Hm back to my favourite topic how can a significant part of the defence of criminal trials be placed under the control of executive government at the stroke of a pen. I am not talking selfishly I really dont give a fuck but this strikes me as a problem. I have worked in government at various times and the system in the Uk where barristers are completely independent is vital. Particularly where individuals are being defended against the resources of the whole state. I would argue that there is almost greater need for independence in the defence area. Crime Barristers are the first and last line of defence against complete arbitrary power. As such it is interesting that the Executive in NZ has waged a war against this very important but incredibly under resourced part of the rule of law. For surely is part of the rule of law that any individual be able to choose his representation when accused of serious crime or any crime for that matter. I feel it is no coincidence that this has occurred during these times of mass suppression of dissent and by that i mean the use of computer algorithms to spy on huge numbers of people so as to result in a mass wave of fear. Dissent has worked in the past but I think times are changing. The ability to kill people from virtual positions outside of normal battles where at least the killing is not a secret. And in the end I have to say the circle is complete for some who have to be represented by the PDS because their case is never considered by someone outside government. I just could not participate in such a system. Not now.
Comments
Post a Comment