If the Independent has framed this story correctly, Jack Straw is apparently reluctant to have a man he knows to be innocent released from jail on the grounds that it might offend the authorities in the country that originally imprisoned him.
The pretext is that this would make other countries reluctant to transfer their prisoners to the UK out of fear that their sentences would be annulled and their judicial practices exposed and criticised. Firstly, there’s no sign that this would necessarily happen. New evidence came forward in the Shields case that has apparently made his conviction unsafe (to say the least). This evidence was not considered by the Bulgarian court on a point of local procedure. And that’s the second point: if it’s accepted that judicial systems are different, then that goes both ways. There’s also no evidence that any other country is actually objecting. Apart from anything else, the kind of country which throws someone into an oubliette after a minimal trial doesn’t care what happens to that person, almost by definition.
What’s revealing here, I think, are Jack’s anxieties. He just doesn’t like letting go. Anyone, who leaves prison before his time has, in some way, got away with it. In Jack’s world, we’re all on probation.
So, 'by default', little people (in this case, British) belong in jail. Hence, also 'by default', those legal judgements which produce penal servitude for little people are the judgements to be defended, no matter which courts produce them. Saudi courts, for instance.
That seems consistent with the story we get told about global competitiveness, etc.
Funnily enough, it also seems consonant with decency, broadly construed so as to include governments that are decent. That is, with decency, certain forcible interventions are justified 'by default', so long as the authority that's intervening is on the (unwritten) master list of approved authorities. Palestine is not on that list. Bulgaria (and Saudi) presumably are. Is it some sort of social criterion that gets your nation state admitted to the list? That is, the ability and willingness to attend the right sort of summit?
Posted by: Charlie | June 25, 2009 at 01:41 PM
Bulgaria, although certain regulatory authorities in Bulgaria have trouble accepting this, is part of the EU, and one of [tacit, I think, though it may be buried in the Treaty of Rome etc.] rules of the club is that you don't diss other member's legal systems...
Posted by: Richard J | June 25, 2009 at 01:49 PM
Don't understand this. If there is "new evidence" then it would not have been considered by the Bulgarian court because they didn't have it. So what has "local procedure" got to do with it?
I am absolutely no apologist for Jack Straw but this is the sort of case where detail and fact are vital. It is no use dragging in what is "said to" have happened, in the words of the Independent article - it only makes it look as if their case is not all that good.
Posted by: Tony Woolf | June 25, 2009 at 03:02 PM
If there is "new evidence" then it would not have been considered by the Bulgarian court because they didn't have it.
Someone confgessed on videotape while Shields was in prison in Bulgaria, but the Bulgarians wouldn't consider this evidence because the man concerned refused to go to Bulgaria in person. I'm assuming this was a local legal requirement, or a choice made in line with such.
Posted by: jamie | June 25, 2009 at 03:56 PM
Checking with the Graun, the Indy's account seems to be missing at least one crucial detail - yes, another fan, Graham Sankey, submitted an (unsworn) confession in writing; but he then retracted it. (He didn't fit the witness descriptions either, being short and dark-haired; Shields, like the perpetrator, is tall and blond.)
The statement that the Bulgarian court hasn't heard about it is also not true - Shields has appealed twice to the Bulgarian Court of Appeals and once to the European Court of Human Rights, and they slapped him down each time.
Lie detector results are useless - completely - no sane law enforcement agency anywhere uses them*, and the Indy should be embarrassed to mention them. And the rest of the testimony sounds fairly dodgy as well to be honest.
*The CIA relies on them. That's how Aldrich Ames and James Hanssen lasted so long.
Posted by: ajay | June 25, 2009 at 04:01 PM
Lie detector results are useless - completely
From a perspective of relying on the results, agree entirely. From a perspective of their use in getting idiots to tell the truth, I'd slightly quibble.
Posted by: Richard J | June 25, 2009 at 04:22 PM
qv the scene in Homicide (the book) in which a gangbanger is induced to confess to murder by means of a carefully pre-loaded photocopier.
Posted by: Richard J | June 25, 2009 at 04:25 PM
Also lifted for use in The Wire, series 5 (IIRC).
But that's not how they were using it - Shields took a lie detector test himself in order to substantiate his claim to be innocent.
Posted by: ajay | June 25, 2009 at 04:41 PM
Ah, I agree entirely that it means nothing w.r.t whether or not he's guilty or not...
Posted by: Richard J | June 25, 2009 at 04:50 PM
Hmmm. Bum steer then maybe. Knew there was a reason why I hadnt cited the Indy for a while...
Posted by: jamie | June 25, 2009 at 05:22 PM
Grauniad all the way, mate. As long as you avoid anything that's been anywhere near Seumas Milne, it's pretty solid.
Posted by: ajay | June 25, 2009 at 06:44 PM
Or the BBC expenses thing they're running with today, which is very definition of a non-story. As noted by pretty much everybody in the comments...
Posted by: Richard J | June 25, 2009 at 06:49 PM
Why do I always make stupid typos on this site, and this site only? Bah.
Posted by: Richard J | June 25, 2009 at 06:49 PM
I like Seumas Milne.
Posted by: ejh | June 25, 2009 at 07:30 PM
He's alright, though you don't read him for the prose. I like the way that he spent years pointing out that you had to take the Iraqi insurgents seriously, that they had a purpose, genuine popular legitimacy etc etc...then the US finally takes his advice and he goes all *cough, cough, mumble* and meanwhile the entire editorial staff of Pwospect are suddenly hanging off General Petreus' dick by their mouths. Oh well: one of those ironies of the political commentary trade.
Posted by: jamie | June 25, 2009 at 11:01 PM
Well, non-story it may be, but I'd be fairly confident it's accurately told.
Milne's entertaining to read, but the opinion section in general is best regarded as a non-load-bearing structure, if you get my meaning. Apologising for stuff it gets wrong is 90% of what the Corrections and Clarifications box does.
Posted by: ajay | June 26, 2009 at 09:42 AM
Speaking of which, did everybody see this one earlier this week?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/jun/24/corrections-clarifications
Posted by: Richard J | June 26, 2009 at 09:48 AM
Who was it who wrote of the C&C column (or a similar one elsewhere) that in effect it served the purpose of implying that everything else in the paper was accurate and true?
Posted by: ejh | June 26, 2009 at 10:14 AM
Alexander Cockburn, I think, about the New York Times, though I might have lifted it here to use about whoever.
Posted by: jamie | June 26, 2009 at 11:27 AM