"Straw misled us on trial by jury", says Labour MP [Scroll down for `Perceptions' note - on Straw's lies, BBC lies, and our `Rights Immemorial'] 26 July 2000 Jack Straw came under intense backbench pressure last night over allegations that he seriously misled the House of Commons about the extent of judicial support for the restriction of the right to trial by jury. In a double blow from the back benches, the Home Secretary was also facing a fresh revolt against the controversial legislation. Under the revised Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) Bill, the magistrate, not the defendant, decides whether to allow a trial by jury in some mid-range categories of theft or dishonesty. The storm centered on Mr Straw's second reading speech of the legislation in March, when he said that his plan "enjoys the active endorsement of the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Bingham, and the vast majority of the High Court bench of nearly 100 senior judges". However, Robert Marshall-Andrews, the MP for Medway, revealed that Lord Bingham of Cornhill, in a private letter, had expressed his "unease" to Mr Straw and warned about the "dangers" of the legislation. Mr Marshall-Andrews, who led the rebellion against the Bill's third reading, said the exchange of letters proved that Mr Straw's speech had been misleading. "The plain fact is that Lord Bingham put his views to the Home Secretary before the debate in March, saying he had serious reservations about this Bill," he said. However, Mr Straw dismissed Mr Marshall-Andrews' claims, and the extremely serious charge of misleading the Commons, as "outrageous and incorrect". He made clear that Lord Bingham had given his "active endorsement" to the principles underlying the Bill but was concerned about aspects of it. Lord Bingham's concern had focused on the criteria with which a magistrate would decide where the trial of a defendant should take place. Objections centered on the "reputation clause", which would have taken into account the defendant's reputation in deciding whether or not to allow the expense of a full jury trial. Critics have argued that the clause would create a "class justice", with ethnic minorities, the young and the poor more vulnerable to a summary trial than white, middle-class defendants. The Home Secretary stressed he had addressed those concerns by dropping the clause and forbidding magistrates to take into account the circumstances of an accused person when making their decision. The Bill will now go to the House of Lords where an alliance of Tory and Liberal Democrat peers is expected to oppose it. The Government has already been forced to reintroduce the legislation in the Commons earlier this year after peers took the unusual step of throwing out the whole Bill at second reading. John Redwood, the party's chairman of the campaigns unit and MP for Wokingham, said: "The Government wants to abolish trial by jury in certain cases, destroying a 700-year tradition." Outside the Commons, Michael Napier, the Law Society president, said: "The Government's plans are seriously flawed and unpopular. We urge them to reconsider." By Sarah Shaefer, Political Correspondent 26 July 2000 The Independent ---------------------------------------------- `Perceptions' note:- When English `establishments' quote the history of trial-by-jury you'll notice they refer to a late period, long after the `Norman Conquest' in 1066. In fact trial by jury was only restored, and actually long after then. Previously Britain had Celtic and also Viking law - with trial-by-jury - because the Vikings had controlled most of England from Scotland down to near London, and most coastal regions of Ireland and Wales. Re-writing history is a common failing among those claiming to be (UK's) ruling elite; they do not identify with Nordic, or Anglo-Saxon, or Celtic history, which they perceive as being of the subjugated. Elites always claim to be descended from the latest `conquerors'. ---------------------------------------------- Details: The Norse (later Viking and Saxon) `Eorl' was the warriors' battle-chief, in peace time acting as arbitration organizer for his region. He would ask for a Jury of "Daysmen" to decide a person's guilt or innocence. A written record of one trial from early Viking times is re-produced at www.perceptions.couk.com/laworjustice.html#Some The Eorls continued to function in Britain well after the `Norman Conquest' As you can see, the title was later incorporated into the "French-style" system of aristocracy imported by the Normans. Note: the Normans were actually also Vikings who'd invaded northern France three / four generations before under their chieftain Rollo (of Norway?). About 911 Rollo demanded and got, from French king Charles the Simple, his own "duchy": the area around Rouen, which became known as "Normandy" - i.e. duchy of Norse-Men. Rollo's great-great-great grandson was Willian of Normandy. Which is why `Eorl', a Viking rank, now seems out of place in the taxonomy of aristocracy - Dukes and suchlike - imported by the later, frenchified Normans. Re: Law immediately after 1066 At first The Normans imposed various oppressive, cruel and bloody trials -by-ordeal: primitive feudal methods of enforcing elite rule. This was because William was a Latinised Viking who no longer followed the Nordic traditions of democracy and fair trial; besides, he wanted undisputed "ownership" of Britain for his dynasty. These corrupt practices were gradually dropped and the Jury was reinstated, - because the population had been firm in their long-standing demand for jury trial and for their `Immemorial Rights' to be restored. ---------------------------------------------- refs www.perceptions.couk.com/laworjustice.html#Some - for operation of the Viking jury - an actual example also - www.perceptions.couk.com/viking.txt www.perceptions.couk.com/vikingnote.txt www.perceptions.couk.com/vikingnote2.txt Viking society - `democracy' - early towns - trade. ---------------------------------------------- FURTHER REFERENCES GO - "search perceptions" - in SEARCH-ENGINE file-ID www.perceptions.couk.com/reactions.txt