Soldiers' families win Iraq war review

[bennywhale]

The families of four British soldiers killed in Iraq won the right today to challenge the government's refusal to hold a public inquiry into why Britain joined the war, a ruling their lawyers described as a "stunning victory".
The decision by the Court of Appeal overturned an earlier High Court ruling that had denied the relatives the right to apply for judicial review of the government's decision.

The panel of appeal court judges rejected arguments from lawyers representing the prime minister, the secretary of state for defence and the attorney general that it would be an "unwarranted shift of power" for the courts to make pronouncements on the government's right to go to war

"At last our case will be heard in full," Peter Brierley, whose son Shaun died in March 2003 when the Land Rover he was in overturned on patrol in southern Iraq, said after the ruling.
"I am convinced that my son died for no good reason as he should not have been sent to Iraq in the first place," he said. "I am looking forward to hearing the three defendants having to explain how they justify the invasion."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,,1830526,00.html

This could be interesting!!!!

[Solly Mack]

1. excellent!

Thank you for posting this

[bennywhale]

2. This is happening in Britain but may

reveal some very interesting information about the run up to the war.

[soup]

3. Hearing will be November 6th.

Thank you, bennywhale. This is definitely something to keep a watch on.

from the article:

"The government now have to produce evidence to a full hearing in the Court of Appeal. That evidence needs to establish once and for all whether the decision to invade was lawful.

"In particular, the government must finally explain how the 13-page equivocal advice from the attorney general of March 7 2003 was changed within 10 days to a one-page, completely unequivocal advice that an invasion would be legal.

"My clients believe he impermissibly changed his advice because he was sat on by the prime minister and others in government. In changing his advice, he sent these soldiers to their deaths."

edit to add: recommended and bookmarked.

[bennywhale]

4. I just hope Tefal Tony can't find a way to worm

out of this like he always does. him and his cabal have a way of making things just go away, although the public will be desperate for this.

[saigon68]

11. He will enlist the aid ot the "Singing Cowboy"

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

5. The British Government isn't all in the hands of neofacists

The courts appear to be independent. I don't know how judges get to be judges in Britain-could someone from across the pond clue me in? Would it be possible for the courts to be in the hands of the neoconservatives over there like they are here? I think Parliament is more responsive to the will of the people than our Congress is-after all, the PM can be out before his time by a vote of no confidence.

[bennywhale]

7. They aren't picked. Are they picked in America???

The thing about the British system it has built up over a thousand years, rather than one seminal moment/constitution which makes it a tad confusing at times.

It is often based on conventions, understandings and our 'unwritten constitution'. Basically a case of 'this is how things are done' although it isn't written down and the idea is that we are all such gentleman that we accept these unwritten rules.

As such the constitution develops and changes over and with the times, a little bit at a time. Judges in Britain don't have any official power to strike legislation down, however recently (decades) they have been increasingly doing this and it has been accepted. we also now have the Humnan Rights act and judges have the power to state whether laws are 'incompatable' with it, so in effect unconstitutional and they are struck down (i digress)

i'v never heard however of a judge calling half the cabinet to court before, so this will be very very exciting.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

10. Thanks for the information

Here in the US, some judges are elected, some are appointed. I was sadly ignorant of how the British courts system worked. Thank you for filling me in.

[reprobate]

12. bennywhale, a question on British law, if I may.

My biggest complaint about the American (in)Justice system is that the state ALWAYS (with the exception of wealthy defendants) has the advantage, being able to outspend most defendants for forensic testing, expert witnesses, etc.

In addition, the prosecutor is usually an elected position who makes a political career based on how many cases he/she wins and how severe the punishment. And lets not forget the fact that the prosecutor has an entire government bureaucracy behind him while the defendant usually has a public defender with few resources.

Many solar cycles ago - in the early 60's - I spent three years in England with the US Air Farce. By osmosis I picked up several impression of the British justice system admittedly mainly from episodes of Rumpole of the Bailey. One of my most lasting impressions was that instead of our Public Defender v. entrenched government prosecutorial system, you had a system whereby both the Queen and the defendant were represented by barristers picked from a pool of those qualified to speak before the bar.

My question to you: Are my impressions true or was I mistaken. I would also be interested to know, if the above is true, on what is the fee of each barrister based. Is it the same as our system in which the defendant is entirely responsible for the fees of his defending attorney? Or is there some sort of sliding scale based on ability to pay?

Thanks so much. As you can tell I am in no way involved in our justice system, just an interested bystander who would like to see the system changed for the better.

[bennywhale]

13. Money is still a factor, but not so much as on your

side of the pond i believe.

Also, those who can't pay the full fees (and this covers a lot of people) are entitled to legal aid, whereby the state pays for their barrister for them. The prosecutors are certainly not elected careersist either, but there are inevitably those with the better reputations who can charge more.

It also varies depending on what type of case it is and whether its a magistrates court or crown court. I'm afraid i wouldn't want to committ myself to further detail in the worry that i'd be misleading you, as i alas am not an expert either.

Rumpole of the baily was written by a lawyer however and apart from being cracking entertainment it is known for being very accurate protrayal.

[bennywhale]

6. I am looking forward to this n/y

[Spazito]

8. Very interesting!

This is such good news, the truth on the lies told to illegally invade Iraq may now start to come out. Blair and his toadies will finally have to answer for their lies.

[Javaman]

9. Imagine such a thing here?

reviews have been conducted here in the states during all of our wars except for the first gulf war and the current pile of crap we have in Iraq. Funny how that works, huh?

I weep for our former nation.