| home articles blog letters retractions vacancies competitions about us contact _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ |
|
Sir Hugh Jafee, QC, lights your ire: Anti-terror laws
by Sir Hugh Jafee, QC
Friday, November 16, 2007
Friday, November 16, 2007
In my long, distinguished and ultimately extremely well-rewarded career at the Bar, I
have often been asked questions.
Not just any questions, mind you. But pressing legal questions, on a number of
topics. They range from, ‘Is this legal?’ to ‘Do you think we’ll get away with it?’
The answer, very often, requires many chargeable hours’ thought devoted to it, but
through it all there has been one abiding principle, of which I almost never fail to
advise my clients. That principle is that in this country, one is innocent until proven
guilty. Therefore, as I also almost always tell them, if you come to me with clean
hands (or particularly well-scrubbed ones), I will ensure that guilt is never proven,
and so innocence can be maintained. Obviously, if you can’t come to me with clean
hands, then don’t come to me. I’m not in the habit of defending scum who actually
did it.
But the principle can at times seem an especially awkward one to accommodate. It
appears perfectly reasonable to say that a man should not be incarcerated unless we
can prove him guilty of something. That’s all well and good, and it is an admirable
principled stance. Similarly, the idea that people should not be kept locked up
indefinitely whilst the police and security forces search for proof that they did, or
were about to do, something criminal is an equally noble one. I for one would not be
happy at the idea that, just because a particular officer of the law had taken a
displeasure to my mien, my appearance, my extortionately priced Bentley, or my
purchase of fifty tonnes of fertiliser, I might be arrested and thrown in gaol, and left
there to rot, whilst PC Plodder ambles around looking for information with his usual
alacrity, knowing he is not constrained in any meaningful way by time. Thus we have
the ideas that, without evidence, no charge can be brought, and that evidence must
be gathered in a timely fashion, or a suspect must be released. That’s all well and
good, very noble, and as I said, to be applauded.
But where this principle becomes awkward is when we know the chap to be guilty,
but we just don’t have the evidence. How frustrating it must be to be sure that the
chappie you have locked up is the one you want, and not to be able to do anything
about it! I mean, it’s not as if Johnny Terrorist is likely to confess any time soon, is
he? That is why we need to able to keep him locked up whilst evidence-gathering
continues.
The Government has been roundly criticised for proposing up to ninety days
imprisonment without charge for those suspected of terror offences, but what critics
fail to understand is that terrorists cause terror, and must therefore be stopped at
all costs. The Government’s principle is a sound one, and as a member of the
Opposition back benches recently opined, the issue is not one of it not being
necessary, or wrong in principle; it’s simply a question of not making the right
arguments in favour of extending the limits. So I have graciously offered, in return
for my usual fee, plus one peerage, to make the case for them.
People are worried that the new laws will in some way affect them, which is clearly
nonsense. The normal, everyday, law-abiding citizen has nothing to fear. Nothing at
all. These laws aren’t meant to affect people like you and me. This is about them. If
they are terrorists, then obviously they will be affected. And that’s a good thing,
surely? We must all remember in these difficult times that these new powers are only
going to be used when we know the bugger is guilty! If you’re innocent there will be
nothing to worry about, because innocent people remain innocent until something
can be proven. But when did you last meet an innocent terrorist? Think about it; if
they were innocent, they wouldn’t be a terrorist, would they? And if they were not
terrorists, why would they have been arrested for terror activities? The logic is, I
think you will agree, flawless.
Some of the new anti-terror measures will obviously have a minor effect on the day-
to-day running of our lives, but that is to be expected, and, I would venture, even
welcomed. I for one would leap at the opportunity to have my briefcase looked at
quickly before boarding a train; the disruption I have suffered at airports has been
minimal, as they have clearly thought about the impact any extra delays have on
business and first class passengers, and set up fast track systems to keep us
moving, and I have no doubt the good people at Virgin will do the same thing.
I think that allowing some grubby seventeen year old to rifle with his dirty fingers
through your newly purchased lingerie is a small sacrifice when compared to my
travelling in safety and comfort. If the delays upset you, why not think about
booking a first class ticket yourself, and see how much easier things are. If you can’t
afford a first class ticket, and I am assured that there are some who can’t, perhaps
you should consider getting a better job, something more important, like a lawyer,
where people are only too happy to pay for your first class ticket, because they
understand how precious is your time.
Soccer fans too must be prepared to put up with a small inconvenience at the
turnstiles so that we might all enjoy the game on Sky without wondering whether
something other than Wayne Rooney’s temper will explode (I am assured that Mr
Rooney is a popular football player, who is known for occasional outbursts. I have no
idea; I’m a rugby man, myself, but my clerk assures me that this is the sort of thing
that gives my writing that ‘popular touch’, whatever that may be. Sounds like a mass
grope…)
All in all, we should be heartened by the Government’s efforts to keep us all safe.
New barriers against car bombs for all public places? I say let’s get building. Stricter
security before boarding a train or an omnibus (if those still exist)? Absolutely. Don’t
forget; all this is being balanced by the fact that soon we will be able to take more
than one bag onto an aeroplane. (When I say ‘we’, I mean of course, ‘you’. I only fly
Business Class at the very least, and so am allowed more anyway. And a real knife
and fork. And a glass of wine.) Of course, that might mean a few more delays at
Heathrow, but not in the fast track, and that is what matters. Liquids still need to be
restricted, as does make-up, and rightly so. Some of what those people wear is
hideous. But when all is said and done, the Government is doing what it can to
protect both our liberties and our lives. The lefty whingers who claim that ninety
days’ detention is akin to internment have obviously got something to hide. And it
just might take us ninety days to find out what!
So there you have it. Clear and cogent reasons why the new anti-terror laws will be
effective, are necessary, and do not harm the rights of others. We must never forget
that we are dealing with terrorists, and we need to be strong. If you are innocent, or
rich enough to travel in the same carriage as me, your life will be in no way affected.
If you are affected, then you have to accept that you might be a terrorist, or are
poor enough to be one, which amounts to much the same thing. Either way, you
should see this as a small sacrifice, and a necessary one, for the security of the
nation. What’s the alternative? I’ll tell you; without strong anti-terror measures such
as these, you might as well allow illegal immigrants and terrorists to come and work
in the security forces themselves! Then where would be?
Oh…
© lizardmagazine.com, 2007
ALSO SEE...
Sir Hugh Jafee, QC, lights your ire: EU Constitutions
have often been asked questions.
Not just any questions, mind you. But pressing legal questions, on a number of
topics. They range from, ‘Is this legal?’ to ‘Do you think we’ll get away with it?’
The answer, very often, requires many chargeable hours’ thought devoted to it, but
through it all there has been one abiding principle, of which I almost never fail to
advise my clients. That principle is that in this country, one is innocent until proven
guilty. Therefore, as I also almost always tell them, if you come to me with clean
hands (or particularly well-scrubbed ones), I will ensure that guilt is never proven,
and so innocence can be maintained. Obviously, if you can’t come to me with clean
hands, then don’t come to me. I’m not in the habit of defending scum who actually
did it.
But the principle can at times seem an especially awkward one to accommodate. It
appears perfectly reasonable to say that a man should not be incarcerated unless we
can prove him guilty of something. That’s all well and good, and it is an admirable
principled stance. Similarly, the idea that people should not be kept locked up
indefinitely whilst the police and security forces search for proof that they did, or
were about to do, something criminal is an equally noble one. I for one would not be
happy at the idea that, just because a particular officer of the law had taken a
displeasure to my mien, my appearance, my extortionately priced Bentley, or my
purchase of fifty tonnes of fertiliser, I might be arrested and thrown in gaol, and left
there to rot, whilst PC Plodder ambles around looking for information with his usual
alacrity, knowing he is not constrained in any meaningful way by time. Thus we have
the ideas that, without evidence, no charge can be brought, and that evidence must
be gathered in a timely fashion, or a suspect must be released. That’s all well and
good, very noble, and as I said, to be applauded.
But where this principle becomes awkward is when we know the chap to be guilty,
but we just don’t have the evidence. How frustrating it must be to be sure that the
chappie you have locked up is the one you want, and not to be able to do anything
about it! I mean, it’s not as if Johnny Terrorist is likely to confess any time soon, is
he? That is why we need to able to keep him locked up whilst evidence-gathering
continues.
The Government has been roundly criticised for proposing up to ninety days
imprisonment without charge for those suspected of terror offences, but what critics
fail to understand is that terrorists cause terror, and must therefore be stopped at
all costs. The Government’s principle is a sound one, and as a member of the
Opposition back benches recently opined, the issue is not one of it not being
necessary, or wrong in principle; it’s simply a question of not making the right
arguments in favour of extending the limits. So I have graciously offered, in return
for my usual fee, plus one peerage, to make the case for them.
People are worried that the new laws will in some way affect them, which is clearly
nonsense. The normal, everyday, law-abiding citizen has nothing to fear. Nothing at
all. These laws aren’t meant to affect people like you and me. This is about them. If
they are terrorists, then obviously they will be affected. And that’s a good thing,
surely? We must all remember in these difficult times that these new powers are only
going to be used when we know the bugger is guilty! If you’re innocent there will be
nothing to worry about, because innocent people remain innocent until something
can be proven. But when did you last meet an innocent terrorist? Think about it; if
they were innocent, they wouldn’t be a terrorist, would they? And if they were not
terrorists, why would they have been arrested for terror activities? The logic is, I
think you will agree, flawless.
Some of the new anti-terror measures will obviously have a minor effect on the day-
to-day running of our lives, but that is to be expected, and, I would venture, even
welcomed. I for one would leap at the opportunity to have my briefcase looked at
quickly before boarding a train; the disruption I have suffered at airports has been
minimal, as they have clearly thought about the impact any extra delays have on
business and first class passengers, and set up fast track systems to keep us
moving, and I have no doubt the good people at Virgin will do the same thing.
I think that allowing some grubby seventeen year old to rifle with his dirty fingers
through your newly purchased lingerie is a small sacrifice when compared to my
travelling in safety and comfort. If the delays upset you, why not think about
booking a first class ticket yourself, and see how much easier things are. If you can’t
afford a first class ticket, and I am assured that there are some who can’t, perhaps
you should consider getting a better job, something more important, like a lawyer,
where people are only too happy to pay for your first class ticket, because they
understand how precious is your time.
Soccer fans too must be prepared to put up with a small inconvenience at the
turnstiles so that we might all enjoy the game on Sky without wondering whether
something other than Wayne Rooney’s temper will explode (I am assured that Mr
Rooney is a popular football player, who is known for occasional outbursts. I have no
idea; I’m a rugby man, myself, but my clerk assures me that this is the sort of thing
that gives my writing that ‘popular touch’, whatever that may be. Sounds like a mass
grope…)
All in all, we should be heartened by the Government’s efforts to keep us all safe.
New barriers against car bombs for all public places? I say let’s get building. Stricter
security before boarding a train or an omnibus (if those still exist)? Absolutely. Don’t
forget; all this is being balanced by the fact that soon we will be able to take more
than one bag onto an aeroplane. (When I say ‘we’, I mean of course, ‘you’. I only fly
Business Class at the very least, and so am allowed more anyway. And a real knife
and fork. And a glass of wine.) Of course, that might mean a few more delays at
Heathrow, but not in the fast track, and that is what matters. Liquids still need to be
restricted, as does make-up, and rightly so. Some of what those people wear is
hideous. But when all is said and done, the Government is doing what it can to
protect both our liberties and our lives. The lefty whingers who claim that ninety
days’ detention is akin to internment have obviously got something to hide. And it
just might take us ninety days to find out what!
So there you have it. Clear and cogent reasons why the new anti-terror laws will be
effective, are necessary, and do not harm the rights of others. We must never forget
that we are dealing with terrorists, and we need to be strong. If you are innocent, or
rich enough to travel in the same carriage as me, your life will be in no way affected.
If you are affected, then you have to accept that you might be a terrorist, or are
poor enough to be one, which amounts to much the same thing. Either way, you
should see this as a small sacrifice, and a necessary one, for the security of the
nation. What’s the alternative? I’ll tell you; without strong anti-terror measures such
as these, you might as well allow illegal immigrants and terrorists to come and work
in the security forces themselves! Then where would be?
Oh…
© lizardmagazine.com, 2007
ALSO SEE...
Sir Hugh Jafee, QC, lights your ire: EU Constitutions