Part of the debate – in the Scottish Parliament at on 22 March 2011.
James Kelly
Labour
I support the Government amendments.
Disclosure is an important aspect of legal proceedings, and it is a fundamental right of the accused and their legal team that they have sight of the evidence against them.
The Cabinet secretary was correct to lodge the amendments in order to make the disclosure regime in relation to Double Jeopardy consistent with other aspects of the criminal law. We would not want a situation in which the common law applied to what will be a very few—indeed, exceptional—serious cases.
Although it is quite unusual for an order-making power to be introduced at stage 3, I recognise that it is a precaution and that it will ensure that the appropriate transitional arrangements can be made in relation to disclosure.
The phrase stems from the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution; prohibiting individuals from being subject for the same offence to be "twice put in jeopardy of life and limb", and refers, in the strict sense, to three protections: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense.
When employed strictly, the mechanism can be used as a defense - for example, the policemen who beat up black motorist Rodney King in 1991 in Los Angeles, CA, were acquitted of assault in a county court, and as a result, could not be tried for those crimes in Federal court, and mirror court cases in the Southern United states in the 1960s where racially motivated crimes were not actively prosecuted nor convicted in local courts. A more pronounced example is that of U.S. citizen and terrorist Timothy McVeigh; sentenced to death for murdering eight U.S. federal employees with a bomb (as federal law only covers the federal employees killed in the explosion, a state court could have tried him for the deaths of the other hundred.
In 2003, Home Secretary David Blunkett abolished this strict form of double jeopardy; retrials are now allowed if there is 'new and compelling evidence'.
In addition, an optional protocol (specifically, the Seventh Protocol, Article Four) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects against double jeopardy, states: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."; only Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom have not ratified this optional convention.
The phrase stems from the 5th Amendment of the US Constitution; prohibiting individuals from being subject for the same offence to be "twice put in jeopardy of life and limb", and refers, in the strict sense, to three protections: protection from being retried for the same crime after an acquittal; protection from retrial after a conviction; and protection from being punished multiple times for the same offense.
When employed strictly, the mechanism can be used as a defense - for example, the policemen who beat up black motorist Rodney King in 1991 in Los Angeles, CA, were acquitted of assault in a county court, and as a result, could not be tried for those crimes in Federal court, and mirror court cases in the Southern United states in the 1960s where racially motivated crimes were not actively prosecuted nor convicted in local courts. A more pronounced example is that of U.S. citizen and terrorist Timothy McVeigh; sentenced to death for murdering eight U.S. federal employees with a bomb (as federal law only covers the federal employees killed in the explosion, a state court could have tried him for the deaths of the other hundred.
In 2003, Home Secretary David Blunkett abolished this strict form of double jeopardy; retrials are now allowed if there is 'new and compelling evidence'.
In addition, an optional protocol (specifically, the Seventh Protocol, Article Four) of the European Convention of Human Rights, which protects against double jeopardy, states: "No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again in criminal proceedings under the jurisdiction of the same State for an offence for which he has already been finally acquitted or convicted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of that State."; only Belgium, Germany, The Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom have not ratified this optional convention.
The cabinet is the group of twenty or so (and no more than 22) senior government ministers who are responsible for running the departments of state and deciding government policy.
It is chaired by the prime minister.
The cabinet is bound by collective responsibility, which means that all its members must abide by and defend the decisions it takes, despite any private doubts that they might have.
Cabinet ministers are appointed by the prime minister and chosen from MPs or peers of the governing party.
However, during periods of national emergency, or when no single party gains a large enough majority to govern alone, coalition governments have been formed with cabinets containing members from more than one political party.
War cabinets have sometimes been formed with a much smaller membership than the full cabinet.
From time to time the prime minister will reorganise the cabinet in order to bring in new members, or to move existing members around. This reorganisation is known as a cabinet re-shuffle.
The cabinet normally meets once a week in the cabinet room at Downing Street.
