Bias / prejudice / connivance / collusion / lack of impartiality
Bias has been raised by the media today in relation to Sir Peter Gibson heading up the Inquiry into complicity of MI5 and MI6 in torture at Guantanamo Bay. 'Reprieve' have rightly identified a reason why Sir Peter Gibson should step down from this Inquiry
"... In a letter to the judge, Clive Stafford Smith, a director of Reprieve, said there was a danger of bias that could wreck the inquiry.
He told the Mail: 'In an inquiry that is meant to assess the adequacy of past policies, Sir Peter Gibson should be a witness before it, rather than its judge.
'He needs to consider whether he can continue to act with the confidence of both the public, and the alleged victims of complicity in torture, with independence and impartiality.' ...
... Most serious is the suggestion that he has already conducted hearings in private, suggesting he has prejudged the issues.
... In his letter to Sir Peter, copied to the Prime Minister, Mr Stafford Smith wrote: 'You cannot now conduct a further independent inquiry having already reached conclusions on some or all of the issues.
'A fair-minded member of the public would see that as acting as a judge in an appeal against your own decision.' ..."
The Daily Mail 20/07/2010 by Tim Shipman entitled "Torture Inquiry Judge urged to quit over bias claims (Click Here)
However, of more concern to me is that the Inquiry itself is being conducted as a "mediation" which immediately signals that there is a cover up due to occur. What is also presumed is that the people engaged in the litigations are only after money as an outcome - this appears to be the dangled carrot to get the litigations out of the "public" domain of the court room. Some serious revelations of evidence of torture have already been sourced by the press into conduct which MI5 and MI6 are allegedly complicit in, such as slashing of genitals, but this information is in the public domain as a consequence of the court case and "Judges" doing their job properly, it would not be there as a consequence of a mediation unless the "PARTIES" agreed that it should be.
What Sir Peter Gibson's inquiry is doing is engaging in "hiding" the issues in the mediation and removing the case from the public domain of the courts. The parties will be required to sign a gagging confidentiality clause in order to get their money and how much will be confidential too.
Mediation may not be the appropriate methodology to do an Inquiry and as I have always argued mediation (alternative dispute resolution (ADR) / informal dispute settlement (IDS))is the real invasion in the United Kingdom which appears to have become embedded into even MI5 and MI6 rather than seeing it for what it really is: compromise. Mediation is seen as a win:win rather than litigation a win:lose. Why do MI5 and MI6 need to be seen to win : win - is mediation raising the spectre of a compromise - for a reason - if so, lets have the "reasoning" done in court. There is a raised presumption that something(s) need to be hidden or that MI5 and MI6 are blameworthy to some degree be it 99:1 or 70:30 or 50:50 or 40:60 or 20:80!!!!! Offering money is seen as preventing a "lose of face" ie "gold will be left on the table". If you compromise too much, then soon you will have no rights at all with carte blanche precedent to lower standards not raise them or adhere to them.
Jurisprudence is the science and theory of human law, ie why we have laws, why we obey them. Judges know why they reason which should not be escoteric. Jurisprudence is about safe and just society. Judges must reason. Therefore when a judge advocates mediation there is a need to question a judge's raison d'etre - essence of being. What is Sir Peter Gibson afraid of ? ... mediation was never about "costs" in court [Woolf reforms]. When a judge's efforts are more involved in not hearing the case or getting the case prepared for trial then something is clearly wrong with the judge and the procedural rules of court which is subjectivity not objectivity, ie bias, prejudice, collusion, connivance, lack of impartiality. The objective of a judge is to get the case to trial and to clamp down on parties who try to prevent it. When the judge is blocking or removing the case to ADR/IDS then something is clearly wrong with the judge and society ...
"... In a letter to the judge, Clive Stafford Smith, a director of Reprieve, said there was a danger of bias that could wreck the inquiry.
He told the Mail: 'In an inquiry that is meant to assess the adequacy of past policies, Sir Peter Gibson should be a witness before it, rather than its judge.
'He needs to consider whether he can continue to act with the confidence of both the public, and the alleged victims of complicity in torture, with independence and impartiality.' ...
... Most serious is the suggestion that he has already conducted hearings in private, suggesting he has prejudged the issues.
... In his letter to Sir Peter, copied to the Prime Minister, Mr Stafford Smith wrote: 'You cannot now conduct a further independent inquiry having already reached conclusions on some or all of the issues.
'A fair-minded member of the public would see that as acting as a judge in an appeal against your own decision.' ..."
The Daily Mail 20/07/2010 by Tim Shipman entitled "Torture Inquiry Judge urged to quit over bias claims (Click Here)
However, of more concern to me is that the Inquiry itself is being conducted as a "mediation" which immediately signals that there is a cover up due to occur. What is also presumed is that the people engaged in the litigations are only after money as an outcome - this appears to be the dangled carrot to get the litigations out of the "public" domain of the court room. Some serious revelations of evidence of torture have already been sourced by the press into conduct which MI5 and MI6 are allegedly complicit in, such as slashing of genitals, but this information is in the public domain as a consequence of the court case and "Judges" doing their job properly, it would not be there as a consequence of a mediation unless the "PARTIES" agreed that it should be.
What Sir Peter Gibson's inquiry is doing is engaging in "hiding" the issues in the mediation and removing the case from the public domain of the courts. The parties will be required to sign a gagging confidentiality clause in order to get their money and how much will be confidential too.
Mediation may not be the appropriate methodology to do an Inquiry and as I have always argued mediation (alternative dispute resolution (ADR) / informal dispute settlement (IDS))is the real invasion in the United Kingdom which appears to have become embedded into even MI5 and MI6 rather than seeing it for what it really is: compromise. Mediation is seen as a win:win rather than litigation a win:lose. Why do MI5 and MI6 need to be seen to win : win - is mediation raising the spectre of a compromise - for a reason - if so, lets have the "reasoning" done in court. There is a raised presumption that something(s) need to be hidden or that MI5 and MI6 are blameworthy to some degree be it 99:1 or 70:30 or 50:50 or 40:60 or 20:80!!!!! Offering money is seen as preventing a "lose of face" ie "gold will be left on the table". If you compromise too much, then soon you will have no rights at all with carte blanche precedent to lower standards not raise them or adhere to them.
Jurisprudence is the science and theory of human law, ie why we have laws, why we obey them. Judges know why they reason which should not be escoteric. Jurisprudence is about safe and just society. Judges must reason. Therefore when a judge advocates mediation there is a need to question a judge's raison d'etre - essence of being. What is Sir Peter Gibson afraid of ? ... mediation was never about "costs" in court [Woolf reforms]. When a judge's efforts are more involved in not hearing the case or getting the case prepared for trial then something is clearly wrong with the judge and the procedural rules of court which is subjectivity not objectivity, ie bias, prejudice, collusion, connivance, lack of impartiality. The objective of a judge is to get the case to trial and to clamp down on parties who try to prevent it. When the judge is blocking or removing the case to ADR/IDS then something is clearly wrong with the judge and society ...
posted by Lesley McDade at 6:51 pm
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home