British History, Culture & Sports, History of Freedom, Heroes, Inventors, Brits at their Best.com, English country scene

Blog Home | All Posts

EU stealthily attacks right to trial by jury

The Irish Times reports that the European Court of Human Rights is considering a case that could lead to the end of the current system of jury trial. The Irish Government is defending the Irish right to trial by jury according to customary law.

An attack on the Irish right to a jury trial is an attack on the British right.

No surprise that the EU may end a fundamental human right long valued in Ireland and Britain, whether by the backdoor of the "Human Rights" Court or the front door of the EU's Corpus Juris.

There is little understanding in the EU that the right to a jury trial protects every person from a despotic state and from corrupt prosecutors. The right was confirmed in Magna Carta in 1215.

f_penn_young_250w.jpg

Portrait of young William Penn

In 1670, when he was 22, William Penn and four brave members of his jury went to jail to defend the jury's right to freely return a verdict of innocence or guilt. They won that right for us.

The case before the ECHR claims that the jury must explain itself. This is a terrible idea that will place undue pressure on jurors and create havoc in the appeals process. The high court justice in the Penn case sensibly agreed that jurors did not have to explain themselves. By accepting the prosecution's arguments and declaring guilt, or by refusing to accept those arguments and returning a verdict of innocence, jurors have done all the explaining they need to do.

Torquil Dick-Erikson concludes -

"It is no longer just a matter of protecting our prosperity, not just an economic matter, it is even more serious and basic than that - our rights of personal freedom itself are at stake: freedom from arbitrary arrest and wrongful conviction. Here the ECHR is giving a hand to the EU, by attacking trial by jury."

Thanks to Torquil, John Kelly and Idris Francis for bringing this to our attention.

We are facing unending and relentless attacks on our freedoms from our government and the EU.

Comments (5)

jlh:

1. ECHR is the epitome and definition of "misnomer."

2. Somewhere, Napoleon, Hitler, Stalin and the czars are laughing.

3. I cannot believe that the everyday Brit and Irishman will be told this and not take to the streets.

jlh

I cannot believe that the everyday Brit and Irishman will be told this and not take to the streets

Yes they will - because this opinion has not appeared in a negative way on TV.

The average Brit is now completely unable to have independent thought - they need the TV to give them opinions on everything.

Our society is doomed unless this brainwashing is stopped.

See

jlh:

Marcellus--Thank you for the link. It sounds a lot like what we say here about the 'MSM." It is now notorious that "men in pajamas" are among the few guardians of balance in the news.

Anne:

What is debated in the jury room is not usually reported upon.

There are some that say there are only four clauses of Magna Carta that are left, the rest having been repealed. I say that cannot be so because Magna Carta is a Treaty between the Crown and the people and none may disturb it. As far as I am aware the Crown has not been asked, and the people certainly have not been asked. It may say quite clearly in the Treaty of Lisbon that the Union shall have “competence” over national Constitutions and national Laws, but the Union cannot possibly have competence over Magna Carta and Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/9 because the people have not been given a referendum to say ‘yes or no’ one way or the other. Had the people been given a say on the EU Treaty as they were promised, and had they agreed to that particular EU Treaty it might have been said that they were agreeing to allow the EU to have “competence” over their very own Magna Carta , however, the people were denied such a say. It was not the Governments to use or give away to foreigners or for foreigners to have “competence” over.
Yes I am aware that some people believe that only four clauses remain of the great Magna Carta. However, I am prepared to stand in any Court of Law in this Country and put forward well over a hundred pages from Hansard where Lords and/or Ladies have quoted from clauses that no longer allegedly exist to win arguments and I would not have thought anyone could do that if Magna Carta or those clauses quoted no longer existed, especially for use in the important legislation they were debating at that time. It would also bring into question any legislation passed that those quotes from Magna Carta were used to ‘prove’ or enforce an argument that helped ‘pass’ any such legislation. Clause 61, of course was used when Four Law Lords handed in a petition at Buckingham Palace for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II at the time of Nice, and that was a clause that allegedly did not exist, proving once more in fact that it does indeed still exist. Claus 61 is quite likely to be used very much so in the future. That is what it is there for-to be used.

Anne:

I am going to ask you a question if I may?

Could it be interpreted that, in paying our taxes regularly, it might be seen that we, the people, are contributing financially to what may well be treason, because much of what is IN the Treaties is indeed contrary to our own Common Law Constitution and therefore should never have been ratified by those whose sworn allegiance remains here in the UK to the British Crown, our Queen Elizabeth II and through the Crown to all the people in this land.

This was never the people's intention and part of their constitution holds the remedy to stop such an action.

Right from the very first Treaty some of those in the Debates before they joined the then EEC knew that it was not suitable for the legal and constitutional laws of this Country. Those in a position to speak, did not tell the people the true end game or meaning of the Treaty.

The last Treaty of Lisbon was so deliberately muddled that it does not meet the European Convention of the Laws of Treaties, for Treaties should be clear to all understand. Very few can understand it, so much so the Treaty didn't even meet the Conventions own high standard. I look forward to your answer.

Post a comment

(Please do give us your name or the name you write under in the form below and your URL if you have one. Your comment may take a little time to appear. Thanks for waiting.)

COPYRIGHT