EXCL: Modern slavery victims ‘denied access to justice’ as caseworkers face ‘culture of silence'
Staff assisting survivors under Home Office contract told 'do not comment' on cuts to support - leaving lawyers challenging decision unable to gather evidence
https://t.co/MkYXWk4FRR
This evening I voted against the Covert Human Intelligence Sources Bill.
I can't support legislation that could give undercover state agents the licence to murder, torture and commit sexual violence.
I am disgusted to see people suggesting that @EssexBarrister is lying. I, alongside many other Black Barristers, have experienced similar treatment. For her to experience it three times in one day is appalling. Change is long overdue. @CEOofHMCTS
I was told "very loudly to get out of the courtroom"
Black barrister Alexandra Wilson says court staff mistook her for a defendant three times in one day
https://t.co/PxkyecgYDB
The chancellor’s refusal to invest in reducing the crown court backlog leaves potentially serious offenders released on bail for YEARS, with the potential to reoffend and cause further harm.
The biggest threat to public safety is not “soft sentences” but years of chronic underfunding of the parole board, rehabilitation programs, the courts, legal aid and prisons.
Public protection is the key principle of #sentencing.
Reforms will:
- Make Whole Life Orders default position for premeditated murder of children
- Reduce Whole Life Order min age to 18 in exceptional cases
- Stop auto release for prisoners who may become a future danger
2/5
The point of human rights has always been that the apply universally. To the good, the bad and the ugly, residents, migrants, citizens alike. The government choosing to pick and choose who deserves human rights is nothing short of fascism.
To walk back from these commitments is a slippery slope, not just for us, but for the other countries who will use us as an example to commit despicable crimes against their populations. The government doesn't decide who is human and who is not.
She cites Miller in support. Have a look at Paragraph 55, which notes that treaties between sovereign states "have effect in international law".
Lord Reed's judgment also quotes Rees-Mogg with crisp summary: treaties create obligations on the intl plane, not the domestic plane.
In dualist systems like the UK, she says, "treaty obligations only become binding to the extent that they are enshrined in domestic legislation".
This is wrong. They only become *enforceable before domestic courts* if incorporated by legislation. But that is a different thing.
How on earth are we supposed to have the trust of other States in negotiating new treaties and trade agreements? This is monumentally stupid and the govt law officers should resign.
International law and the rule of law more broadly is FAR more important. How can we stand up to other countries using the genocide convention if we disrespect international law? How can we enforce laws when the government wilfully admits breaking it?
Many reasons why the govt shouldn't be deliberately breaking international law: practical (other states won't trust us), rule of law, ethical and democratic.
But even more urgently, we need people to follow laws as Covid cases increase - a dangerous time for hypocrisy
BREAKING: The Bar Human Rights Committee of England and Wales today called on U.K. and other governments to impose Magnitsky sanctions on Chinese officials involved in the Uighur genocide https://t.co/23XHLzcLTT
Pompeo says we have to lay out a "framework" of human rights. Conveniently, there is one, and the US has already signed most of the treaties that lay it out.