|
Anaxagoras -> RE: Israel's deputy PM threatened with arrest for war crimes (11/4/2010 3:52:01 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: hertz
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras
...it is unacceptable to allow magistrates who are officers of the lower courts to issue arrest warrants that have serious international ramifications since their evidential requirements are substantially lower than other courts.
I disagree. The lower courts evidential requirements are precisely the same as the other courts. In the UK, the law is the law, regardless of the name on the door of the court. There are only three areas the magistrate needs to consider - firstly, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed, secondly, that evidence has been presented which supports the claim that the offence alleged took place, and thirdly, that s/he has jurisdiction to issue the warrant and has ruled out the immunity of the suspect. Its as simple as that.
Regardless of the court, these are the only issues that need to be considered. Obviously, once an arrest has occurred, things become a little more complicated, but the basic theme - reasonable grounds, evidence, and jurisdiction is enough. The idea that this basic system, a system which applies to all, equally, should be broken in order to keep some war criminal happy and thus avoid an international incident is not (in my view) acceptable.
quote:
That is why such courts do not deal with serious crime.
No-one, except perhaps for you, is suggesting that a war criminal should be tried in a magistrates court.
quote:
I disagree. The lower courts evidential requirements are precisely the same as the other courts. In the UK, the law is the law, regardless of the name on the door of the court. There are only three areas the magistrate needs to consider - firstly, there are reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence has been committed, secondly, that evidence has been presented which supports the claim that the offence alleged took place, and thirdly, that s/he has jurisdiction to issue the warrant and has ruled out the immunity of the suspect. Its as simple as that.
Regardless of the court, these are the only issues that need to be considered. Obviously, once an arrest has occurred, things become a little more complicated, but the basic theme - reasonable grounds, evidence, and jurisdiction is enough. The idea that this basic system, a system which applies to all, equally, should be broken in order to keep some war criminal happy and thus avoid an international incident is not (in my view) acceptable.
quote:
That is why such courts do not deal with serious crime.
No-one, except perhaps for you, is suggesting that a war criminal should be tried in a magistrates court.
Indeed the law is the law regardless of the court but lower courts do have lower evidential requirements than higher courts because it is typically impractical to invest the time in hearing cases. Magisterial courts hear all manner of relatively minor disputes, have maximum sentencing powers of around just 12 months and fining powers of £15,000 AFAIK. If all courts had the same powers, similar evidential requirements and justices had the same experience to adjudicate matters then there would not be a multi-tier system of law except perhaps for appeals. There was a situation in the UK perhaps a decade ago where there were proposals to have more serious crimes heard at magisterial courts. Objections were made because they have a higher conviction rate than higher courts with or without a jury. It is for the above reasons many have objected to the law and in other EU states the law was quickly repealed.
When activists petition a magisterial court for an arrest warrant they will obviously be forcing the individual arrested to attend such a court. Of course magistrates can refer cases to higher courts but that is their prerogative. Thus it is quite possible these cases could be heard at such a court. As I said before there are international bodies designed to deal wit war criminality. It is a more fitting location. If it must be dealt with at a national level it should be by the highest legal authorities in the land: law lords because war crimes are perhaps the most serious charges of all and have an international dimension.
|
|
|
|
