Jon Bright (London, OK): I remember, back in 2003, when the Labour government took the decision to downgrade cannabis to a Class C drug - meaning that casual users would receive a slap on the wrist at worst. It seemed to me a brave move in the face of a media that is pretty hostile to any notion of being "soft" on crime (a poll of Sun readers has apparently just found 99% in support of bringing back the death penalty, for example). It reminded me why I voted for Labour in the first place.
But that type of boldness is not much more than a distant memory now, with the announcement of Jacqui Smith's 10 year drug strategy today. The most extraordinary proposal, if the BBC are reporting it accurately, is for improved powers of asset seizure - which will include powers to confiscate consumer durables and household furnishings before guilt has been proven. Smith declared, in a not particularly reassuring fashion, that people found to be "completely innocent" would subsequently have their property returned.
This statement is, for me, astonishing - because up until now I had thought everyone was completely innocent until proven otherwise. We should not need to be found innocent, but found guilty, as it were. To not only reverse this principle, but to dole out a pretty severe punishment while doing so, seems to me to be an incredible change for our criminal justice system to go through.
Reading the news, I was also reminded of an article John Jackson wrote for OurKingdom. He was writing about a speech made by the UK's senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham, who has said that, since an act of Parliament in 2005 which stated that the rule of law is an existing constitutional principle, judges will be required to consider whether future acts of parliament are compatible with the rule of law, and may have to strike them down if they find them not to be. This would, of course, be incompatible with the notion of the sovereignty of parliament. [Having spoken to John on I've now amended this paragraph slightly for accuracy]
Much writing about the British constitution has focussed on its ad hoc manner - how it has developed slowly, over centuries, mostly in response to immediate needs rather than forward planning. It would be typical of our system, therefore, for a fundamental question of the sovereignty of parliament vs. the rule of law to be brought out by an ill considered bill which had not intended any constitutional changes. Could this be such a bill? What would a senior panel of law lords do, if asked to consider the case of someone whose assets had been confiscated before they had been found guilty? Would this be compatible with the rule of law as we understand it?
I'm not a legal expert, so I don't know. One suspects there would be a way of getting out of it without the whole house of cards coming tumbling down. But whatever happens, this remains an example to me of both the parlous state of our framework of governance and Labour's frightening assault on civil liberties in this country.
