I went through yesterday’s preliminary hearing in the Scottish judicial review of the proscription of Palestine Action with a sense of mounting horror. We had the same judge as at the permission hearing, Lord Young. We had exactly the same arguments and the same case law being deployed again by the UK government as at the permission hearing. But there the sense of déjà vu ended. The judge, Lord Young, appeared to be rowing backwards from his decision to grant the judicial review, as fast as he possibly could.
I may be wrong – we will have his decision in three hours’ time. I hope I am wrong. I quite often am wrong.
But every indication was that I am not wrong. English proceedings at an advanced stage seemed in his mind to have shifted, from an irrelevance in a different jurisdiction, to a fundamental reason not to proceed. The costs of holding a physical review, in terms of the actual pounds and pennies of having courts, had been dismissed contemptuously by Lord Young when advanced by the government as a reason not to hold a judicial review at the permission hearing.
Lord Young now himself raised the cost of a Scottish judicial review as a potential reason for not having one. Three times.
He also made plain from the outset that he was considering the Starmer regime motion for sisting (postponing in effect forever) the Scottish judicial review as a matter of case management, not as a matter of principle of whether the court had jurisdiction. For that reason, if he decided to sist he would not be contradicting his previous decision that the review could go ahead.
The solution was not openly to deny Scotland’s rights, but administrative delay. Forever.
The main obvious thing that had changed was not the government arguments, but the person making them. This hearing had itself been postponed almost three weeks to fit the diary of the Advocate General, Catherine Smith KC, who was representing the Starmer regime in person because – as the Government submission directly stated – of the great constitutional importance of the case.
Catherine Smith KC is political royalty. Daughter of former Labour leader the late John Smith and of Baroness Smith, sister of the BBC’s Washington correspondent Sarah Smith, and sister-in-law of the son of former Secretary General of NATO, Lord Robertson. I could go on.
She is also rubbish in court. She presented the government’s arguments much worse that they had originally been presented, with a really revolting mix of personal arrogance and profound lack of articulacy. She sometimes appeared unable to put a coherent sentence together, and on the rare occasions when she did so, we were generally left wondering in what way it linked to the last one. Lord Young frequently rescued her by expressing the idea she had been groping her way towards with all the alacrity of a blindfolded person in handcuffs.
At one point Lord Young actually said to the Advocate General: “You haven’t explained that very well”.
Nevertheless, he took it that there was great force behind her arguments, now that it had been made very plain by the despatch of this august personage that London took this very seriously indeed. He gave every indication of a willingness to be herded. It merely made his life so difficult that they had despatched such an incompetent shepherd.
Very early in proceedings Lord Young had been at great pains to point out that his agreement that we had the right to a Scottish judicial review had always been subject to possible cancellation for reasons of “case management”. In principle there was a right to a Scottish judicial review. But there were practicalities of case management to consider, and one of those practicalities was the existence in England of the Ammori case which was now at a much more advanced stage, with the English Court of Appeal going to announce its decision on 15 June. It may then proceed to the UK Supreme Court which covers Scotland anyway.
In the course of the day, Joanna Cherry pointed out that our Scottish judicial review had been due to happen back in March – and the reason it had been delayed was the UK government introducing “secret intelligence” evidence which had been heard in closed sessions. To “sist” or postpone the case until the end of UK proceedings meant to drop it forever. To do this on procedural grounds because of delays introduced by the government being reviewed would be unfair on the petitioner.
In the Cherry and Miller cases the UK Supreme Court had been faced with different decisions of the English and Scottish courts on the same issue. The English court could be wrong. Mr Murray as a resident of Scotland was entitled to the protection of the courts of his place of domicile. Scotland and England were separate jurisdictions with separate legal systems and separate legal traditions.
Catherine Smith for the Starmer regime took a hardline unionist position. It was undesirable for Palestine Action to be legal in Scotland and not in England, and she did not believe that such a position could be “competent” as terrorism was a reserved matter under the Scotland Act. She was very scathing about the evidence that, two months before the proscription, the Scottish CONTEST board (the official counter-terrorism strategy board of the Scottish government, which includes Police Scotland and the security services) had minuted that Palestine Action in Scotland “did not come close” to meeting the definition of a terrorist organisation. The Scottish board is a “local board”, she said, which did not have access to all the intelligence available to the main counter terrorism bodies in London.
London sent a regime minister to overawe the court in Edinburgh and remind us of our position in the world. We have been telt.
The Starmer regime’s arguments were founded on “judicial comity”, which amounted to simply an argument that the judiciaries of the different jurisdictions of the United Kingdom should not disagree with each other, as expressed by the High Court of England in the “liberty case”. This was almost word for word the argument they had made, and was the case they had advanced, at the permission hearing. Even Lord Young rather bridled at this.
“Are you saying I got this wrong?” he asked.
“Yes”, Smith replied.
There was so much more to report, but my current state of health doesn’t allow me to spend long days in court followed by long evenings writing up, and I suppose the decision today will overtake much of it. I paste below the original decision by Lord Young to grant the appeal – you will notice that is quite a ringing declaration that citizens in Scotland are entitled to the protection of the Scottish courts – is indeed then undercut by an escape route that issues of “case management” may make proceeding with the review undesirable and are a different question.
I hope I am wrong, but I suspect that Lord Young will today rule that I was entitled to a judicial review but “case management” means it should be shelved in favour of the English case.
The one time I was actually furious during the proceedings yesterday was when Catherine Smith said that the Scottish judicial review should be closed down for reasons of cost, and specifically stated that the closed evidence sessions – on which I am given no information and do not even know when they happen – are costing the court system £10,000 a day.
The UK government is introducing spurious and fake intelligence material – making who-knows-what allegations about Palestine Action – and using the cost of fake intelligence hearings to close down scrutiny. It stinks.
We desperately need more money to continue this legal case. Each stage of hearing like this costs us about £30,000 and the eventual judicial review will cost much more.
Again please contribute if you can but do not contribute if it causes you difficulty. If you know people who are able to afford to help and likely to be sympathetic, please do contact them and ask their assistance. We are trying to keep a lot of very good people out of prison.
You can donate through the link via Crowd Justice, which goes straight to the lawyers, or through this blog.
https://www.crowdjustice.com/case/scottish-challenge-to-proscription/
Alternatively by bank transfer:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address NatWest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Or crypto:
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Very peculiar. Could it be that Lord Young has been nobbled? I also believe that the Smith family, dyed on the wool Establishment, have ties to the intel services.
Whatever the outcome of this case, it is yet one more baleful reflection on not just the timidity of the Scottish Legal/Political Establishment – the embodiment of which is the current, Post-Salmond snP, but also on the latter’s complicity and zeal in removing every distinctive characteristic of Scots Law in order to make it COMPLY with English-As-British Law.
Maybe those photos of Lord Young wearing a nappy and sucking on a dummy in some Auld Reekie bordello have fallen into the * wrong * hands?
Sad for the devolved regions, but the UK government has made it ‘in yer face’ clear that they are in charge and devolution is a scam to only give the appearance of independence to the provinces.
Trying to achieve justice, on any issue, through the devolved Judiciary is a complete waste of time and money.
“Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun”, [Mao Zedong]
Maybe time for a new political party in Scotland, Sinn Fhein (scots gaelic). Craig Murray for first president of Scotland?
You say “Catherine Smith for the Starmer regime took a hardline unionist position. It was undesirable for Palestine Action to be legal in Scotland and not in England”
But wouldn’t this also be the result if in the English proceedings affirmed the High Court decision, and the Scottish proceedings were abandoned because they might produce a different result from that of the English court?
I suspect you are right to be pessimistic Craig at a time when the Scottish Parliament has asked for a Section 30 order to allow the Scottish courts to defy the Starmer regime would be too embarrassing! But well done for taking the action and yes we should all contribute to the cost and you must look after your health we need you in Scotland and yes an independent Scottish republic should have Craig Murray as its first president so take care!
I see that, just 4 hours ago, the BBC News posted a story highlighting the urgency of summary case management to clear the backlog in Scottish highest courts, on its front page.
“Organised crime and historic sex abuse cases driving trial backlog” (David Cowan, Scottish Home Affairs correspondent)
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx21kng4dkgo
What a way to prep the readers to digest this issue being cited as a reason for sisting the Palestine Action judicial review! More of a convenience than a coincidence, perhaps?.
@Justin, I think you put that rather well.
Smith is just another treacherous co-opted Scot – Scotland is full of them right now, and the colonisers laws (in this case England’s), will almost always supersede the laws of the colonised (in this case Scotland) – instance – the LA Bain, bending over to the foreign Supreme Court in England, on the right to hold an indyref.
Lord Young must know he has to stand on his own two hind legs.
-otherwise who or what is he?
“Walid”, surely?
No relation
@CB – What happened to your own first name, “Innocent”? Did it sound too papal?
It may be water under the bridge now, but was the spectre or possibility of de-banking used as a weapon of the state against political dissidents raised? If not, I hope it will be at any appeals, whether in England or Scotland. We don’t want a 1990-type state!
This case raises an interesting question. Can the status of the Scottish legal system and judiciary, which are protected under the Treaty of Union, be amended unilaterally by retrospective legislation of the UK Parliament such as the Scotland Act?
By the looks of it Westmonster can do whatever it likes to its Scottish colonial energy capital.
Yes, not least because ” Westminster ” ie the Brit State knows they have successfully neutered the once-upon-a-time ” main vehicle to Scottish Independence ” – the snP: now nothing more chickens in donkey’s clothing. That a majority of voters in Scotland ( note…not a majority of Scottish voters, necessarily ) keep electing them to governance is probably down to the truly abysmal calibre of the political gene-pool in Scotland ( likewise in England ), ie what it seems all electorates are faced with now – choosing the least bad option. Trouble there are no least bad options now, they are all truly awful
@Robert – Scottish nationalism was built up in the early 1970s in response to the workers’ movement and what was viewed by the rulers as a wider revolutionary danger internationally. With a big emphasis on the “internationally”. Never forget that the workers took over shipyards on the Clyde. You know what happened a few years earlier in France. A similar point can be made about Northern Ireland, where the Bloody Sunday massacre wasn’t a result of soldiers getting angry – it was strategic and ordered at a high level. In 1974 the Labour government was installed to make concessions and in the following years it served to squelch the radical movement. Then a few years later the SNP found some more utility and was used to bring down the said Labour government and replace it with the Thatcher government that really stuck the boot in. Only later did it sell itself as “left wing” in some markets, and then you get the absurd entity that is “clap for my birthday” “I didn’t know my husband” Nicola Sturgeon, who has sometimes tried to appear like Margaret Thatcher but personally when I look at her I think of Winnie Mandela.
All this time, the racketeering business figures who get state contracts in Scotland, the lawyer elite, the university elite, etc., have operated as per usual.
@ Brian. Can’t disagree with that interpretation of snP-related events, B; though there is some contention re………
“Then a few years later the SNP found some more utility and was used to bring down the said Labour government and replace it with the Thatcher government ” .
At least in terms of the snP’s reasons for not supporting the Callahan Labour Gov, eg the latter’s backsliding on implementing Devolution. The snP’s action did indeed contribute to the fall of that Gov, but likewise the actions of other Parties. That all this ushered in the Thatcher Era, from which the U.K has never recovered, makes the snP’s behaviour retrospectively easy to condemn; but I don’t think many could have foreseen the awful socio/political damage those Thatcher Govs would inflict on the populace and the snP owed Labour precisely zero, as they were seen – correctly – as just another Unionist entity as opposed to Scottish Independence as any of the other Political Parties.
Not to say the snP were NOT ” used to bring down said Labour Gov ” – but, if they were so ” used “, they played their part willingly.
History will record that the actions/behaviour of – in particular – Sturgeon & Murrell ( not so much Bonnie & Clyde as Ugly & Snide ) ended the snP as a credible ” Vehicle to Independence ” and inflicted possibly irreparable damage on the aspiration to returning Scotland’s full autonomy as an independent nation, ie ending the * Union *.
” Undecideds ” on the Constitutional Question may well look at the sheer venality and tawdriness of this ” Murrell Affair “, in addition to the loathsome conspiracy to politically assassinate Alex Salmond – central to which was the shrilly wailing, always innocent perma-*victim * ( of men, natch ) Sturgeon – not to mention a succession of bungled projects, eg Ferries and assorted, badly-handled/not handled at all internal ( to the Party ) sexual ” assault ” cases and conclude…..” if this is what Independence would be like, ram it “. They would be wrong in that conclusion as, for one thing, the snP would not survive Independence actually being realised ( another reason why the current incarnation seem to be actively thwarting it’s former raison d’etre ) and other Parties would arise. Who knows, one of those putative new Parties might even be good; at least, not as fckn shit as the current mobs
The snP might have won the most recent and previous S.Es, they may even continue winning them ( though I very much doubt they will ) but never again will they be considered any different, any better, that what they were supposed to be replacing. They have become everything they once opposed. They are completely worthless
To be fair to Winnie Mandela, she remained loyal to the original ANC creed after her husband had struck a historic compromise. Her demonisation in western media reflected her hard line position.
“but never again will they be considered any different, any better, that what they were supposed to be replacing.”
“If you cant beat ’em, suborn ’em”, has always been the MO of the Establishment. Labour have become Red Tories, the Lib Dems have become Yellow Tories and the SNP have become Tartan Tories. Reform are already Tories and no doubt the Greens will soon be Green Tories.
@ Bayard. That sounds about right. I reckon the whole concept of a ” Political Party ” is hollowed-out beyond recovery – at least as presently constituted. Then again so is the whole concept of ” Democracy “. The two concepts seem to have died simultaneously: hmmmmm…….curious
Totally Agree ..Hope Yous Are Well
Not one mention of this on BBC radio shortbread or website.
Proscription really needs to be tested under Scottish law before going to the Supreme Court.
Just chipped in what I can afford.
Problems with PayPal
PayPal
Something went wrong
Please go back to Craig Murray and choose another way to pay. PayPal isn’t available at this time.
Reportedly Lord Young agreed to put the Scottish legal challenge to the UK Government’s ban on Palestine Action on hold. So now it’s up to the English Court of Appeal and ultimately the UK Supreme Court.
Scots should indeed be deeply embarrassed by this.
Imagine something calling itself ‘Lord’ Young telling the Irish that they must treat anti-genocide activists as terrorists, because a genocide-abetting government in London says so.
What century is Scotland living in where this can be done to them?
To add to the brazenness of the political class in Scotland: Nicola “I didn’t realise where all the expensive stuff came from” Sturgeon has claimed her fake husband was someone she “didn’t know at all”.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdp3d8792no
She is currently…promoting her memoir. No sh*t. And in Ireland.
Perhaps if she skedaddles to Ireland she’ll say it’s got nothing to do with the sounds of handcuffs jangling and cell doors slamming that she keeps hearing (perish the thought!), but it’s only so she can take advantage of the fact that in Ireland writers and artists don’t pay tax.
(Saying they’re writers or artists is a common tax avoidance strategy among the top families on that island. Kinda unusual on an international level that so many members of the ruling class are engaged in such lucrative literary and artistic activities.)
I would say “no lie too far”, but wait – she’s admitting not knowing her “husband” now.
“I would say “no lie too far”, but wait – she’s admitting not knowing her “husband” now.”
Perhaps she means carnal knowledge.
Wee Nippy will next be saying that she didn’t realise that the SNP was dedicated to obtaining Scottish independence.
Then again, given that actions speak louder than words, she might as well save her breath.
ahahaha ! AYE ! ” Independence, what, you mean from financial woes? ”
No, Nikla, Independence, SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE!!
Sorry, I’ve never heard of that, no one told me that was what the snP stood for. I honestly, truly, from the heart of my bottom thought those initials stood for Sexually Nuanced People, or Some Nice Pens.
Oh, by way, where’s Scotland? Is it just outside London ( my faaaaave City )? Think I may have passed through it once or twice en route to watch Sapphic FC ( my faaaaaave team ) play in the, er…….what are those creatures called again…….wait……starts with ” W ” ………Women, that’s it, yeah the ” Women’s ” Football League “
Money for memoirs that then get remaindered is a traditional way of thanking British politicians. Coupla hundred thousand as an advance, that’ll do nicely. Of course the turgid hardback tomes are ghosted. The ghostwriters may even use AI nowadays.
But Sturgeon will still be contractually bound to do public appearances for the publisher, and “my husband’s in jail” wouldn’t count as force majeure. As for the content of what she is saying – wow. She is a horrible person and not very bright, but we can take it as read that she has soaked up some knowledge about media headlines and clickbait. So it can’t be by accident that she is saying she didn’t know her “husband”. This wasn’t an aside.
Does she think she’s untouchable, Teflon Nicola? Don’t forget the “clap for me” effort.
If she does fall from grace, she’ll try to paint herself as Evita. You have been warned! 🙂
It is even possible she will say she is being victimised because she is a woman, or because she is Scottish. Either of those would be a truly revolting thing for her to say, but the hypocrisy of such types knows no bounds. What she actually is, is a crook.
PS Why are Sturgeon and Murrell only separated and not divorced? Divorce is straightforward in Scotland, much more so than in England. I’m guessing financial questions here.
” PS Why are Sturgeon and Murrell only separated and not divorced ”
Possibly because married couples can’t be legally compelled to give evidence against each other; ergo it was/is essential that they keep their marital status * live *.
Approx one second after Murrell is sentenced, the divorce will be – formally – fulfilled. And so will end one of the least romantic ” marriages ” in Scottish History. A Beard & Merkin * arrangement *; a ” marriage of convenience ” that has ended-up being, well, kinda inconvenient. LOL. Couldn’t happen to two more repellent people
” If she does fall from grace, she’ll try to paint herself as Evita. ”
Christ! after the – self-exculpating – memoir ( it’s all men’s fault, ” Honestly ” ) can we dread the * novel *;the play; FFS The Movie!!! AAARRGGGHHHH!
Never mind ” Don’t Cry For Me Argentina/Scotland “( don’t worry, we won’t ) more apt would be ” Oh What A Circus “
How did we get to here indeed.
“The 12-panel jury was also not permitted to hear why the defendants chose to target the Israeli arms firm, stripping the action of all context – namely the genocide in Gaza.
It is now up to the presiding judge to decide whether to sentence the activists with a “terrorism connection” – and, if he does, the ramifications will be enormous.
Unlike most prisoners in the UK who serve around 40 percent of their sentences, they would have to serve their full terms unless they can convince a parole board that they have “reformed” after serving at least two-thirds of it.
Once released, they could be treated as terrorists for decades.
And this could all happen without a jury ever finding them guilty of any terrorist offence, marking the first case where activists risk prosecution under terrorism provisions.
How did we get here?”
https://www.declassifieduk.org/revealed-how-britain-weaponised-terrorism-laws-against-activists/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dreyfus_affair#Transmission_of_a_secret_dossier_to_the_judges
“The Scottish board is a “local board”, she said, which did not have access to all the intelligence available to the main counter terrorism bodies in London.”
The second dossier of the Dreyfus case makes its usual cameo.
Did this idiot cite an authority for the British government not being lawfully allowed to provide sufficient information to the “local board”? Or is it the British government’s choice not to?
This is strange. I couldn’t find any news reports on Lord Young’s decision except in the National Scot eg by googling “Lord Young” + Palestine. I didn’t see it during a quick look at the BBC and Guardian under Scotland, either. Unless I missed it, you’d think that no-one wanted to know!
OK, a summary report is now also in The Courier.
Thanks for the link, gutted by the result. Case management doesn’t stand up to any scrutiny. It’s evil that the government can bully you by making the process long and expensive, but it is absolutely an abuse of process that they can then bully the court to throw the case out, precisely because its too long and expensive.
Craig’s comments after the judgment (the audience clapped):
https://x.com/i/status/2059939964691845632
On “terrorism”, proscription, the UK and specific jurisdictions, was the UDA ever banned in Scotland? In particular, what was the position after the Scotland Act? I know the initial ban applied in Northern Ireland but not Scotland.
The position with the UDA was not the only instance of “anti-terrorist” restrictions being different between Northern Ireland and some or all of Great Britain.
So…unless there was something in the Scotland Act or stated government rationales to do with equalising anti-terrorist law across the whole of the “UK” – or even just across the jurisdictions of Scotland and England and Wales – then the British government’s position relying on the “undesirability” of such equalisation being an implication of the Act because of what the Act says about “reserved issues” or the so-called “constitution” seems to be a lot of crap.
The key point is that everyone in Scotland – and here this means our host – has the right of protection under Scottish law.
Well after all, Scotland is part of the UK State. Whatever the formal legal position, which frankly is bit pedantic, one really would expect the government of the UK to exercise power over all its parts.
To be clear on two points:
1 – I sympathise strongly with those Scots who want independence. If the UN Charter, chapter I, article 1, para 2 means anything (“the principle of … self-determination of peoples”) then Scotland has a right to independence if a referendum shows its people want independence.
2 – I think the proscription of Palestine Action was an evil action taken by evil people, put in power by a few key people who are influential in Labour’s National Executive Committee.
All legal actions in the UK are very expensive. On the side of evil, there are billionaires. On our side are very limited financial resources. We have to be selective in where we commit those limited resources. So, Craig, I’ve contributed to your efforts in the past and hope to do so in the future, but not this time.
The United Kingdom is a regime FFS. The country is called Britain.
Scotland is not part of the UK state. Nor is England.
The Scottish authorities are part of the UK regime.
Not sure about Labour NEC’s achievement in the second half of your #2, Townsman, but, whatever, the carelessness of Lord Young’s U-turn in respect of those already charged under a (currently) illegitimate executive order is unequivocally partial. It appears he took no account meanwhile from the English stay on rescission concerning the freshly-chilled daily infringements of Convention rights of millions of Scots neither (Art.6 HRA [1998] here?).
Uncontestable that discretion with allocation of finite resources must be the rule, though we can monitor for the moment how things are panning out with the hiatus in proceedings … personally, I’d want to echo a prior comment re. pro bono representation. Certain cases carry their own goodwill bounty with success, and, beyond a critical funding level, this looks to me like one of them. Maybe that goodwill ought to be discounted here – Advocates should have some skin in the game.
Actually I’m not sure, either. Starmer seized power in the Labour Party by some underhand means – it’s barely conceivable that the ordinary members preferred him. Exactly what the means was, I don’t really know; I was just making a plausible guess.
Townsman
There is no UK state – Senior Law Professor Robert black will keep you right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cGi7Q-EcyU
Black is a barrister, laddie – he has decades of experience in presenting hopeless cases as though they were plausible, That’s an important part of what barristers do.
Terrorism is a political accusation. It is a legal power held by ministers of government. It isn’t even illegal in the normal affairs of the law.
It is Big Brother and that man behind the screen rolled in to one
Advance apologies for the length of post in reply, but the following eight paragraphs from R v Gul (Appellant) ([2013] UKSC 64, 30-38; before Lord Neuberger, Supreme Court Pres.) captures (part of) the essential of what’s wrong with British counter-terrorism legislation – notably Jack Straw’s Terrorism Act 2000. [My emphasis. Not sure whether s117 applies to Scotland (unless as amended).]
30. The Crown argues that, particularly given the purpose of the 2000 Act,
“terrorism” cannot be narrowly defined, if one is to allow for the many disparate
forms which terrorism may take, and the inevitable changes which will occur in
international relations, in political regimes in other countries, and in the UK’s
foreign policy. Accordingly, runs the argument, a very wide definition was
deliberately adopted, but, recognising the risks of criminalising activities which
should not be prosecuted, the 2000 Act has, through section 117, precluded any
prosecution without the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) or,
if the activities under consideration occurred abroad, the Attorney General.
31. It is clear that it is very hard to define “terrorism”. Thus, Lord Lloyd of
Berwick, who wrote an Inquiry into the Legislation against Terrorism (Cm 3420)
which contained recommendations which were reflected in the 2000 Act, observed
in a speech on the second reading of the Bill which later became that Act that
“there are great difficulties in finding a satisfactory definition of “terrorism”, and
suspected that “none of us will succeed”. That view has been cited with agreement
in reports produced by the two successive Independent Reviewers of the
legislation appointed under section 36 of the 2006 Act, Lord Carlile of Berriew QC
and Mr David Anderson QC.
32. In reports produced in 2006 and 2007 Lord Carlile concluded that the
statutory definition of terrorism was “practical and effective” and advised that,
save for small amendments, the definition should remain as originally drafted.
More specifically, he observed that “the current definition in the Terrorism Act
2000 is consistent with international comparators and treaties, and is useful and
broadly fit for purpose…”. Lord Carlile also stated that “the discretion vested in
the authorities to use or not to use the special laws is a real and significant element
of protection against abuse of rights”.
33. Mr Anderson published his first report in June 2012, in which he referred to
the definition in section 1 in the 2000 Act as “complex” and “notable for its
breadth”. He pointed out that actions may amount to terrorism within the definition
“even when they might otherwise constitute lawful hostilities under international
humanitarian law (e.g. acts of violent rebellion against oppressive governments)”.
Mr Anderson recognised that the statutory definition left a “large discretion to
prosecutors, mitigated only by the requirement [for] consent” under section 117 of
the 2000 Act, together with other wide discretions. He went on to refer to the risk
that “strong powers could be used for purposes other than the suppression of
terrorism as it is generally understood”. He also observed that there was a case for
“shrinking the definition of terrorism”, given that “[a]s presently drafted, the
definition is so broad as to criminalise certain acts carried out overseas that
constitute lawful hostilities under international humanitarian law”.
34. In his recent second report, published in July 2013, Mr Anderson again
referred to the definition, describing it as “remarkably broad – absurdly so in some
cases”, and went on discuss the issue very instructively. He pointed out that the
consequence of the very broad definition was “to grant unusually wide discretions
to all those concerned with the application of the counter-terrorism law, from
Ministers exercising their power to impose executive orders to police officers
deciding whom to arrest or to stop at a port and prosecutors deciding whom to
charge”, but went on to say that “that the wide discretions appear for the most part
to be responsibly exercised”. He also expressed the view that any amendment to
the definition would involve a “root-and-branch review of the entire edifice of
anti-terrorism law, based on a clear-headed assessment of why and to what extent
it is operationally necessary to supplement established criminal laws and
procedures”, a review which he said that he would “welcome”. He also made the
point that “if special legal rules are to be devised in relation to it, they should be
limited in their application, and justified on the basis of operational necessity.”
35. We turn to the consent requirement created by section 117 of the 2000 Act.
In the general way the decision whether to initiate the prosecution of any crime,
whether created by statute or common law, is subject to the well known
prosecutorial discretion. Where the consent of the DPP or the Attorney General is
required, their respective responsibilities are exercised for the unexceptionable
purpose of ensuring that a prosecution should not be instigated nor proceed if this
would not be in the public interest. However, the prosecutorial discretion was
never intended, and as far as we can ascertain, it has never been suggested that it
was ever intended, to assist in the interpretation of legislation which involves the
creation of a criminal offence or offences. Either specific activities carried out with
a particular intention or with a particular state of mind are criminal or they are not.
36. The Crown’s reliance on prosecutorial discretion is intrinsically
unattractive, as it amounts to saying that the legislature, whose primary duty is to
make the law, and to do so in public, has in effect delegated to an appointee of the
executive, albeit a respected and independent lawyer, the decision whether an
activity should be treated as criminal for the purposes of prosecution. Such a
statutory device, unless deployed very rarely indeed and only when there is no
alternative, risks undermining the rule of law. It involves Parliament abdicating a
significant part of its legislative function to an unelected DPP, or to the Attorney
General, who, though he is accountable to Parliament, does not make open,
democratically accountable decisions in the same way as Parliament. Further, such
a device leaves citizens unclear as to whether or not their actions or projected
actions are liable to be treated by the prosecution authorities as effectively
innocent or criminal – in this case seriously criminal.
37. Given that the consent requirement in section 117 is focused on the decision
whether to consent to a prosecution, this approach to the construction of the 2000
Act has two further undesirable consequences. First, the lawfulness of executive
acts such as detention, search, interrogation and arrest could be questioned only
very rarely indeed in relation to any actual or suspected involvement in actual or
projected acts involving “terrorism”, in circumstances where there would be no
conceivable prospect of such involvement being prosecuted. Secondly, the fact that
an actual or projected activity technically involves “terrorism” means that, as a
matter of law, that activity will be criminal under the provisions of the 2000 and
2006 Acts, long before, and indeed quite irrespective of whether, any question of
prosecution arises.
Imagine an SNP administration which was staunch in defending the legal rights of Scotland to adjudicate legislation in Scotland.
Imagine them taking up this case to defend our rights and to make a distinction between what Scottish courts think is terrorism and what is legitimate speech and protest – as per the ECHR to which we are signatories.
Imagine an SNP taking the same principled stand as Spain and Ireland and standing up for human rights in Palestine and Lebanon and abhorring genocide.
Imagine a serious, principled Scottish government in Holyrood which we could support.
And now look at the reality. Not a scintilla of interest, leaving it to a private citizen and crowd funding, in order to make a fundamental claim in court about the rights of our own jurisdiction. Instead, their sole preoccupation, like guilty kids, is pretending they had no idea what their former chief executive was up to, despite blocking and slandering those people who raised the alarm years ago. And their auditors resigning because of lack of access to the accounts.
The SNP is finished as a serious party, now we have the receipts. They were never interested in principles, ethics or the defence of Scottish rights. What a sorry, small-minded bunch of squalid profiteers and manipulators. The Murrells are the Ceascescus or the Marcos of Scotland, and the SNP their eager sycophants.
” Murrells are the Ceascescus or the Marcos of Scotland, and the SNP their eager sycophants “. Quite so, Ian, though, from another perspective it could be said they came to inhabit the name that was given ( derogatorily ) to ” the wife ” – The Krankies .
There’s ” Wee Jimmy ” the son character – cross-dressed, de facto – if unlikely – * dominatrix * ( go on, stretch yr imagination, if you dare! ) of the couple & the dim, dull, subservient father character – ” Ian “; continually getting into all kinds of slapstick situations and scrapes. All rather weird and about as funny as amoebic dysentery – just like our ( un )loveable real life couple.
Oooops there goes any chance of ” Wee Jimmy ” getting that prestigious EU/UN/FU gig and there’s ” Ian ” heading for a little ” lie doon ” @ HMP Saughton
FANDABIDOZI 🙂
It ought to be. In a just world, it would be. But a lot of sheep masquerading as people will be conned into voting for it.
TPTB won’t let it die because it has the important function of blocking any hope of Scottish independence.
As per my post on the previous thread [May 27, 2026 at 12:43]
Thanks to the Moderator I have just posted a poem [it does not directly reference the Judicial Review or Palestine but it does have a tangential relationship to the current geo-political situation (in my opinion, at least culturally)] on a forum platform on this site called Contemporary Poetry.
Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
The Scottish board is a “local board”, she said, which did not have access to all the intelligence available to the main counter terrorism bodies in London.
So much in the UK is shrouded in all-encompassing ‘official secrecy’, and it’s totally self-defeating; it’s known as, the paradox of total secrecy: when all details, motives and actions are obscured there is no objective reality to evaluate. This leads to total collapse of faith in institutions, as individuals and societies lack the foundational evidence to validate claims. The security services operate a ‘neither confirm nor deny’ policy (NCND) – not good enough in any democracy worth the title.
So the Sturgeon said she never noticed the thousands of pounds of goods in her kitchen, that her estranged husband acquired with embezzled money, because she never went into her kitchen – yet there’s a few photos on the web of her in her kitchen – another unbelievable comment from Sturgeon – is that when questioned by Police Scotland on missing funds she sat facing the wall in the police station for SEVEN hours – and never uttered one word when asked questions. Now Sturgeon claims she memorised every single question asked by Police Scotland in the seven hours that she faced the wall, and that she wrote down her answers on a sheet of paper and posted them to Police Scotland.
Anyone who witnessed Sturgeon’s “performance” at the Covid Inquiry and the Alex Salmond Inquiry, where she used the excuses of “I don’t recall that” or I don’t remember that” – or “not to the best of my knowledge” will know that Sturgeon is talking shit – about the memorising of dozens of questions months later, then writing her answers down.
https://wingsoverscotland.com/marvola-the-memory-woman/
I think it’s what psychologists call a ‘tell’. When somebody starts protesting about the assumptions she thinks people are making, they are inadvertently accepting the premise. When cornered she will always start bleating about the victimhood she is ‘suffering’, rather than address the questions which, of course, she doesn’t have good answers for.
Imagine a responsible ex-leader only finding this out now. The serious response would be to commission an enquiry to find out how it could have happened, how it wasn’t detected earlier, and how to prevent it ever happening again. As well as determining how reparations and compensation could be made the actual victims, ie SNP good faith supporters.
Instead, it is all about herself and the cross she has to bear, caused by ‘men’. Poor her.
Unfortunately for her and her fan club we have the receipts, of her constantly refusing competent oversight of the accounts, and denigrating and attacking those who requested it. Why would she have done that, if she had the best interests of the party at heart, and understood the importance of probity and transparency in their financial affairs, especially above all, of contributions from ordinary people all over Scotland for an independence campaign. That she has ignored that responsibility, doesn’t consider it worthy of a mention, is hugely telling in what she considers her duties as leader to have been, and her accountability to those Scots who believed in her rhetoric. They are not even pawns in this game, but suckers, and above all the purpose of the fund, to further independence, is of absolutely no interest or relevance to the sordidness of her and her partners’ actions. The level of insult and contempt she displays for the expectations reasonably demanded of her as SNP. leader speaks volumes of her narcissistic, selfish, victim-claiming mountain of excuses and diversions. And it makes clear how such a vacuous, ethics-free soul could have the cold-bloodedness to attempt to jail a former leader on spurious fabricated evidence in order to rid her of his committed and intelligent rivalry.
Time to face the music, Nicola.
I wonder if the judge or Catherine Smith have seen this, posted twelve hours ago:
A Chilling First-Hand Account From a Doctor Who Witnessed Netanyahu’s War Crimes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOv4oe9vuM8 (Tucker Carlson Network 11mins)
As a subject of King Charles dwelling in South Britain, ignorant (despite an Oxford degree in Modern History) of the nature of Scots law, but always ready to defend the proposition that Scotland is 20 times less Philistine than England, and that a line of Burns is worthy a volume of Wordworth (or Shelley or the blessed T.S.Eliot) may I thank Craig for this, and urge him,and all readers to challenge all journalists,(and bloggers like Mr Sacerdoti) to explain their complicit silences about this trial? I am a retiree, but I am now making my first donation to Murray CJ.and if this means that I have to travel on my German passport once this is detected, so be it.
It’s a bit much to put Shelley in the same bracket as the rightwing tosser T S Eliot! And what about William Blake?
Well said, QH.
The “UK state” is a preposterous edifice of posturing mediaevalist robbers. Look at today’s news that Lord “Qatari Moneybags” “nobody vets me” the “King” was collaborating with his brother’s treason. And still the kingdom’s media let him pretend to be one of his palaces (a building that is officially owned by his hat) when he replies.
Imagine if a proletarian, or a private in the army, sent government secrets to Pyongyang, replied in the name of his terraced house when allegations were raised, and said his house was owned by his baseball cap.
One only has to wonder whether the stench from the dustbin of history will become so pervasive that only idiots will be able to get away with pretending it doesn’t exist.
And did I mention that his hat is festooned with stolen jewels?
And he sometimes gets his underlings to fawn to him when he’s wearing it, on live TV, when he’s sitting on an old chair, that unfortunately the suffragettes didn’t use enough explosives under in 1914.
If anyone reading this supports the existence of the “UK”…great regime you’ve got there.
I understand the media have been given the okay to report on “king’s consent”. The role of the lords lieutenant in the tax system? Not yet.
Yes, Brian, and as I’m sure you’re aware….that jewel-encrusted super-bunnet owns vast tracts of Scotland ( and rUK + * former * colonies ), ie The Crown Estate/s, which bring in vast sums of money p.a and all the J.E.S.B ( if we were to use London vernacular, ie tifter, that acronym would be, and more accurately…J.E.S.T ) has to do is sit atop Daft Charlie’s heid now n again: easy money, n’est pas?
Think maybe I’ll ” identify ” as a hat – or maybe, more grandly, a house, and see if I can achieve the same – ok, maybe a little less – luxurious lifestyle/wealth as those other hat + hoose plutocrats.
There’s a reason in the UK tabloids ( in particular, but not exclusively ) never a day passes without a picture/story of/about the ” Royals ” – the Daily Mail might as well be renamed the Daily Kate – and despite the feeding-frenzy over X Prince Charmless ( well, given the all-too-public evidence of his, ahem…. less than impeccable behaviour, what else could be done than setting the hyenas of the UK Press on him in order to mitigate damage on The Firm ), namely…….as the apex of the sclerotic-yet-still-extant Class Structure, the Windsors MUST be rammed down the public throat – FOREVER: otherwise…….the dread spectre of Republicanism looms. Shudder!!!!
So from now on I’ll be referring to myself as The Tam O Shanter and – on formal occasions, eg the previously referred to Ceremony of The Telling The Jocks To Fuck Off, I would like – nay, I DEMAND to be referred to as The Maisonette
@Robert – “There’s a reason in the UK tabloids ( in particular, but not exclusively ) never a day passes without a picture/story of/about the ” Royals ””
Agreed – this says a huge amount about the country and its present regime. It is one of the things I like to point out to visitors from abroad who want to understand this place better.
Since polling began in the mid 1960s, the pecentage of those with a negative view of the monarchy has never fallen below 20%. At present it stands around 40% though one has to allow for how the question is framed and whether the term ‘monarchy’ or ‘royal family’ is used.
Yet these figures are simply not represented in MSM, even in the notionally neutral BBC. A foreigner arriving in the UK and relying on media coverage would assume that the entire country supports, indeed loves, the monarchy. Yet it never has. So how is this false consciousness maintained?
Well, media has a large part to play obviously but the real failure lies at political level. The entire body of elected representatives is expected to swear allegiance to the crown on entering parliament – which rather reduces the chances of republicans sneaking in! And the parliament (which largely represents finance capital) is required to enter the HOL to be reminded of its responsibilities to the aristocracy (inherited capital largely through land.) Monarchy worship is inbuilt into the ‘democratic’ system.
Thread on the Makerfield by-election here:
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/forums/topic/makerfield-by-election-thread/