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

Section 172 notices

Image
A short post on section 172 notices this afternoon. I tend to focus on drink driving offences, although I do undertake any type of motoring law case if asked, so section 172 notices pop up from time to time in my work. If you don’t already know, section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 requires the registered keeper of a vehicle to identify the driver of the vehicle when the police allege that the driver at the time was responsible for an offence. If you’ve ever had a speeding ticket through the post then you will probably have been sent one of these documents sent out with the Notice of Intended Prosecution. Failing to provide the information is an offence in itself that carried a fine and six penalty points. There are technical legal defences but the most common defence I’ve seen is people giving evidence that they did return the form but it got lost somewhere along the line. In general, when a person gives evidence that they posted the section 172 notice having comple...
More gibberish >>

Who I and why?

I'm a keen reader of blogs and read a wide range including Bystander's Magistrates' Blog, the Anonymous Prosecutor, several police blogs, Frank Chalk and Winston Smith.  There are others, but those are the main ones. I just read Inspector Gadget's latest post, in particular this paragraph: Wayne’s solicitor is clearly speaking about a different person to the one that Mandy and I have been dealing with. The Wayne he speaks of is a loving father to his new baby, a man riven by guilt and remorse at his previous behaviour, a man deeply committed to change, a man who now wants to do volunteer work in his community. A man clean of drugs who has, yes, failed his last two drugs tests at probation, and missed the last twelve, but still, he is trying. This is  a very changed man your worships. Changed even since the last time, and the time before that, when he was also changed from the time before that. T...
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 >>