s/forget passphrase for/cause permanent destruction of/ , Re: Letwin wants increased penalties for refusal to decrypt

[Peter Fairbrother]

> David Swarbrick wrote:

> I think judges have been putting people in prison for contempt since time
> immemorial. It is not arrogance, it is simply saying that the parties have
> to recognise the right of the court to decide.
> 

I don't know why a person should be required to recognise the authority of a
court. The court may decide it has jurisdiction, often justly, more often
with effect, but that doesn't mean that the accused should be required to
accept that jurisdiction. He may be required to suffer it, but he should not
(and cannot) be required to accept it.

> And contrary to Owen, there is a mini trial. Case after case has
> demonstrated the need to allow a person accused of contempt the standard
> opportunities which go to make up a fair hearing. It remains a summary
> procedure.

A summary procedure, conducted by the judge who wants to imprison the
defendant (if he didn't, why bring the case?)? I don't know the law or
procedures on this, but it seems wildly excessive, inappropriate, and a
conflict of interest. At minimum, a different court should decide this.

> 
> It is not arrogance. Contempt can take many forms not involving casting any
> aspersions in the direction of the judge.

A judge should be immune to any aspersions cast.

> It can include, for example, a
> defendant trying to intimidate a witness in te precincts of the court.

That should more properly be attempting to pervert the course of justice.


Drunk agin,

-- Peter Fairbrother