Legal Rights Flashcards
INTRO
Members of British society have legal rights and responsibilities.
Citizens have the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty and are protected by the police and judicial system. As well as enjoying rights, all UK citizens must also obey UK laws and regulations. In 2019, the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland increased from 8 years old to 12 years old. This meant that children under the age of 12 could no longer be prosecuted through the adult courts. While legal rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998, they continue to face many threats.
This essay will discuss how different legal rights are protected and threatened, such as: the right to be innocent until proven guilty, the right to a fair trial, the right to legal representation as well as victims’ rights, to come to the conclusion that there are ways in which legal rights are protected, however at the same time there are many threats to them as they are going against the European Convention of Human Rights.
1P
Article 6 of both the ECHR and the Human Rights Act states that
“Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law.”
1E
This means until a criminal trial has taken place, the accused is innocent until an impartial jury (or judge, depending on the offence) has reviewed the evidence and come to a decision.
1E
For example, in the case of Alesha MacPhail, despite the horrible nature of the crime and his fanciful defence, the legal system upheld Aaron Campbell’s right to be considered innocent until proven guilty. After his trial, Campbell admitted his guilt to a to a psychologist who was conducting a pre-sentencing report.
1A
This would suggest that this right is therefore upheld as even though there was lots of evidence before the trial that pointed towards Campbell being guilty, he was innocent until his trial had taken place.
1R
On the other hand, in Scotland, there is a third verdict of “not proven” which could be argued as a threat to citizens’ legal rights.
1E
Clouded with ambiguity, some think not proven means that the sheriff or jury believe the accused is guilty, but don’t have enough evidence, and others aren’t so sure. This means that after having a trial the person has not be proven “guilty” or “not guilty which implies the right to be “innocent to be proven guilty is clearly threatened.
1E
In 2015-16, a Freedom of Information (FOI) request found that 1,173 court cases resulted in a “not proven” verdict.
1A
This is clearly a threat as these people have not been found to be “not guilty” yet their verdict has the same implications of a not guilty one.
1L
Therefore it could be argued that UK citizen’s rights are threatened by the Scottish “not proven” verdict as there is an implication of being guilty, perhaps there just was not enough evidence to prove they did it.
2P
Article 6 on both the Human Rights Convention and the Human Rights Act states that “In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law.”
2E
This means a person is entitled to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. A neutral jury is an essential part of this, and jurors may only consider evidence which has been lawfully presented in the courtroom. The Contempt of Court Act 1981 makes it an offence to share or publish anything which could prejudice or impede a trial.
2E
For example, one juror, Joanne Fraill, was jailed for eight months in 2011 after Facebooking one of the accused. Another juror was sentenced for posting a poll on her Facebook profile, telling friends she didn’t know which way to vote.
2A
This therefore implies that the law is strongly upheld in this area if severe breaches come to the attention of the authorities.
2R
On the other hand, social media use can potentially damage the balance between the right to a public hearing and the right to a trial by an impartial court.
2E
This means that if jurors deliberately, or inadvertently, see material or views which haven’t been presented in court, the defendant has no opportunity to present a defence. This could adversely impact the verdict of the case.
2E
For example, in 2015, the trial of two school girls accused of murdering vulnerable woman Angela Wrightson, was halted after a judge decided that comments made online about the accused meant it was impossible for them to have a fair trial. On the third day of the original trial at Teesside Crown Court, the judge was alerted to more than 500 comments that had been posted about the case on social media (including the Facebook profiles of major news organisations) in what was described by the prosecution as a “virtual lynching mob.”
2A
This therefore suggests that some social media users are unaware of reporting restrictions and of what would constitute a breach of an anonymity order or contempt of court.
2L
Therefore it could be argued that the UK citizens’ right to a fair trial is threatened by social media use during court cases as jurors would not be able to deliver a verdict solely based on the evidence presented in court.
3P
In addition to fundamental human rights - such as the right to life and safety - victims of crime have a number of other entitlements under the law.
3E
This means that victims of crime have the right to receive a certain level of service from the criminal justice system.
3E
For example, The Domestic Violence Disclosure Scheme (better known as Clare’s Law, after Clare Wood who was murdered by an abusive partner) was rolled out in 2013. This scheme allows greater protection of victim’s rights by allowing men and women to ask police about the background of a new partner, and to be told if there is a history of abusive behaviour.
3A
This therefore shows that recent legal changes have strengthened protections for victims and potential victims of domestic violence, as concerned members of the public can now make enquiries about their partner or someone else’s partner to see if they have been abusive in the past.
3R
On the other hand, under current guidelines, police forces provide information from Clare’s Law requests within 35 days but it is stressed that extenuating circumstances may increase the timescale.
3E
This means that people may be put at risk as the police cannot disclose information about a partner’s previous history of domestic violence or violent acts soon enough.
3E
For example, Rosie Darbyshire had made an application under Clare’s Law in order to find out if her new boyfriend had a history of violence. She was killed by Ben Topping just 11 days later.
3A
This therefore shows that police forces are failing to protect victims of domestic abuse and other violent acts.
Victims are being put at high risk and are not warned about their partners’ violent pasts.
3L
Therefore it could be argued that the UK citizens’ victims’ rights are threatened as “Clare’s Law” is not always fast enough in passing on information.
CONC
In conclusion, it could be seen that legal rights are protected, but also threatened in a number of ways. The Human Rights Act 1998 sets out the fundamental rights and freedoms that everyone in the UK is entitled to. It incorporates the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) into domestic British law. It requires all public bodies like courts, police, local authorities and other bodies carrying out public functions to respect and protect citizens’ human rights. However, threats such as trial by media and lack of funding for Legal Aid are violating the basic human rights of UK citizens. This is seen as an ineffective approach to support the rights of citizens and action must be taken. Therefore, there are many threats to the legal rights of people in Britain, even though they are protected under The Human Rights Act.
