What legal protections does Magna Carta offer people today?

Magna Carta


None.

Comments

  1. Unknown22 January 2018 at 09:51

    Ha ha. Brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unknown22 January 2018 at 14:06

    what about no penalty ie fine or prison imposed without a hearing

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Defence Brief22 January 2018 at 15:16

      Two things, first I think that's contained in the 1297 version rather than the one signed by King John in Runnymede that is usually cited. While it is technically still in force, it lacks any real bite today partly because it was only ever intended to grant protections to the Barons rather than to the common man and because it is actually pretty vague. Secondly, that clause requires no punishment to be imposed "... but by lawful judgment of his Peers, or by the Law of the Land." The Justices of the Peace Act 1361 also provides that punishment shall be administered only in accordance with the law. The far more recent and enforceable European Convention on Human Rights, as enacted by the Human Rights Act 1998 provides far stronger protections in Articles 4, 5, 6, 7 , 8, 9, 10 and 11 than any version of Magna Carta or the JPA 1361 grants.

      Also, this may be a crass point but if you rely on the HRA in court nobody will laugh at you. Although, in my experience you should bring a pile of textbooks that you can lend to the judge because they often seem unfamiliar with the whole thing.

      Delete
  3. Anonymous23 January 2018 at 14:17

    But Forest Law is so important. I need to collect firewood for my woodburner and not have my ears chopped off for disturbing the King's deer!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Anonymous24 January 2018 at 01:08

    Hi Linda. Yes I am a fuckwit and would like to buy some of your made-up bollocks. Shall I send you all my personal and financial details now, or would you prefer to reel me in a bit with your so convincing gobshite? D

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Drink driving

Image
  Drink driving law is more complex than many appreciate One thing I have found since specialising in motoring law is that it is an area that is poorly understood by many people, criminal lawyers and judges included. I have heard comments from fellow solicitors that include, “I don’t need any papers to advise him about his case, it’s only drink driving.” And, “there are no defences to drink driving.” Most worryingly I’ve heard more than one court legal adviser tell their magistrates that “it is impossible to avoid a driving ban following a drink driving conviction.” None of these things are true and I hope, through a series of blog posts, to give a brief glimpse into the law of motor vehicles and alcohol. In this first post I think it’s worth spelling out exactly what drink driving is and what needs to be proven to secure a conviction. The first thing to know is that there are two different types of drink driving and they require the prosecution to pro...
More gibberish >>

Cash forfeiture and the meaning of draconian

I was due to represent a client in a cash forfeiture hearing this week, although it has been called off at the last minute.   But, I thought I’d take the opportunity to say a few words about these proceedings. The point of the various financial seizure/forfeiture/confiscation orders is for the authorities to deprive criminals of cash found in their possession.   There are a few ways this can be done.   Confiscation proceedings follow a conviction for certain offences, such as drug dealing, money laundering, etc.   Put very simply, in confiscation proceedings the prosecution must show that a) the convicted criminal has benefited from crime to a value of X; and b) that he has realisable assets (in other words has cash or can sell goods) to the value of Y.   The court will then make an order that the defendant owes X but that he must pay Y wherever X is greater than or equal to Y.   Obviously if he can pay the total benefit figure (X) then he must pay that...
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe...
More gibberish >>