MPs back secret inquests…

MPs have given their support to Government plans to hold inquests in secret. It means the secretary of state can ‘certify’ an inquest to be held in private, if it affects national security, the relationship between the UK and another country or the prevention or detection of crime. While a high court judge would have to approve the certificate, it would mean that, for example, inquests into some deaths in jails or police custody could he held in secret, or the deaths of British troops caused by ‘friendly fire’ from a coalition force. It’s likely that the inquests of Dr David Kelly, Jean Charles de Menezes and numerous members of the armed forces would have been held behind closed doors under the Government proposals. It’s pretty despicable stuff, in my opinion, and the Government has been less than convincing in its arguments for putting the legislation forward.

  • NCM

    That should work out great. Have fun, guys.

  • Gregory

    You are already living with it every single day.

    Do you think the FBI or Interpol can issue a statement about UK crime? That they know about?

    For example, most prostitution in Ireland is organized from an English safe haven.

    There, Ireland, you have laws prohibiting X and in the UK, there are no laws, and ‘politeness’ stops the Irish omplaining.

    No complaint, no media.

    So, with the FBI, there is an agreement dating to WWII, and Interpol has service agreements, there are a host of related or self-imposed D notices if you like.

    What do we know about the Dutch/Irish/Spanish crime stuff?

    Dribs and Drabs, because it is multi-partner secret.

    “the deaths of British troops caused by ‘friendly fire’ from a coalition force. ”

    Air national guard on ‘pep drugs’, there you are, the Yanks get something back, pilots banned from driving are bombing our troops.

    Gregory

  • joeCanuck

    Seems they are keen to adopt some of the Provisions of the long ago repealed Special Powers Act for N.I.
    How ironic.

    Codeword is “trouble”. More irony.

  • Rory Carr

    “The government’s amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill says inquests should be held in private if they affect national security, the relationship between the UK and another country or the prevention or detection of crime.” – BT Report linked (my emphasis).

    I do wonder what “other country” our legislators might have been thinking of when they drafted this amendment?

    And of course, that good old standby “national security” is once again trotted out as justification as it is on every occasion when individual citizens’ safeguards are under attack from the state. How useful that old horse proved to be in protecting the armament companies from being criminalised by their own actions in bribing equally corrupt brother merchants-of-death in Saudi.

    It ought to be unbelievable that so many Labour MP’s voted for this atrocious piece of legislation which stinks of all that is vile in the most draconian of dictatorships, but sadly we have become inured to accept that today’s Labour intake have no connection to their electorate and harken only to the call of their paymasters. This is the kind of legislation which would formerly have been associated only with those regimes upon which mention of their very names, any decent Labourite would have spat – Franco’s Spain; Pinochet’s Chile; Verwoert’s South Africa and of course, Northern Ireland.

    Great Britain, bastion of liberty and cradle of democracy, how are ye?