |

It’s starting to happen. Well, at least for me it is. I’m finding myself mumbling my nationality, when asked by new acquaintances on the continent or elsewhere. And it’s not a mumble derived from modesty, like when one is asked what class of degree they have and you can barely make it out when they very considerately whisper the word: “first”. No, the truth is it’s becoming almost as embarrassing to be English as it was for some to be American under Bush.

What have we done this time, to ourselves?

Section 12 of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Act 2004, came into force on 30th September 2009. Among other things, it has inserted a new section 5A into the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The result of this new section entitled “Restraining orders on acquittal” is in its own words that, “(1) A court before which a person (“the defendant”) is acquitted of an offence may, if it considers it necessary to do so to protect a person from harassment by the defendant, make an order prohibiting the defendant from doing anything described in the order.”

So an innocent person, one charged and then acquitted, perhaps from harassment charges, can still be subjected to a restraining order.

The section has in mind the inconvenience and (extended trauma) of needing to apply for a restraining order in the civil courts separate to the criminal court proceedings. In that sense the new amendments make sense. But now we have a situation where our criminal courts and the classic statement that one is innocent until proven guilty have surely been completely undermined. Whoever heard of guilty even if proven innocent?

Yes the standard of proof in civil courts is less, on a balance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt, but surely it makes a mockery of the criminal system, to say to an accused on the one hand, “you are innocent” and then on the next, “but not that innocent”.

The focus of the each forum was not identical until now. In the criminal court, the question to which one needed an affirmative answer beyond reasonable doubt was roughly, “is this individual harassing this other person”. In the civil court the question, needing an affirmative answer on the balance of probabilities was, “is this individual convicted of harassing this other person likely to continue the harassment without being restrained”.

Now one forum effectively asks the same question, and may have two different answers, according to both standard of proofs: “is it necessary to restrain this individual to prevent further harassment?” The court may say “no”, because in its criminal eye there hasn’t even been any harassment, but it might also say “yes” because in its civil eye there has been, and it’s likely to worsen.

There are so many synonyms for “nonsense”, really there are, look some up, but none of them, not one, quite seem strong enough to accurately describe this situation.

Protesting proximate to parliament

In my last post I mentioned in a comment the UK Governments pledge to the other nations of the UN Human Rights Council last year (during it’s UPR) to repeal sections 132-138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, prohibiting protest within 1km of parliament without prior permission from the police. As far as I am aware this pledge has not been fulfilled, no repeal has yet happened. Am I wrong? I hope so.