A Travesty of British Justice!

The Deputy President of Britain’s new Supreme Court, Lady Hale (who calls herself “Miss Diversity”) was one of five judges who dismissed the appeal of Christian guesthouse owners previously found to be in breach of equality law for turning away a homosexual couple from their own bed and breakfast.

The victims of Britain’s legal system, for they are undoubtedly victims, Mr and Mrs Bull, refused to allow two homosexual men to share a room.  They were of course running the guesthouse according to their own principles.  The homosexual couple were under no obligation to stay at the bed and breakfast at all.  They instead chose to victimise a Christian couple, using British Law as the means by which they bullied and persecuted them.

The couple have now had to close their guesthouse, following the controversy, which led to them being victims of vandalism and having their website hacked.  Whether one shares the views of this couple or not, anyone who has an ounce of decency or any inkling of justice and fairness must be outraged by the decision of our nation’s most senior judges.

There are of course different interpretations of the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality.  For example, some believe Saint Paul’s unequivocal condemnation is actually an attack on forms of pagan licentiousness, rather than condemning two people of the same-sex being in a long-term relationship.  To read Scripture as condemning all forms of homosexuality is not however to adopt some strange or absurd reading of Scripture – it is a pretty straightforward response to the text.

Since the Glorious Revolution we have nurtured a political settlement that is based on pluralism of denominations and the acceptance that people interpret the Bible differently.  This attack by our legal system on people acting in accordance with their beliefs as to what the Bible says is an attack on liberty of conscience and religious pluralism.  How can we claim to be a Christian country when this sort of injustice has occurred?

Of course, some will argue that it is all very well holding your own beliefs, but in terms of offering a service to the public, one should not discriminate against members of the public who live their lives contrary to your beliefs.

Well, a guesthouse is surely not quite the same as selling goods in a shop.  The guesthouse is in that grey area of being a private home offered up as a public house.  Surely there must be sensitivity towards people’s scruples when the house in which one is choosing to stay is their house?

People are not homophobic if they object to same-sex couples sleeping together in their own home!  They have every right to bar people from anything in their own homes.  The blogger believes that right over your home should also apply to your guesthouse.

Miss Diversity as Lady Hale calls herself, claims that Mr and Mrs Bull’s offering of separate rooms to the visitors in their own guesthouse was “an affront to their dignity as human beings”.  Actually the real disrespect was shown by the homosexual couple, when they made demands as to what they should be able to do on someone else’s property.  We hear a lot about discrimination and equality legislation nowadays; there is a much older principle our judges should remember and that is:  “An Englishman’s home is his castle”! 

Secret Justice or Fair Law?

In the light of the recent case of a well-known actor being found not guilty of rape and other charges, the decades-old question of anonymity in rape cases has again risen its hoary head.  In 1976 victims and defendants in rape cases were granted anonymity.  The relevant statute was the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1976.  The purpose of anonymity for victims was to encourage them to come forward when the offence committed against them meant the victim often had feelings of shame and did not want to suffer further indignity of their violation being made public.

The defendant was also originally granted anonymity for the purposes of avoiding stigma for innocent defendants and ensuring equality between complainants and defendants.  In 1988 this provision for anonymity for defendants was repealed. 

There has been much comment that the present arrangement is inequitable.  The defendant can be wrongly accused and even if found not guilty will forever suffer under a cloud of suspicion.  Meanwhile the complainant who has made a false complaint does not suffer any stigma.  This seems inequitable and even unjust.

In 2010 the new coalition government indicated it would look at reintroducing anonymity for the defendant.  It reneged on this because it took the view that there was not enough empirical evidence to justify the reversion to the earlier law.

Recent events, particularly the revelations about the BBC employee Sir Jimmy Savile, demonstrate that when accusations are finally made other witnesses gain the confidence to come forward.  It is argued that anonymity for the defendant would mean those who did not have confidence to bring further accusations against a serial offender on their own initiative would be discouraged from doing so.

The trouble with this situation is that there is not sufficient deterrent for false accusers and the outcome of the Le Vell case shows false accusations clearly occur.  The defendant in that case not only suffers the stigma that the jury might have got it wrong, but also suffered his whole personal life and peccadilloes being paraded to the public through constant media commentary.

This is inequitable, but it seems to the blogger there is no easy solution.  Revert to the 1976 law and we end up with virtual secret courts, which is inimical to the founding principles of British justice.  Allow one party to have anonymity and there is minimal risk to making false accusations.

Rape is a crime, but it is not only a very heinous crime, it is also of its own type.  The victim must have suffered a deep personal violation, different from ordinary injury.  On the other hand, it is often difficult to know whether a crime has been committed.  Due to the often intimate-situations in which these crimes can take place, with no witnesses, it is difficult to prove the crime has occurred beyond reasonable doubt.  Unlike a murder, there is no body.  Unlike a burglary, there is no missing property.  The flipside of this problem means false allegations can be brought too.

One very straightforward way of making the situation equitable and discouraging false allegations is to do away with the complainant’s automatic right to anonymity.  That would restore full open justice and mean that we had reverted to the usual way of prosecuting crimes, whereby allegations of a serious crime could not be made secretly. This would accord with principles of natural justice.  Such a move would not affect the position of children or other vulnerable witnesses.

However, this could deter genuine victims from being willing to enter the witness box for the prosecution.  Our adversarial system, important as it is in reaching the truth and particularly when a criminal act so serious is concerned, is not welcoming to the victim.

This is a situation that must be addressed and far greater minds than this blogger’s should and will cogitate this.  The matter must not be left to rest though, for the current state of affairs is inequitable.  The only solution the blogger can see is whereby both parties retain anonymity, but the defendant loses his right to anonymity if found guilty (as would inevitably be the case on conviction) and the complainant loses their right to anonymity if the jury finds the allegations to be false or at least not provable beyond reasonable doubt.  This may not be the answer, but this is an area that must be looked at and not left to rest.