/>Fab 5: Monday 8 February 2010
A new week, a new Fab 5:
Archived entries for
Never mind the 1689 Bill of Rights, the Contempt of Court Act 1981 could scuttle any prosecution
With all the talk in the media being of the “expenses 3″ – David Chaytor, Jim Devine and Elliot Morley – being able to avoid a criminal trial by asserting parliamentary privilege under the 17th-century English Bill of Rights, the importance of the more recent Contempt of Court Act appears to have been overlooked.
In their rush to judgement, several politicians and journalists have failed to heed the advice of Keir Starmer when the Director of Public Prosecutions announced the charges against the three Labour MPs and Tory peer Lord Hanningfield:
“Can I remind all concerned that the four individuals now stand charged of criminal offences and they each have the right to a fair trial. It is extremely important that nothing should be reported which could prejudice any of these trials.”
Put simply, it means that nothing that is published once a case is active, from the point at which a suspect is charged, should in any way be seen to prejudice a future trial.
The Act states that:
“conduct may be treated as a contempt of court as tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular legal proceedings regardless of intent to do so”
And applies to any publication
“which creates a substantial risk that the course of justice in the proceedings in question will be seriously impeded or prejudiced”
As Harriet Harman put it when discussing David Cameron’s latest outburst:
“He’s got to be very careful what he says or his comments might actually jeopardise the trial and nobody wants to see that happen.”
If, for all the arguments about privilege, the case does make it to court only to be thrown out because the defendants could not be assured a fair trial, those like Mr Cameron who seek easy headlines today will only have themselves to blame tomorrow.
The silent generation?
Chris Dillow, of stumblingandmumbling blog, asked on Friday whether his is the lucky generation – benefiting from university grants, house price booms and the prospect of benefiting from government debt crises through higher annuities in retirement.
He also pondered the apparent lack of hostility from younger generations:
What surprises me here, though, is how little resentment my generation attracts from 20-somethings. If I were a recent graduate saddled with tens of thousands of debt and poor job prospects as a result of the decisions made by my generation, I’d be livid.
So why are younger people so quiet? Is it because they are just passive? Or is it that they have other forms of luck which my generation didn’t.
On the face of it, it would be hard to argue that our generation benefits from other forms of luck which weren’t available to previous generations. Nor do I think younger people are passive.
However, it is true that they are less inclined to be democratically active than has historically been the case.
It is possible Chris’ generation is a factor behind this. As the baby-boomer bulge begin to retire, they are likely to become more politically vocal, rather than less (assuming the historic trend of pensioners being more engaged with the political process, rather than less). This will make it harder, not easier, for younger generations to try and address some of the legacies of an extraordinarily lucky (selfish?) generation in the UK’s history.
Issues such as taxation, retirement ages, immigration (which can help replacement ratios), social security, and global warming, and their consequences, are likely to be left to our generation to manage, but with the baby-boomers calling the shots via the ballot box.
If so, our only hope is that they encounter distinct principle-agent problems. Or we find a way of introducing compulsory euthanasia*.
In the meantime, our efforts are focused on finding jobs or keeping them in order to be able to afford the impending fiscal timebomb…
* The Economist’s Schumpeter column this week tackles the issue of an ageing workforce, and how business might cope. The column highlights two new novels which tackle issues relating to an ageing population, and is from where the euthanasia idea is sourced:
MARTIN AMIS and Christopher Buckley are writers who are entering their silver years and are worried about the costs of an ageing population. Mr Amis, who has a new novel out (see article), recently compared the growing army of the elderly to “an invasion of terrible immigrants, stinking out the restaurants and cafés and shops”. Mr Buckley devoted a novel, “Boomsday”, to the impending war of the generations. They have both touted the benefits of mass euthanasia, though Mr Amis favours giving volunteers “a martini and a medal” whereas Mr Buckley supports more sophisticated incentives such as tax breaks.
