Criminal Justice Act 1988 UK Public
General Acts 1988 c. 33 Part XI Torture paragraph 134
(1) A public official or person acting in an official capacity, whatever his nationality,
commits the offence of torture if in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he
intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another in the performance or
purported performance of his official duties.
Why has this never been used since it came into force in 1988? The Government have a veto on this charge, it is the police that charge it and have to ask permission from the Attorney General, a private prosecutor must ask permission of the AG (paragraph 135), even the IOPC (Independent Office for Police Conduct) must ask permission, in 19 years only eleven requests for consent have been pursued, of which only two were given consent, as far as I know these two were not prosecuted. On average in the last 19 years 16 people have died in police custody at arrest or detention (304). In 19 years over 2000 serious assaults meaning more than common assault and reaching the threshold of Aggravated assault, Actual Bodily Harm (ABH) or Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH), Grievous Bodily Harm (GBH) Attempted section 18, Man Slaughter, Attempted Murder or Murder. These offences once reaching this threshold should be charged as torture as the person committing the offence is acting [in the performance or purported performance of his official duties] (Police are Crown Servants, state officials).
Bear in mind that training a police officer in the use of pain-inducing restraint techniques is no different to a boxer being trained in violence (and licensed to fight) and the law says that once trained in violence your fists become a weapon. Therefore the police are using a weapon in restraint. Using these pain-inducing restraint techniques once a person has been placed into the prone position (face down and hand cuffed) goes beyond lawful violence during arrest. It becomes torture. [It is neither necessary, reasonable nor proportionate.]
Parliamentarians are there to protect your civil rights, your right to life and liberty yet they have removed the right to an English Grand Jury. The Grand Jury would have decided “probable cause” and made the decision on whether a public official (Crown Servant) acting in that capacity should be tried for torture. However, this protection was removed and we are now seeing the effects of escalating violence by the state towards subjects of the realm.
The Attorney General’s Office (AGO) has made an anonymous request for complete disclosure of the entire prosecution case against state officials (Police Officers), even though the state has not provided full names and addresses of those state officials upon request (Basic Disclosure). Prior to the British abolition of the English right to a Grand Jury, the Grand Jury would have been responsible for determining whether there was a case to answer by returning a bill of indictment. We can now clearly understand why this essential safeguard against state violence and corruption was abolished.
The British Government are complicit in the torture of the English and Welsh by “operating” a state veto [a policy of crown immunity] on the prosecution of torture.
A comparison: If a Construction company (not all just one, a construction company plc) in England and Wales with a workforce of 120,000 people were responsible for an average of 16 deaths a year and 100 serious injuries a year for 19 years. That is to say 16 members of the public dying every year, they are not connected to the construction company and without that contact with the construction company they would still be alive. Do you think someone would be held responsible? Do you think the Health and Safety Executive would have prosecuted? Do you think that an increase in deaths 2022/3 to 23 deaths including a 93-year-old man, in a care home, suffering from dementia, with one leg and in a wheel-chair who was battened, pepper sprayed and tazered by crown servants (police) leading two weeks later to his death. The victim was a retired working man of good character. The definition of this case is torture.
When a state, bound by both international and domestic laws to prosecute cases of torture, neglects to take any action, even when informed about such crimes, it can be seen as a state [omission]. This omission may imply that the state is passively accepting or agreeing to the wrongdoing, effectively [acquiescing] to it. Moreover, if state officials, such as the police, are involved in committing acts of torture and other officers witness the torture and do nothing, this is deemed as [Joint enterprise]. The state’s failure to address and prosecute these cases provides evidence of the state effectively operating a policy of crown immunity, contrary to [Jus Cogens] International Law.
The law should be used as a deterrent. For the state to abstain from prosecuting torture, they in effect decriminalise torture. They acquiesce!
By the way, it is accepted entrenched law with international precedent that there are no derogations for torture. NONE. For the lay person that means – no excuses.
please send this pdf to GBnews newstips@gbnews.uk
farage@gbnews.uk
and your MP
Can’t argue with that Graham, and besides the cases torture that you mention above, I believe that ALL of those Public Officials who knowingly allowed young English girls, and others, to be pimped, raped, beaten, tortured, and psychologically abused are also guilty of the statutory crime of torture.
There is ample evidence in the public domain confirming various Public Official’s knowledge and cover ups of these crimes.
Section 134, Subsection 2, of the Criminal Justice Act (1988) makes it clear that if an Official knows that these types of crimes are being committed but “acquiesces” to it in their official capacity, then they are guilty of that offence.
“(2)A person not falling within subsection (1) above commits the offence of torture, whatever his nationality, if—
(a)in the United Kingdom or elsewhere he intentionally inflicts severe pain or suffering on another at the instigation or with the consent or acquiescence—
(i)of a public official; or
(ii)of a person acting in an official capacity; and
(b)the official or other person is performing or purporting to perform his official duties when he instigates the commission of the offence or consents to or acquiesces in it.
(3)It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.”
And as we know, the sentence for the crime of torture on conviction is life.
“(6)A person who commits the offence of torture shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.”
It seems that we have a legitimate way to hit these bastards where it hurts for what they’ve done, and continue to do to our People. All of them.
So what do you think about that?
and another important word “omission” i.e. when you don’t do something – (3) It is immaterial whether the pain or suffering is physical or mental and whether it is caused by an act or an omission.”
When a state, bound by both international and domestic laws to prosecute cases of torture, neglects to take any action, even when informed about such incidents, it can be seen as a state omission. This omission may imply that the state is passively accepting or agreeing to the wrongdoing, effectively acquiescing to it. Moreover, if other state officials, such as police, are involved in committing acts of torture, the state’s failure to address and prosecute these cases may be seen as being part of a joint enterprise. [GM]
“Can’t argue with that Graham, and besides the cases torture that you mention above, I believe that ALL of those Public Officials who knowingly allowed young English girls, and others, to be pimped, raped, beaten, tortured, and psychologically abused are also guilty of the statutory crime of torture.
There is ample evidence in the public domain confirming various Public Official’s knowledge and cover ups of these crimes.” I agree these people have committed torture.
These organised criminals running a Roman British State/Regime are operating under the Act of HIGH TREASON, without redress. There, right there is our problem. Since Heath gave our sovereignty away to a foreign entity, forbidden under the English Constitution. This is why in my opinion how they are getting away with it. NO MORE.
They are traitors to the Constitution and to the People. The principles that the People of our Nation are FREEBORN, SELF GOVERNING, and that NO LEGISLATION CAN BE ENACTED WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE, points to a glaring fact. Those that we elect into the office of government to represent our interests have NO AUTHORITY other than that which we freely give them. Signing away the sovereignty of our People is not within the bounds of their authority, they hold it in trust only, and any legislation purporting to do just that cannot and is not law. It is invalid. Void.
They can, and did act as if that was law because no one challenged them with the right arguments, I would say.
But now we have them, and as you say, NO MORE.
The thin blue line is no more, the police are more like the Stasi or even the Okhrana. Remember a policeman always approaches you armed, baton/spray/H&K.
It was interesting in the recent pay demands that out of the NHS, fire service and army, the police received the highest pay rise, incredibly, the army getting the least, this government is exposing who they need the most, in addition 122,400 police officers in the UK 5% fire arms authorised(not all trained), compared to 130,000 RN/RM/RAF/ARMY.
The notion of the State having authority to cause harm or injury to the People is alien to our Constitution and Common Law. In fact the reverse is true, and the whole reason for the need for one.
John Selden is another respected constitutionalist from our history who had a hand in the formation of our Constitution as it is in it’s present form.
“John Selden (16 December 1584 – 30 November 1654) was an English jurist, a scholar of England’s ancient laws and constitution and scholar of Jewish law. He was known as a polymath; John Milton hailed Selden in 1644 as “the chief of learned men reputed in this land.””
“In 1628 he was returned to the third parliament of Charles for Ludgershall, Wiltshire, and was involved in drawing up and carrying the Petition of Right.”
With regards to the State causing harms to the people had this to say about the Contract between the Monarch and the People using the example of dueling.
“2. A Duke ought to fight with a Gentleman. The Reason is this : the Gentleman will say to the Duke ’tis True, you hold a higher Place in the State than I : there’s a great distance between you and me, but your Dignity does not Privilege you to do me an Injury ; as soon as ever you do me an Injury, you make yourself my equal ; and as you are my equal I challenge you ; and in sense the Duke is bound to Answer him. This will give you some Light to understand the Quarrel betwixt a Prince and his Subjects.
Though there be a vast Distance between him and them, and they are to obey him, according to their Contract, yet he hath no power to do them an Injury : then they think themselves as much bound to vindicate their Right, as they are to obey his Lawful Commands ; nor is there any other measure of Justice left upon Earth but Arms.” – The Table-Talk of John Selden, page 48.
Source PDF: https://archive.org/details/tabletalkofjohns00seldiala/page/48/mode/2up
Bio: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Selden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReMYJWisTYs NEW COUNTY SONG IT’S NUCLEAR☢