Politics

  • A response to knee-jerk calls to revive Snooper’s Charter

    image of Theresa May
    What is it about being Home Secretary that turns people into control freaks?
    In a typical knee-jerk response in the wake of the barbaric murder in Woolwich last week of Lee Rigby, allegedly by a couple of religious extremists, Theresa May, the UK’s control freak Home Secretary has threatened to revive the so-called “Snooper’s Charter” (posts passim).

    In this move she has been joined on the bandwagon by a couple of former Labour Home Secretaries, Lord Reid and Alan Johnson, who have backed her proposals. Furthermore, Alan Johnson suggested she should resign if she could not get cabinet backing for the stalled Communications Data Bill, as the Snooper’s Charter is better known in official circles.

    In addition, these authoritarians have been joined by Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile, who has been making some very illiberal noises indeed and attacking his party’s defence of civil liberties: “The reason [the Bill] was vetoed, as Nick Clegg, the leader of my party, knows very well, was purely political because of demands from inside the Liberal Democrats.”

    Let’s face it, the logic of those politicians mentioned above is flawless: a man hacked to death in the street therefore we obviously need more internet surveillance.

    However, political commentators on both the right and the left remain unconvinced by such flawless logic.

    Writing in The Spectator’s blog on Sunday, Fraser Nelson states:

    Crucially, we have seen nothing in the last few days to suggest we need a Snooping Act. And although power-hungry ministers never admit it, MI5 and MI6 already have full legal powers to intercept anything that can be described as a ‘communication’- from smoke signals to SMS. The Snooping Bill was more about granting espionage powers to the taxman and other nosy government agencies.

    Meanwhile at the other end of the political spectrum, The Morning Star also commented as follows on Sunday:

    In truth, state agencies such as GCHQ, MI5, MI6 and Special Branch have no need of additional powers.

    They have all the means required to monitor actual or wannabe terrorists in Britain, buttressed by the issue of 500,000 intercept warrants each year.

    We also know that in practice the security and intelligence services have no compunction about acting outside the law should it be deemed necessary.

    The insatiable nature of the UK’s law enforcement and security services for communications data is further reinforced by the fact that UK law enforcement made more requests for user data from Skype last year than any other country. In 2012 the UK was the source of 1,268 requests for Skype user information, while the whole of the USA (population 316 mn., 5 times that of the UK. Ed.) made only 1,154 requests and German police made a paltry 685. The UK was looking for information on 2,720 different users in its requests.

    When will the UK’s law enforcement and security services for surveillance be satisfied? When they have reached the ultimate Orwellian scenario of state CCTV in every building in the land and all communications being monitored and their contents archived by the state?

    The murder of one man – no matter how brutal – should not be used as the excuse to treat all of the 63 mn. citizens of the UK as criminal suspects.

  • Grayling – contempt and abuse

    image of Justice Secretary & Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling
    Justice Secretary & Lord Chancellor Chris Grayling
    Former BBC producer and current Secretary of State for Justice Chris Grayling MP is the first non-lawyer to serve as Lord Chancellor since the earl of Shaftesbury in 1672-3.

    His lack of legal training could explain lots: he’s been brought in to do a hatchet job on the justice and legal system; some of the changes he’s planning to implement would never be contemplated for an instant by lawyers.

    Whilst in opposition, Grayling became known as a national politician through his “attack dog” pressure on leading Labour politicians.

    It would appear that Grayling is still on the attack if an interview in the Law Society Gazette earlier this week is examined.

    Grayling seems completely unworried about removing the right of the accused to pick an advocate of his/her choice under the criminal legal system. Indeed, he’s positively contemptuous of those that end up in the dock!

    ‘I don’t believe that most people who find themselves in our criminal justice system are great connoisseurs of legal skills. We know the people in our prisons and who come into our courts often come from the most difficult and challenged backgrounds.

    Yes, you did read that correctly. If you need to rely on legal representation funded by criminal legal aid, Grayling thinks you’re too thick to pick your own lawyer, so why not let the state pick one for you. Furthermore, by lumping together people who find themselves in the criminal justice system with those in prison, Grayling arrogantly seems to be equating being in the dock automatically with being guilty. What happened to the presumption of innocence, Mr Grayling?

    However, Grayling’s contempt and abuse is not confined solely to those unfortunates in the dock. Several times in the interview he refers to the provision of legal services as an ‘industry’.

    When I did economics 4 decades ago, the economy consisted of 3 sectors: primary (e.g. agriculture, mining), secondary (e.g. manufacturing, industry) and tertiary (e.g banking, insurance, legal services).

    By referring to the ‘legal services industry’ Grayling has moved legal services from the tertiary to the secondary sector. In so doing he has reduced the role of the skilled legal professional to that of a mere machine operative and that of their clients to the widgets that the machine produces. Grayling is thus guilty of treating people as objects, which is not just a retrograde step for justice, but for British society as a whole.

  • Top judge: “It has not worked”

    image of gilded statue of Justice on top of Old BaileyToday’s Express carries a story in which judge Sir Anthony Hooper – a former Court of Appeal judge – remarks on the Ministry of Justice’s proposals to auction off criminal defence work to the lowest bidder are recorded (posts passim). These proposals could ultimately see the criminal legal aid system run by corporations like London 2012 Olympics security fiasco specialists G4S and trucking giant Eddie Stobart.

    As a precedent for the kind of chaos m’lud foresees under the criminal legal aid proposals, Sir Anthony cites the disaster that is the courts and tribunals interpreting service farmed out to Capita Translation & Interpreting (posts passim):

    We have already seen what has happened when the Government appointed a single company to provide all the interpreters for courts around the country. It has not worked.

    Regarding the criminal legal aid proposals themselves, Sir Anthony doesn’t pull any punches and foresees miscarriages of justice ahead:

    The purpose of our criminal justice system is to acquit the innocent and convict the guilty. This requires a competent prosecutor, competent defence advocate and competent judge. If you take any of these elements away, the results will be costly and potentially disastrous, with innocent people being convicted and potentially dangerous individuals wrongly acquitted.

    Under the Ministry of Justice’s proposals (currently out for consultation. Ed.), misleading entitled ‘Transforming Legal Aid’, Justice Secretary Chris Grayling wants to cut £220 mn. from the annual £2 bn. legal aid budget by tendering contracts to 400 firms and mega law shops in England and Wales. People unable to afford their own solicitor will be allotted one by the state, thus removing the all-important element of choice (isn’t the government trying to increase choice in other parts of the public sector such as the NHS? Ed.). Legal advisers appointed under that system will receive a single fixed fee to represent a client, irrespective of whether the client pleads guilty, raising fears that there will be little incentive to conduct a defence properly.

    This was also criticised by Sir Anthony, who declared: “I’m afraid we are abandoning quality and replacing it with the lowest bid.”

  • Open source “strengthens democracy”

    image of Ivo Josipović
    Croatian President Ivo Josipović
    Open source strengthens democracy, according to Croatian President Ivo Josipović, as reported on Joinup, the EU’s public sector open source news website.

    Josipović appreciates the open source community’s creative and innovative spirit and is reported as saying: “What you are doing is something good, creative and innovative”, while opening the Croatian Linux Users’ Convention 2013 in Zagreb on Wednesday 15th May. As regards democracy, the President remarked: “Most importantly, open source helps to strengthen democracy.”

    President Josipović also expressed his “complete support” for the government plans to implement open source and open standards (what about open data? A stool needs three legs, not two! Ed.) in the Croatian public sector’s IT, according to the organisers of the Croatian Linux Users’ Convention.

    This is not the first time that Mr Josipović has shown his support for open source and open standards (posts passim)

  • The polite brush off

    There’s been more reaction to the Nottingham Crown Court murder case interpreter no-show last week (posts passim).

    As previously mentioned, Northampton North MP Michael Ellis stated he was going raise the matter of Capita’s woeful service under its courts and tribunals interpreting contract with the Secretary of State for Justice, Christopher Grayling, as in Mr Ellis’ opinion the service was ‘out of control‘.

    Mr Ellis has now contacted Chris Grayling, as has been reported by the Northampton Herald & Post:

    Mr Ellis said Mr Grayling agreed to look into the matter.

    He said: “Mr Grayling was concerned and said he would be looking into it and would take appropriate action in due course.”

    In my experience, “looking into it” and “take appropriate action in due course” can be paraphrased as a “polite brush off“. If Mr Ellis doesn’t understand what a polite brush off is, in plainer language Grayling was actually saying: “I couldn’t give a toss“.

    After all, Chris Grayling is far too busy at the moment taking the wrecking ball to criminal legal aid (posts passim) and trashing the probation service.

  • Amended terms for interpreters rejected

    PI4J logoInterpreter organisations, which have united as Professional Interpreters for Justice, have rejected the amended terms introduced by Capita from 1st May in a bid to attract more of their members to work in courts and tribunals. The Justice Minister, they say, is hiding behind this ‘new deal’ in a bid to distract attention from continuing poor performance and is not being honest regarding Government statistics which do not tell the whole story.

    Incidences of interpreter ‘no shows’ and poor quality interpreting at courts and police stations across the UK continue to flood in every day. They include the postponement of a hearing in a quadruple murder case at Nottingham Crown Court on 10th May when a Mandarin interpreter booked for defendant Anxiang Du didn’t arrive, prompting High Court Judge Mr Justice Julian Flaux to label the outsourcing company ‘an absolute disgrace‘ and Northampton North MP Michael Ellis to say it showed the service was ‘out of control‘.

    According to Professional Interpreters for Justice, the Justice Ministry’s own statistical report about the contract doesn’t give the whole picture as it does not report on the large number of interpreting assignments being arranged directly by court clerks who are bypassing Capita due to frustration with the system.

    Professional Interpreters for Justice also claim that Justice Minister Helen Grant MP is wrong in stating that the recently announced changes to payments are “what interpreters want” in her report of 25th April to MPs, as interpreters have repeatedly stated the opposite in meetings held with the Ministry in recent weeks.

    Interpreters were invited to meetings where proposals for pay adjustments were presented. They stated they were not interested in incentives, but instead wanted the Capita contract dropped as it disregards the importance of having professionally qualified interpreters to ensure a fair trial where defendants and witnesses do not speak English.

    On behalf of Professional Interpreters for Justice, Keith Moffitt, the Chairman of the Chartered Institute of Linguists, says: “Interpreters do not want to be persuaded to work under the Capita contract and those invited to the meetings told the Ministry of Justice exactly that. Unfortunately, these weak proposals will do nothing to improve the poor performance which is clear will continue under the contract with Capita.”

    Professional Interpreters for Justice, which represents ten groups, is angry that Helen Grant MP has brushed off the highly critical Justice Select Committee report without putting in place measures needed to address the failings, which have been described as ‘nothing short of shambolic’.

    Paul Wilson, Chief Executive of the Institute of Translation and Interpreting (ITI), says: “We are ready to work on meaningful reforms once the Ministry of Justice cancels the contract with Capita. The adjustments in pay and other measures suggested by the Minister in her report are an attempt to deny the failure of the Framework Agreement and do not address many of the key recommendations set out by the Justice Select Committee.”

    The Ministry of Justice has been repeatedly criticised for signing a four year Framework Agreement for language services with Applied Language Solutions (ALS), which was acquired by Capita in December 2011 and now operates as Capita Translation and Interpreting.

    Professional Interpreters for Justice will be writing to the Justice Select Committee and the Public Accounts Committee to set out their concerns regarding the Minister’s apparent disregard for its recommendations and are calling for a parliamentary debate in relation to the Capita / MoJ Framework Agreement.

  • Capita questions court clerk’s integrity

    More details have now emerged about the postponement of a court hearing at Nottingham Crown Court on Friday for Anxiang Du, a Chinese businessman accused of stabbing a family of four to death in Northampton, due to the absence of a Mandarin interpreter, which was described at the time as “an absolute disgrace” by the judge, Mr Justice Julian Flaux (posts passim).

    The judge has requested the attendance of an interpreter and on this particular point yesterday’s Express informed its readers as follows:

    The clerk at Nottingham Crown Court said he had been told it was “not worthwhile” for an interpreter to turn up.

    However, this version of events is disputed by Capita, as can be seen from the extract below from a report in Friday’s Northampton Chronicle and Echo:

    A Capita spokesman said: “After the original interpreter booked to attend the hearing was unable to attend, Capita worked to secure a replacement.

    “The replacement interpreter could not attend until 2.30pm and we communicated this, in good time, to the court.

    “Capita at no time refused to arrange an interpreter to attend Nottingham Crown Court on cost or any other grounds.”

    From the above quotation from the anonymous Capita spokesman, it is quite apparent that Capita is calling into question the honesty and integrity of the Nottingham Crown Court clerk or to put it into plainer English alleging the clerk is lying.

    In my experience, clerks to the court are persons of the highest probity, whose duties according to Wikipedia include the following:

    The Court Clerk is a critical safeguard for integrity of the courts. In most courts, only the clerk, but not a judge, is the keeper of the Seal of the Court. The clerk is also required to attest/authenticate judicial records, to render them such that command “full faith and credit”.

    Who do you think is more likely to be lying: a crown court official with no axe to grind or a failing contractor incapable of meeting performance targets (posts passim) and trying to save face?

  • “An absolute disgrace”

    The evidence that Capita is incapable of providing an adequate interpreting service for courts and tribunals in England and Wales continues to pile up.

    The latest failure comes from Nottingham where a court hearing for Anxiang Du, a Chinese businessman accused of stabbing a family of four to death in Northampton, was adjourned today because no Mandarin intrepreter was sent to the proceedings, according to the Northampton Chronicle.

    At the hearing at Nottingham Crown Court, Mr Justice Julian Flaux explained that he had asked for an interpreter to be booked. However, he said Capita had indicated that it was not worth sending an interpreter as they “would not make enough money” from the hearing.

    Mr Justice Flaux is reported to have said: “To say that the presiding judge of the court is annoyed about this is an understatement.” In addition, he ordered Capita to provide a written explanation giving their account of their failure to supply an interpreter for the proceedings.

    The plea and case management hearing has now been set provisionally for 19th July, with the trial due to begin on 12th November.

    A Mandarin interpreter did eventually arrive at the court at about 2.30pm, but the hearing had already been adjourned by then.

  • Snooper’s Charter: the legislation that refuses to die

    Yesterday the world witnessed an annual bit of Ruritanian pantomime that passes for the unwritten British constitution in action: the state opening of Parliament and the Queen’s Speech.

    According to a report in today’s Guardian, it would appear that the so-called Snooper’s Charter is proving harder to kill than a particularly stubborn vampire, in spite of Nick Clegg’s recent assurances.

    This emerged from the text of the Queen’s Speech which gave the go-ahead to legislation, if required, to deal with the limited technical problem of there being many more devices including phones and tablets in use than the number of IP addresses that allow the authorities to identify who communicated with whom and when.

    Published at almost the same time, a Downing Street background briefing note on investigating online crime says: “We are continuing to look at this issue closely and the government’s approach will be proportionate, with robust safeguards in place.” The note also reportedly states: “This is not about indiscriminately accessing internet data of innocent members of the public, it is about ensuring that police and other law enforcement agencies have the powers they need to investigate the activities of criminals that take place online as well as offline.”

    At this juncture, it’s worth pointing out that we don’t know who is advising the government, but those advisers don’t seem to realise that an IP address can never be linked to a single human being, no matter what they do.

    Civil liberties organisations are also worried by the rise of the Snooper’s Charter from the grave. Emma Carr, deputy director of Big Brother Watch, said: “The Queen’s Speech is clear that any work should pursue the narrow problem of IP matching, nothing more, and does not mandate the government to bring forward a bill. It is beyond comprehension for the Home Office to think that this gives them licence to carry on regardless with a much broader bill that has been demonstrated as unworkable and dangerous by experts, business groups and the wider public. It is not surprising that some officials may want to keep trying, having already failed three times under two different governments, to introduce massively disproportionate and intrusive powers, but that is quite clearly not what Her Majesty has put forward today”.

    As is also helfully pointed out by The Register, the Home Office spent the past 5 months completely rehashing its proposed Communications Data Bill following a mauling from a select committee of MPs and peers in late 2012. Consequently, it’s hard to believe that the work Theresa May’s department has done on the redrafted bill to date will not – once again – appear before Parliament and predicts it could make reappearance in the 2014 Queen’s Speech – the last one before the next general election.

    So, it looks like the lobbying will have to continue, perhaps assisted by holy water, wooden stakes and garlic for more efficacy. 😉

  • Tomorrow is Global Accessibility Awareness Day

    We learn from Accessible Bristol that tomorrow, Thursday 9th May is Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD). On that day people all over the world will be coming together to spread the word about accessibility and Accessible Bristol will be among them.

    Throughout the day the Accessible Bristol team be on Twitter answering your questions about technology and accessibility, as well as tweeting useful accessibility tips and resources.

    Tweet your questions to @AccessibleBrstl and use the #GAAD hashtag to keep track of Global Accessibility Awareness Day activities.

    However, Accessible Bristol also has a challenge for the people in Bristol and the South West for 9th May and challenge you to do at least one of the following things on 9th May:

    • Go mouseless for an hour (touch screen devices don’t count);
    • Surf the web with a screen reader for an hour;
    • Create a captions file and share it with the video’s owner;
    • Write a blog post or make a video about the way you use and experience the web.

    This post originally appeared on Bristol Wireless.

Posts navigation