If a political decision was made to substitute a prima facie case of murder to common assault and a caution would the judiciary have something to say about it?
Yes, in a scenario where a political decision is made to substitute a prima facie case of murder with a charge of common assault and a caution, the judiciary would likely have something to say about it. The judiciary is responsible for upholding the rule of law and ensuring fair and just legal processes. They have a duty to interpret and apply the law impartially, based on the facts presented before them.
If the decision to downgrade a murder charge to common assault and issue a caution is seen as an inappropriate or unjust interference with the legal process, the judiciary may raise concerns or objections. They may assert that such a decision undermines the principles of justice, fairness, and proportionality. The judiciary plays a crucial role in safeguarding the integrity of the legal system, and they would likely scrutinise any decision that appears to compromise the proper administration of justice.
They have a duty to interpret and apply the law impartially, based on the facts presented before them.
If we politicise the judicial process in the case of torture which only applies to state officials we in effect neutralise the law on torture. For the state to abstain from prosecuting torture, they in effect decriminalise torture. Torture is fundamentally forbidden by international common law, English Common law, statute and international conventions, declarations and ECHR with no derogations. It is not for either or any of the estates of the realm of England to override these conventions and safeguards against torture for fear of international embarrassment.
There are no derogations to allow torture. It was in fact England that first outlawed torture and her laws are the seed of international conventions. It is truly abhorrent that a subject of the realm with a prima facie case of torture set out in Paragraph 134, Criminal Justice Act 1988 is forced to bring this case either in KBD England or abroad* [*as allowed by international law].
Has England become a pariah state where the basic human rights crime committed by the state will only be heard and prosecuted abroad. Parliament criminalised torture in law for a reason.
They may assert that such a decision undermines the principles of justice, fairness, and proportionality.
If a subject of the realm was to murder a police officer in the course of his official duty what would be the sentence? Life recommended 30 years? If a subject of the realm was to murder a Judge carrying out his official duties what is the crime and sentence? Treason – death penalty. If a police constable of any rank was to murder a member of the public whilst acting in his official capacity what is the crime? Crime torture, sentence life.
The torture law was added to our statute books to prevent the state from not just using violence for retrieving information, but to forbid the state from using unlawful coercive (physically or psychologically) methods, unlawful intimidation, or to administer arbitrary extra judicial justice by way of cruel or unusual punishments. The torture law was added so that subjects of the realm were treated as co-equals. proportionality, fairness, justice?
Co-equal – you mean like separation of power?
For the state to abstain from prosecuting torture, they in effect decriminalise torture.
The crime of torture like the word is often mistakenly believed to have a narrow or specific meaning when it actually has a broader definition. Society as a whole has a “misunderstanding” or “misconception.” about the crime and word.
In the case of the word “torture,” lets clarify that its definition encompasses more than just the act of gaining information through state violence. It includes any form of unlawful violence carried out by “state officials” in order to intimidate, coerce, unlawfully exact punishment, or administer unusual or cruel punishment.
To put it in simpler terms, the misunderstanding occurs when someone mistakenly believes that “torture” refers exclusively to the act of obtaining information through state violence. However, the actual definition encompasses a wider range of actions committed by “state officials”, including unlawful violent acts used to intimidate, coerce, unlawfully punish, or administer cruel and unusual punishments.
This highlights the importance of understanding the full scope and accurate definitions of words, as misconceptions or narrow interpretations can lead to misunderstandings and miscommunication.