Does The 'Snoopers Charter' Also Enshrine Lying In Court? (theregister.co.uk)

The U.K.'s newly-based Investigatory Powers Act (the Snoopers' Charter) "allows the State to tell lies in court," according to The Register, saying it enshrines into law "the practice where prosecutors lie about the origins of evidence to judges and juries." Jigsy shares their report: The operation of the oversight and accountability mechanisms...are all kept firmly out of sight -- and, so its authors hope, out of mind -- of the public. It is up to the State to volunteer the truth to its victims if the State thinks it has abused its secret powers. "Marking your own homework" is a phrase which does not fully capture this...

Section 56(1)(b) creates a legally guaranteed ability -- nay, duty -- to lie about even the potential for State hacking to take place, and to tell juries a wholly fictitious story about the true origins of hacked material used against defendants in order to secure criminal convictions. This is incredibly dangerous. Even if you know that the story being told in court is false, you and your legal representatives are now banned from being able to question those falsehoods and cast doubt upon the prosecution story. Potentially, you could be legally bound to go along with lies told in court about your communications -- lies told by people whose sole task is to weave a story that will get you sent to prison or fined thousands of pounds.

Comments

Solution

[BarbaraHudson]

So fire your lawyer and state the truth yourself if they're too chicken-shit to oppose a bad law. Insist on a jury trial. Jurors are getting pretty good at the whole jury nullification thing. BTW, it is NOT illegal to tell the jury they can nullify the law - just that judges don't like it and will punish you for it - and their doing so will make the jury distrust the whole legal system.

Also, appeals courts have set aside convictions based on things like handing out flyers outside of courthouses to let jurors know their right to nullify a law, as well as convictions where no jury is present.

Re:Solution

[drinkypoo]

What country do you think this is?

I think that England has had jury nullification since the 17th century. No?

Re:*sigh* again... this is what you get....

[TheRaven64]

UK (AFAIK) doesn't have a written constitution

Technically, we have a written, but not codified constitution.

1. Brexit: Cameron just 'randomly' "CHOSE" majority (50%+1) as the requirement for Brexit

Nope, he didn't choose anything. Unlike the previous referendum, there was nothing in the act about what would happen if it passed, which was part of the problem. There was no provision in the bill stating requirements for either side to win, nor what happened if they did. As a result, the referendum has no more legal force than an opinion poll. That's not a problem with not having a codified constitution (the US, for example, has no provisions for referenda in its constitution, so would be in a similar situation if a poorly worded referendum act passed in Congress), that's a problem with politicians not thinking through the consequences of their actions. If you have a solution for that problem, most of the world would be interested in hearing it...

2. Scottish Independence vote... again... just randomly made up rules at the time by the PM to decide things

This referendum was held because it was an election promise by the party that won the majority (if memory serves, in fact all) of the seats representing Scotland.

The Queen can just DISSOLVE Parliament whenever she wants... and force new elections

That's technically true, but not really relevant as it would trigger a constitutional crisis if it ever did happen (as I recall, Australia and Canada have similar clauses in their constitutions). As of the Fixed Term Parliament Act, the government can no longer call a general election with a simple vote and a majority of one of the MPs that bother to turn up. That's largely a superficial distinction though, because a general election can be triggered by a vote of no confidence, which requires a simple majority.

This nonsense that can't even be challenged in court because there is no such thing as a "First Amendment" in the UK

This can be challenged in court, and almost certainly will be (I know of one challenge that's already been launched, there will no doubt be others). It's likely to be in violation of the ECHR, so can be challenged in all of the way up to the European Court of Human Rights. In this respect, the UK is luckier than the USA, because to bring a case to overturn a law in the USA, you must show someone who has been harmed by the law in question. In the UK, laws can be challenged on the basis that they permit hypothetical harm and the judiciary can require that they be amended to avoid that hypothetical from becoming reality. This is particularly important in cases like this, where it's very difficult to prove harm because the evidence is classified and exempt from FOIA requests because of national security.