The Killer Out There: Chris Keil

At last a picture of the outlaw Chris Keil, who wants this "sad fuck" to die.

Chris Keil posted nasty stuff about me. Fair enough. He is entitled to his opinion. This site is about nothing if it is not about free speech.

He just went too far when he said he wanted me to "die"

Do his readers know the contempt in which he holds them?

Do his readers know the contempt in which he holds free speech?

Do his readers know the contempt in which he holds the little man (as opposed to himself, who is obviously a very big man whose opinions command and deserve to command universal respect)?

That is not tonight's quiz. Rhetorical questions do not count. Here are the quiz questions.

QUIZ:

(1) Should I report Chris Keil to the police for inciting someone to use violence against me?

(2) Should I report Chris Keil to the police for impliedly threatening to kill me himself?

(3) Should I sue Chris Keil in the civil courts for defamation?

Terrorist Mark Haddock Hides His Face

Mark Haddock (an alleged murderer but only in prison for GBH* with intent) has won the right to hide his face, at least for the time being.

No-one can publish his picture; that is, a picture of his new face. Obviously, we can still publish his old face:
Well, let us hope that this attempt to hide from his former friends in a terrorist organisation works better than the last one:

This is not a man deserving of the sympathy of the court or of its protection. However, the protection is limited - see the title link.

If you want to know who Mark Haddock is you might start with his wiki entry.

Haddock was an insider in the UVF* and latterly a Special Branch Informer. It has been said:

There would have been more people in the cemeteries of Northern Ireland if we hadn't run people like Mark Haddock

But is that true? Others think that he put a lot of bodies there himself.

*GBH = Grievous Bodily Harm (for when you get away with murder)
*UVF = Ulster Voluntary Force (a Protestant paramilitary organisation)

The Royal Bank Of Scotland: Disgraceful Scrooge

The Royal Bank of Scotland disciplined an employee because she was let down by a childminder and could not work on 22nd December because she had to look after her 5 year old and her 15 month old baby.

Timetable:

8th December - Mrs Harrison notified by childminder of her unavailability for the 22nd.

12th December - notifies employer that she has tried everything but cannot find a substitute.

20th December - Royal Bank of Scotland says words to the effect "Work, or else".

The Royal Bank of Scotland is then as good as its word; no doubt having carefully thought through its consequences for employee relations, customer relations and its public image.

It not only does not pay Mrs Harrison for the day...

it also disciplines her for her unavoidable absence...

it then resists her complaint to the Employment Tribunal...

it is then puzzled as to why it loses...

and it is then crass enough to take the matter to the Employment Appeal Tribunal. See the title link...

where, as a moron in a hurry could have predicted, it again loses.

I think we should have a quiz.

QUIZ TIME:

1. Do you approve of RBS's behaviour?

2. Would it make any difference to your opinion if RBS's actions were actually unlawful? (See the title link for the legal decision).

3. If you had a choice, would you work for:

(a) The Royal Bank of Scotland; or,
(b) Another Bank; or,
(c) Someone else; or,
(d) Anyone else as long as it was not the RBS.

4. If you could not find another job, would you prefer to be unemployed rather than take a job with RBS?

5. Do you want to be a customer of RBS?

COMMENT:

Luckily, I am not a customer of RBS and so do not need to change banks but I would if I was.

The credit crunch has nothing to do with this. It started well before that was even on the horizon.

It has to do with greed and stupidity.

Ladd v Marshall Still Rules After Over 50 Years: Time to Abandon It?

Ladd v Marshall (see the title link) is the most important decision governing appeals in England and Wales.

It is also a decision, essentially, of Lord Denning. That alone would make it worth reading. Although a 1954 decision it is only much more recently available over the internet.

The core of the decision as follows:

The principles to be applied are the same as those always applied when fresh evidence is sought to be introduced. In order to justify the reception of fresh evidence or a new trial, three conditions mast be fulfilled: first, it must be shown that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use at the trial: second, the evidence most be such that, if given, it would probably have an important influence on the result of the case, though it need not be decisive: thirdly, the evidence must be such as is presumably to be believed, or in other words, it must be apparently credible, though it need not be incontrovertible.

Bailii does not seem to add numbers to the paragraphs of old decisions but the above is about half way down.

The problem with Ladd v Marshall is that it can be used as a lazy excuse by the Court of Appeal to turn a blind eye to otherwise exculpatory evidence.

QUESTIONS:

Should we forget this decision and allow our appeal courts to simply decide whether someone was really guilty or not?

After all, if someone is not guilty why should he/she be kept in prison simply because his incompetent legal team failed to find evidence that they could have done if they had been competent?

The Great British Menu 2008: Exemplary Sportsmanship

THE JUDGES

I admit that I was addicted to The Great British Menu. What attracted me was not, however, the cooking.

I loved the cooking. I wish the winners would come around to my house and cook me the winning dishes.

Something impressed me more than the cooking.

These chefs were engaged in a heavy competitive exercise. It was just as competitive as a high level sport.

Yet, they HELPED each other. If one of them experienced a difficulty, THERE WAS ALWAYS SOMEONE WHO WOULD HELP THEM.

These guys are to be applauded for their humanity and sportsmanship.

We cannot now refer to cricket as a game that is conducted with an exemplary reference to a moral code but we can say that our chefs represent a league of true gentlemen.

They played hard and they never cheated. If an opponent fell, they helped him up. They did not want to win by fair means or foul. They only wanted to win fairly.

I applaud all of them.

"Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult," Says Teenager And Gets Arrested

Seems scientology is running scared if it has to seek a police prosecution of a juvenile for echoing the views expressed by Mr Justice Latey in a 1984 case in which he aid scientology was a "corrupt, sinister and dangerous" cult.

How can you be prosecuted for echoing the views of a judge in court?

Scientology is not recognised as a religion in England and Wales so what is it?

That must be a matter of opinion.

If so, the description "cult" must be among the range of reasonable opinions that can be held.

The above seems to me a complete defence although I hasten to add that I am a civil litigator and not a criminal defence lawyer. I hope one of the latter will offer to take this case pro bono.

Aside from that, this case should not proceed to trial and the kid should have had his rights protected by the police not been persecuted by them in order to help out the scientologists.

Attempt By MPs To Block Disclosure Of Expenses Fails Miserably

Corporate Officer of the House of Commons
Appellant

- and -

The Information Commissioner
Heather Brooke
Ben Leapman
Jonathan Michael Ungoed-Thomas
Respondents

"ACA" below = Additional Costs Allowance, an allowance payable to Members of Parliament (MPs) who represent constituencies outside London or outer London.

This is the appeal to the High Court to protect MPs from having to make proper and full disclosure of certain expenses paid to them out of tax payers money.

I have been following this story and relevant previous posts are:

7th May, 2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update, Update!

13th April, 2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update!

1st April,2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update!

22nd February, 2008:
Buffoon Dressed In A Little Brief Authority

The following are extracts from the decision. They speak for themselves. You can read the full judgment by clicking on the case title above.

Key Extract:

Once legislation which applies to Parliament has been enacted, MPs cannot and could not reasonably expect to contract out of compliance with it, or exempt themselves, or be exempted from its ambit. Such actions would themselves contravene the Bill of Rights, and it is inconceivable that MPs could expect to conduct their affairs on the basis that recently enacted legislation did not apply to them, or that the House, for its own purposes, was permitted to suspend or dispense with such legislation without expressly amending or repealing it. Any such expectation would be wholly unreasonable.

Key Extract:

Even if (which we do not accept) MPs were justified in anticipating that the details of their claims for ACA would not normally be disclosed, once it emerged, as the Tribunal has found, that the operation of the ACA system was deeply flawed, public scrutiny of the details of individual claims were inevitable. In such circumstances it would have been unreasonable for MPs to expect anything else.

Key Extract:

Having closely examined the privacy issue, not only as it related to the MPs claiming ACA, but also to anyone living with them, the Tribunal concluded that "the ACA system is so deeply flawed, the shortfall in accountability is so substantial, and the necessity of full disclosure so convincingly established, that only the most pressing privacy needs should in our view be permitted to prevail". It may be that the system will be revised, and subject to much more robust checking to ensure, for example, that the addresses to which ACA relates do in fact exist, and that the claims for them are within the scheme and not excessive. If so, the case for specific disclosure of such addresses may be rather less powerful. As it seems to us, all the necessary elements to the decision making process were properly recognised and carefully balanced by the Tribunal. No basis has been shown to justify interference.

Further:

Speaker Michael Martin is said to be considering a further appeal and has sacked lawyers who have advised that his case will not succeed.

QUIZ QUESTIONS:

What is it that he and other MPs are so desperate to hide?

What are the legal fees so far for this doomed litigation? Clue: six figures should be your starting point.

Do they not realise that their desperation is deeply unattractive to the public?

Do they fail to understand that the desperation suggests that they trying to hide their corruption?

Snake Man Escapes By Slithering Out Of Jail In Vienna

The title link is to a Reuters news item. It begins:

"A man has escaped from his Austrian jail cell by squeezing through a food hatch in the door..."

Let us hope the Snake Man is not now in Austria teaching his techniques to Josef Fritzl. Also, please not to the new Austrian Axe Man.

WHAT IS AUSTRIA COMING TO?

This is a selection of articles in The Times. I am a blogger not a newspaper so do not expect "balannce" in the selection. Articles are selected on the basis that I find them interesting; just as the link above to India Knight's opinion was chosen by me as the most interesting link.

Austria: ‘We have to ask what’s going wrong’

Experts reveal that one in six girls in Austria abused at home

Austria fights back against 'Land of Dungeons' tag

John Hemming MP: A Nutter Reverses Progress For Fathers In The Family Courts

This is the extraordinary case of RP v Nottingham City Council. It is a child care case and, as previous posts make clear, I do not believe that these are always handled correctly. That is not the focus here.

John Hemming MP has engaged in a totally misjudged and ill-considered attack on the professional integrity of solicitors, barristers, social workers and experts. Lord Justice Thorpe has administered a thoroughly justified rebuke. In my view the Court of Appeal judgment calls into question Mr Hemming's fitness to be an MP. The conclusion of Lord Justice Thorpe was:

"As to Mr. Hemming, my judgment is that his self-imposed role as a critic of the family justice system is gravely damaged, and speaking for myself I will not be persuaded to take seriously any criticism made by him in the future unless it is corroborated by reliable, independent evidence."

Hemming's allegations included:

• the Official Solicitor lied and fabricated a letter


• the solicitor instructed by the OS fabricated attendance notes


• the expert was in the pay of the local authority and therefore did not give a true opinion

The second of Lord Justice Thorpe's reasons for setting out in some considerable detail the facts of this matter was:

"to record Mr. Hemming's quite extraordinary reaction to SC's file. After Mr. Peter Jackson QC had taken us through the references to SC's discussions with RP about the role of the Official Solicitor (perhaps not, in fairness to Mr. Jackson, in quite the same degree of detail as I have done) we invited Mr. Hemming to reply on RP's behalf. I confess that, no doubt with considerable naivety, I had expected a recognition on his part that, whatever RP's perspective of the Official Solicitor and his role, the record made by SC would be respected, and that Mr. Hemming would acknowledge that, to some extent at least, RP's recollection had plainly failed her.

Not a bit of it. So astonished was I by Mr. Hemming's response that I asked the transcribers to make me a CD Rom of the exchanges which occurred, so that my note of them could be supplemented by the record. In a nutshell, Mr. Hemming's response was that the evidence contained in SC's file had been made up: in a word, fabricated."

Whilst the full judgment should be read I feel I must post the following lengthy segment:

"Over the period during which this judgment has been reserved, I have, of course, carefully considered Mr Hemming's interventions in this part of the case, and I have re-read the files. Having done so, the feeling of incredulity which I experienced on 4 March has not diminished.

In my judgment, SC's files demonstrate overwhelmingly four clear facts. They are; (1) that RP was fully aware that SC had doubts about her ability to provide instructions; (2) that RP was fully aware that the Official Solicitor was being approached to act on her behalf; (3) that she was fully aware that the Official Solicitor had been appointed, and was representing her; and (4) that she was fully aware of his role in the proceedings. In short, RP's assertion that she did not know the Official Solicitor was acting for her is manifestly unsustainable.

Mr. Hemming's response on RP's behalf is that this cannot be so because the file has been interfered with. I have, of course, considered that response with care. It is a profoundly serious allegation. However, it is one for which, in my judgment, there is absolutely no evidence. The only query is the mistaken date on the typed attendance note.

I find it not only unacceptable but shocking, that a man in Mr Hemming's position should feel able to make so serious an allegation without any evidence to support it. In my judgment, it is irresponsible and an abuse of his position. Unfortunately, as other aspects of this judgment will make clear, it is not the only part of the case in which Mr Hemming has been willing to scatter unfounded allegations of professional impropriety and malpractice without any evidence to support them.

I can simply see no reason why the file should not be taken at face value as accurately reflecting what occurred. The file simply reflects and records the actions of a solicitor doing her best to represent a disadvantaged client. I can see absolutely no reason why SC should have made false entries on the file and no reason why she should not have forwarded the Official Solicitor's letter of 11 December and the explanatory leaflet to her client. I ask myself the very simple question: why should she behave in this manifestly unprofessional way? In the crude phrase: what was in it for her? The answer to the second question is, of course, nothing."

Mr John Hemming MP has done nothing but damage the cause he espouses.

His behaviour in this case was utterly deplorable.

In an earlier age, not long ago, well, only decades ago, an MP in his position would have done the honourable thing and resigned.

Speaker Michael Martin: Update, Update, Update, Update!

The "Update, Update!" take is wearing thin as an associative reference to the Speaker's "Order, Order!" said in his own spectacularly unauthoritative manner (particularly as regards labour politicians). I promise to change it next time Michael Martin behaves in a stupid manner that I can bother to comment upon.

He is at it again. See the title link.The Daily Mail reports today:

"House of Commons Speaker Michael Martin launched a High Court bid today to block an "unlawfully intrusive" decision to force disclosure of MPs' expenses".

It also reports:

"The decision to challenge the Tribunal angered many MPs and freedom of information campaigners, not least because of its cost.

Westminster's anti-sleaze chief, Sir Christopher Kelly, described the move as "unfortunate" and said it suggested MPs have something to hide".

Speaker Martin appears to have a genious for only one thing: damaging himself and damaging everyone else who has ever been associated with him; including both his wife and every other member of parliament of whatever party.

THE QUIZ QUESTION FOR TODAY CAN ONLY BE:

Is Michael Martin the worst Speaker in history?

Previous Posts:

13th April, 2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update, Update!

1st April,2008:
Speaker Martin: Update, Update!

22nd February, 2008:
Buffoon Dressed In A Little Brief Authority

Heroic And Troublesome Coroner Moved Sideways

The heroic Oxford coroner Andrew Walker (a thorn in the side of the Ministry of Defence) has been moved sideways.

It is not accurate to say that he has been sacked (as is widely reported on the internet). He was on a fixed term contract and his contract is not being renewed.

The reason given for this is that the "resources" (i.e. the three additional coroners appointed to deal with a backlog of military inquests in Oxford) are no longer required. See this article. The Department of Constitutional Affairs said:

"The government believes that these extra resources can complete all 85 inquests by May 2007."

I love the Dalek-like reference to human beings as resources!

However, Andrew Walker is indisputably an able, efficient and incorruptible coroner. Even if you want to get rid of him it is going to look bad if you simply dispense with the services of such a useful "resource". But, he is a bloody nuisance. See this article.

SOLUTION: Move him to be coroner for Hornsey in North London.

RESULT: The Ministry of Defence can rest easy. Des Browne can smile again. Not many dead soldiers in Hornsey.


If anyone says the government did not recognise Mr Walker's sterling qualities (thorough, precise, fair etc.) they can respond that his job as coroner was redundant (we terminated the other two temporary coroners as well), they have given him an important job in Hornsey and their critics are being unreasonably cynical. Oh, you are not really suggesting that the Department of Constitutional Affairs would make a decision to move a coroner simply because it was in the interests of the Ministry of Defence, are you?

Well, I might be. I know you do not do not do much in the way of joined up thinking but maybe you are capable of just a little when the self-interest of ministers is involved.

I can only imagine the response but it might consist of the exclamation "Oh, really!" and the stamping of a foot. Well, I was not suggesting that they had climbed out of their prams. Ok, I have not suggested it yet.

I should quote one tribute by one parent of a dead soldier:

"We wish to pay tribute to the coroner Andrew Walker, for his unrelenting quest for the truth, his objectivity in considering all the evidence and his humanity in the way he dealt with us, the family.

He is, indeed, a fine and wise coroner."

Well, you can see why the government does not like him!
Previous posts:

The Oxford Coroner Andrew Walker and Jason Smith

Who Will Rid Me Of This Turbulent Priest?

The Oxford Coroner Andrew Walker And Jason Smith

I promised in a previous post (Who Will Rid Me Of This Turbulent Priest?) to provide an update on the brave Oxford Coroner and his right to criticise the government, when the judgment became available. It now is, at the title link.

The following extracts give the flavour of the reasoning of Mr Justice Collins:

"Ms Moore [for the Secretary for Defence] submitted that it was impossible to afford to soldiers who were on active service outside their bases the benefits of the Human Rights Act. If the Act was to apply, it had to apply in all aspects. The circumstances of any particular case will determine whether an Article is breached. I am concerned with Article 2. This reads, so far as material:-

"1. Everyone's right to life shall be protected by law.

2. Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this Article when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully detained;

(c) in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection." ..."

He then referred to the difficulty of imposing human rights obligations in battle conditions and went on:

"But the soldier does not lose all protection simply because he is in hostile territory carrying out dangerous operations. Thus, for example, to send a soldier out on patrol or, indeed, into battle with defective equipment could constitute a breach of Article 2. If I may take a historical illustration, the failures of the commissariat and the failures to provide any adequate medical attention in the Crimean War would whereas the Charge of the Light Brigade would not be regarded as a possible breach of Article 2. So the protection of Article 2 is capable of extending to a member of the armed forces wherever he or she may be; whether it does will depend on the circumstances of the particular case. ..."

"It was common ground that the circumstances of Private Smith's death gave rise to concerns that there may have been a failure by the army to provide an adequate system to protect his life. Thus the Middleton approach to the inquest, namely that in deciding how the deceased met his death, the coroner should consider in what circumstances death resulted, should prevail. On the last day of the inquest, the coroner asked for argument whether the evidence justified a finding that there was even arguably a breach of Article 2. He decided that no such finding was justified. It seems he thought that a conclusion on this was needed since it would dictate the contents and form of the verdict he would announce.

In my view, he was wrong to entertain the argument. The procedural obligation under Article 2 was to hold the necessary inquiry and to find the necessary facts. If those facts showed that there was no breach of the substantive obligation and that nothing different need be done in the future to protect life, that should be indicated by the verdict. The family needed to know what were the conclusions on the important issues. Thus the inquest is not the means whereby a substantive breach of Article 2 is to be established – indeed, as will become apparent, a verdict which appeared to determine this would be likely to be contrary to Rule 42(b) of the Coroners Rules 1984. It is to decide by what means and in what circumstances the deceased met his death. ..."

He then referred to the European Court of Human Rights key decisions and in particular quoted from Jordan in the House of Lords:

"The investigation must also be effective in the sense that it is capable of leading to a determination of whether the force used in such cases was or was not justified in the circumstances and to the identification and punishment of those responsible. This is not an obligation of result, but of means. The authorities must have taken the reasonable steps available to them to secure the evidence concerning the incident, including inter alia eye witness testimony, forensic evidence and, where appropriate, an autopsy which provides a complete and accurate record of injury and an objective analysis of clinical findings, including the cause of death. Any deficiency in the investigation which undermines its ability to establish the cause of death or the person or persons responsible will risk falling foul of this standard."

He concluded that a coroner must be entitled to conduct an effective investigation in compliance with the above.

The conclusion of Andrew Walker which the Ministry of Defence attacked was that:

"On the 13th August 2003 Jason George Smith was on active service when found suffering with heatstroke at the Al Amarah stadium where he was stationed. He was taken to a medical centre at Abu Naji Camp where he died. Jason George Smith's death was caused by a serious failure to recognise and take appropriate steps to address the difficulty that he had in adjusting to the climate."

He went on to summarise the MOD attack and to further conclude:

"While there was a somewhat faint argument that the word 'failure' was undesirable, the real attack by Ms Moore was directed at the adjective 'serious'. It is obvious that there is some tension between the prohibition contained in Rule 42(b) and the need for an Article 2 inquest to identify those responsible and shortcomings so that they can be remedied for the future to avoid similar deaths. Section 8(3)(d) of the 1988 Act, which requires a jury if the continuance or possible recurrence of the circumstances in which the death occurred is prejudicial to the health or safety of members of the public, creates its own tension since there must be examination of and findings in relation to any shortcomings which led to the death and which may need to be addressed."

In a final (itself robust) attack Mr Justice Collins stated clearly that a coroner is entitled to be robust (trenchant, perhaps, or even, severe) when making his findings:

"Ms Moore submits that a verdict which speaks of a failure is in danger of transgressing Rule 42(b) and the addition of the adjective serious crosses the line. It is, she says, not neutral but pejorative. But the coroner was recording the evidence of witnesses and concluding that that evidence was accepted. Ms Moore accepts that he would have been entitled to record that acts or omissions existed which were directly relevant to the cause of death. To identify them would have had much the same effect as describing them as failures. The prohibition is against framing a verdict in such a way as to appear to determine any question of civil liability. The word determine is important; a finding that there was a failure to act in a particular way does not appear to determine a question of civil liability. It no doubt will assist a potential claimant, but it is the evidence which is elicited which will in the end be material, not the verdict of the coroner or the jury. No doubt, assertions that there has been a breach of a duty of care or that there was negligence should be avoided, but I do not think that findings of fact, however robustly stated, can be forbidden."

Thus the MOD and its silly minister Des Browne were swatted down and effectively held up to ridicule for their breaches of human rights and their pathetic attempt to defend them.

I now hear that the coroner will not be reappointed. More tomorrow.

Mbeki Disgraces South Africa

President Thabo Mvuyelwa Mbeki has brought disgrace on himself and his country by his continued refusal to criticise Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

He has long stated that Africa should regulate itself but his servile and hypocritical attitude to his neighbour wholly undermines this position. He seriously calls into question any suggestion that Africa is capable of performing this role.

Mugabe is just as bad as his white racist pedecessors:

Unlawful To Give In To Saudi Threats: Tony Blair Condemned

Hurray! The court overrules the Government. Justice and freedom are alive in England. What is the SFO going to do now. Er, nothing, probably; naturally, this inactivity will be suitably camouflaged by the appearance of doing something. This does not deprive the judgment of its value as a statement of how law officers should act in the face of blackmail.

Some extracts from the summary:

"The allegation made by the claimants is clear. It sets out a report from the Sunday Times dated 10 June 2007. The report states that:-

"Bandar (Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdul Aziz of al-Saud) went into Number 10 and said 'get it stopped' [words omitted]. Bandar suggested to Powell he knew the SFO were looking at the Swiss accounts?if they didn't stop it, the Typhoon contract was going to be stopped and intelligence and diplomatic relations would be pulled." ..."

"The Director, in his first witness statement, states that the reason why he discontinued the investigation was that to continue:-

"would risk an immediate cessation of co-operation in relation to national and international security which might have devastating effects on the UK's national security interest ? both locally in the UK and in the wider international field in the Middle East?a compelling case had been made out that the UK's national security and innocent lives would be put in serious jeopardy if the SFO's investigation continued." He says:-

"It was this feature of the case which I felt left me with no choice but to halt the investigation."

The defendant in name, although in reality the Government, contends that the Director was entitled to surrender to the threat. The law is powerless to resist the specific and, as it turns out, successful attempt by a foreign government to pervert the course of justice in the United Kingdom, by causing the investigation to be halted. The court must, so it is argued, accept that whilst the threats and their consequences are "a matter of regret", they are a "part of life".

So bleak a picture of the impotence of the law invites at least dismay, if not outrage. The danger of so heated a reaction is that it generates steam; this obscures the search for legal principle. The challenge, triggered by this application, is to identify a legal principle which may be deployed in defence of so blatant a threat. However abject the surrender to that threat, if there is no identifiable legal principle by which the threat may be resisted, then the court must itself acquiesce in the capitulation. ..."

"The principle we have identified is that submission to a threat is lawful only when it is demonstrated to a court that there was no alternative course open to the decision-maker. This principle seems to us to have two particular virtues.

Firstly, by restricting the circumstances in which submission may be endorsed as lawful, the rule of law may be protected. If one on whom the duty of independent decision is imposed may invoke a wide range of circumstances in which he may surrender his will to the dictates of another, the rule of law is undermined.

Secondly, as this case demonstrates, too ready a submission may give rise to the suspicion that the threat was not the real ground for the decision at all; rather it was a useful pretext. It is obvious, in the present case, that the decision to halt the investigation suited the objectives of the executive. Stopping the investigation avoided uncomfortable consequences, both commercial and diplomatic. Whilst we have accepted the evidence as to the grounds of this decision, in future cases, absent a principle of necessity, it would be all too tempting to use a threat as a ground for a convenient conclusion. We fear for the reputation of the administration of justice if it can be perverted by a threat. Let it be accepted, as the defendant's grounds assert, that this was an exceptional case; how does it look if on the one occasion in recent memory, a threat is made to the administration of justice, the law buckles?..."

"The court has a responsibility to secure the rule of law. The Director was required to satisfy the court that all that could reasonably be done had been done to resist the threat. He has failed to do so. He submitted too readily because he, like the executive, concentrated on the effects which were feared should the threat be carried out and not on how the threat might be resisted. No-one, whether within this country or outside is entitled to interfere with the course of our justice. It is the failure of Government and the defendant to bear that essential principle in mind that justifies the intervention of this court. We shall hear further argument as to the nature of such intervention. But we intervene in fulfilment of our responsibility to protect the independence of the Director and of our criminal justice system from threat. On 11 December 2006, the Prime Minister said that this was the clearest case for intervention in the public interest he had seen. We agree."

It was, of course, Tony Blair who "intervened in the public interest" and to whose cheek the slap in that last sentence is directed.