DOCSLIB.ORG

Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta

Citation: AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 790
Date:20201216
Docket: FL03 55142 Registry: Edmonton

Between:

AVI

and
Applicant

MHVB

and
Respondent

Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. Jacquie Phoenix

Third Party and
Unauthorized Alleged Representative

_______________________________________________________
Memorandum of Decision of the
Honourable Mr. Justice Robert A. Graesser
_______________________________________________________

  • I.
  • Introduction

  • [1]
  • This is a follow-up to my decision of August 26, 2020 in AVI v MHVB, 2020 ABQB 489

[AVI #1]. That decision centred on an intermeddler to a child custody dispute. The third party, whose actual name is Jacqueline Robinson, instead self-identified as “Jacquie Phoenix, Sovereign Woman Living on the Land, Legal Beneficiary / Soul Administrator To the Trust of
Page: 2 the Legal Fiction Known as Jacqueline Robinson”. I will in this decision refer to Ms. Robinson

by her actual name, “Jacqueline Robinson”, rather than the legally meaningless “Strawman”

legal persona she has adopted. [2]

As discussed in AVI #1, Ms. Robinson is a pseudolaw promoter, or “guru”. Pseudolaw is

a collection of spurious legally incorrect ideas that superficially sound like law, and purport to be real law. In Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 [“Meads”], ACJ Rooke grouped these concepts

together under the term “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments”, or “OPCA”. In layman’s terms, pseudolaw is pure nonsense.

  • [3]
  • Gurus are a particularly obnoxious component of the pseudolaw phenomenon. They

operate as “Typhoid Marys” who spread the pseudolaw “disease of ideas” into new populations: Donald J Netolitzky, “The History of the Organized Pseudolaw Commercial Argument Phenomenon in Canada” (2016) 53:3 Alta LR 609 at 611.

  • [4]
  • In Meads at paras 669-671, Rooke ACJ characterized OPCA gurus as “evil counsellors”,

“falsifiers”, and “hustlers” who “profit at the expense of naïve and vulnerable customers”, “selling lies or wildly dubious concepts.”

  • [5]
  • I agree with these descriptions of OPCA gurus. They apply to Ms. Robinson. As I

observed in AVI #1 at para 19, Ms. Robinson knows her techniques do not work because, despite having deployed her pseudolaw shield, Ms. Robinson was nevertheless convicted of traffic offences in 2019.

  • [6]
  • There is a temptation to ignore OPCAs and treat them as irritants. That would perhaps be

appropriate for one-off situations, but where many people are involved and there is some sort of organization, the public needs to be protected from them. Sadly, conspiracy theories appear to be

gaining in recognition. Many people search for “truth” whether it be legal truths, medical truths,

or news truths on the Internet. There is no doubt that the Internet is an amazing source of

information, but there are no filters to distinguish between fact and fiction. The decriers of “fake news” are too frequently the creators of fake news.

  • [7]
  • The fakery of the Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion is exemplified by this case. A year ago,

MHVB had access to her daughter. She wanted greater access and access without restrictions. After joining with Ms. Robinson and her group, MHVB no longer has any access to her daughter. She has been removed as a guardian of that child. There is a warrant for her arrest following her failure to appear on criminal proceedings against her.

  • [8]
  • This decision is not about MHVB any longer, it is about Ms. Robinson and the nonsense

she spreads. It is also about her threats and intimidation to the Court and court staff.

A. The Magna Carta Lawful Rebellion [MCLR]

Ms. Robinson promotes a variant of pseudolaw that I named “Magna Carta Lawful

[9] Rebellion”, or “MCLR”. AVI #1 at paras 38-71 explains my understanding of the MCLR scheme and its conceptual foundation.

[10] In brief, MCLR claims that if one sends an oath of allegiance that invokes Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta to Lord Craigmyle of Invernesshire, then that places you outside UK and Commonwealth state, court, and police authority. You are now a sworn oathsman (or oathswoman), and serve under the banner of 28 rebel barons who disapprove of the European

Union. These rebel barons in 2001 invoked the “Constitutional Royal Protocol”, and shattered

Page: 3

“English Constitutional law”. In fact, according to MCLR theory, there has been no valid

government authority in the UK and the rest of the Commonwealth from 2001 onward. [11] If this narrative sounds ridiculous, that is because, factually, MCLR theory is ridiculous. Lord Craigmyle has no idea why people are sending him oaths of allegiance and ignores these documents. If the UK (and Commonwealth) have been in a state of constitutional chaos and rebellion for the past nearly 20 years then I, and apparently everyone else including Lord Craigmyle himself, have not noticed.

[12] Then there are the numerous other flaws in this scheme that I identify and review in AVI #1 at paras 72-104. For example, Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta has nothing to do with the rights of individual persons, but instead only granted a counsel of 25 barons the authority to seize

King John’s castles, lands, and possessions in the event of a dispute between the barons and the

king. Worse, when King John died in 1216, so did the provision of the 1215 Magna Carta that MCLR adherents claim creates their extraordinary status. These modern Magna Carta rebels have therefore mustered over 800 years too late.

[13] In AVI #1, I chose to debunk the foundations for MCLR theory, rather than simply write it off as baseless. I do not intend to repeat my analysis here, as it is already completed.

[14] This litigation is, sadly, an example where pseudolaw has contributed to a negative and unfortunate outcome. Ms. Robinson’s gibberish has real-world victims.

  • B.
  • AVI, MHVB, A, and Z

[15] Earlier, I indicated Ms. Robinson intruded into a high-conflict child custody matter as an interfering third party. I was case managing this dispute. Briefly, MHVB, the mother of a now

five-year old child, Z, abducted Z and fled to the US. When Z was recovered, Z’s father, AVI, was granted custody of Z. MHVB, and MHVB’s mother, A, had access to Z.

[16] Ms. Robinson then entered the fray. On June 27, 2020, I received a package of documents from Ms. Robinson. Ms. Robinson (incorrectly) claimed to represent MHVB by a “Power of Attorney”. Ms. Robinson declared that MHVB was a Magna Carta Lawful Rebel, with the result that MHVB was purportedly outside of court authority: “All Judgments made by the Court of Queen’s Bench in this matter are Null and Void”. Further, my failure to deliver

MHVB “her Property” - Z - within seven days “will constitute as High Treason”, and I would

face “the Gallows”: AVI #1 at para 6.

[17] AVI and his lawyer received essentially the same threats from Ms. Robinson, but were

also told that they would be penalized $50,000 per day until MHVB got “her Property” back.

[18] I wrote AVI #1 in response, and at para 34:

  • 1.
  • required Ms. Robinson only communicate with the Court using the name

“Jacqueline Robinson”, rather than the “Jacquie Phoenix” persona; and

  • 2.
  • prohibited Ms. Robinson from:

a) purporting to represent MHVB in any capacity; b) being involved with documentation relating to the AVI v MHVB matter, and c) communicating with the Court in relation to the AVI v MHVB matter.
Page: 4
[19] The exception to the final prohibition is that Ms. Robinson was invited to make submissions on why she should not be prohibited from being involved in or acting as a representative in any litigation in Alberta Courts: AVI #1 at paras 120-122.

[20] I also warned MHVB (at paras 124-129) that attempting to employ OPCA strategies had very negative potential consequences for MHVB’s future interactions and role with Z. I observed

that MHVB claiming a child was “her Property” did not reflect well on MHVB as a responsible

caregiver. I strongly recommended that MHVB obtain professional legal assistance, or at a minimum, contact a public legal assistance resource.

  • II.
  • Subsequent Developments

[21] A number of events have transpired since AVI #1 was released. [22] I have received no submissions from Ms. Robinson on why she should not be prohibited from acting as a legal representative in Alberta Courts. MHVB sent no further MCLR documents

to this Court, and therefore appears to have abandoned a partially completed MCLR “Three/Five

Letters” process that targeted Associate Chief Justice Nielsen of this Court. MHVB did not attend her criminal abduction prosecution hearing (R v MHVB, Edmonton 191419951P101 (Alta PC)), and so now MHVB is also facing failure to appear criminal charges (R v MHVB, Edmonton 200728665P101 (Alta PC)). A Warrant has issued for MHVB’s arrest.

[23] On September 11, 2020, AVI applied to vary Z’s parenting arrangements to suspend MHVB’s parenting time.

[24] AVI’s application states he and his lawyer had been threatened by MHVB and Ms.

Robinson, who claim they are above the law. AVI perceived a “severe risk” that MHVB would

abduct Z again, and that MHVB, Ms. Robinson, and/or Ms. Robinson’s followers would engage in illegal activity directed to Z.

[25] Justice Sulyma granted AVI’s application, on September 14, 2020, and ruled AVI is the sole guardian and decision-maker for Z. Any further direct or indirect contact between MHVB and Z is prohibited. MHVB did not attend this application.

[26] AVI in his September 11, 2020, application also reported that Ms. Robinson had made public statements in response to AVI #1, including video rebuttals of articles published in the National Post reporting on AVI #1. Ms. Robinson was said to have rejected the Court’s judgment, saying “it had no more effect on (her) than a statement by the CEO of McDonalds.” AVI noted Ms. Robinson claimed to have thousands of followers in a number of countries.

[27] If nothing else, the newspaper report indicated by AVI (Tom Blackwell, “Lawyer files criminal complaint against ‘pseudo law’ follower accusing Alberta judge of sedition” National

Post (3 September 2020), online: <nationalpost.com/news/canada/lawyer-files-criminalcomplaint-against-pseudo-law-follower-accusing-alberta-judge-of-sedition>), and Ms. Robinson’s YouTube video rebuttals, establish that Ms. Robinson had received the AVI #1 decision, and that Ms. Robinson does not accept the Court’s judgment as correct or valid. She has not, however, appealed that decision.

[28] That conclusion, in any case, has subsequently become obvious. Ms. Robinson has sent

further MCLR correspondence to the Court. First, a packet was received from “Jacquie

Page: 5

Phoenix”, dated October 16, 2020, and addressed to “All Alberta Clerks of the Court (Failure to Identify is Misconduct in Public Office) doing business as Clerks of the Court”. It reads:

Dear, Alberta Clerks of the Court rubber stamping and signing documents without your printed name. Failure to Identify is Misconduct in Public Office.

Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent This document is meant to inform you it means what it says and it says what it means.

On March 23rd, 2001 Article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 was invoked according to Constitutional Protocol due to Treason at the Highest Levels. This is Evidential Fact, The Queen has been deposed all her governments were dissolved of all authority. It is by Royal Command that we take the Oath of Article 61 and defend the Constitution. We the People of the Commonwealth of Great Britain demand that our Rule of Law be Restored. Our Common Law Justice System. Properly Convened Court De Jure Jury Trials of the People with full Jury Nullification.

On February 27th, 2019 Sharon Lepecich Executive Director of the Provincial Court of Alberta was put on Notice of the Evidential Facts. Notice to Principle is Notice to Agent. It was her Duty to inform you that Treason has and is being committed against the people and that Article 61 is the Only Law in effect throughout the Commonwealth Realm.

The courts have been Usurped by a Treasonous Regime and they are using Unconstitutional Acts and Statutes to commit very serious crimes against the People and the Clerks of the Court are rubber stamping these crimes. We are all responsible for our own Actions inactions and omissions. I urge you to consider Nuremburg I was just doing my Job is NO defence as Evidenced from those Trials.

Maxum in Law Ignorance of the Law is no excuse

[Jacquie Phoenix signature] [Sic, emphasis and formatting in original.]
[29] This item was accompanied by a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance” document dated

October 14, 2020, that is addressed to “Failure to Identify (Misconduct in Public Office) doing business as Clerks of the Court”, carrying the docket number of this action (#FL 03 055142”),

and signed “Jacquie Phoenix” in purple ink and with a purple ink fingerprint. This document otherwise largely matches what I received from Ms. Robinson on June 27, 2020, and that is reproduced in AVI #1 at Appendix “D”. The exception is that Ms. Robinson now threatens the Court and its staff:

Failure to respond to this 'Notice of conditional acceptance' within the reasonable time frame allotted, and or without providing evidence in substance that clearly defines that article 61 is no longer in effect, shall be taken to mean by all interested parties (including interested third parties) that Alberta Court of Queen's Bench has NO lawful claim against I, Jacquie Phoenix or [MHVB] and, that Failure to Restore Her Property or any future attempt to extort monies or goods
Page: 6 relating to this this matter would be harassment, coercion and demanding monies with menaces, which may evoke a counter claim for damages against Alberta Court of Queen's Bench and you personally Court Clerks who Failed to Identify. All Records and Hard drives will be seized by a Jury of the People to Identify you

[Sic.]
[30] Ms. Robinson also attached another copy of the MHVB “Power of Attorney” document.

[31] In addition, Ms. Robinson, as “Jacquie Phoenix”, has witnessed additional MCLR

documents sent to Associate Chief Justice Rooke of this Court. These appear to be the parts 4 and 5 of the MCLR Three/Five Letters process. These items, “Notice of Coercion to Aid and

Abet High Treason & Misprison of Treason”, and “Notice to Stop”, are attached as Appendices “A” and “B”.

[32] The contents of these documents are typical of a Three/Five Letters scheme (Rothweiler

v Payette, 2018 ABQB 288; Bank of Montreal v Rogozinsky, 2014 ABQB 771), though the

“Notice of Coercion” provides a more expansive and detailed historical narrative that explains the conspiracy, treason, and sedition which led the 28 new rebel barons to stage their revolt in 2001.

[33] These documents purport to clear up any mystery about the 2001 Barons’ fears for treason. It turns out the Nazis are behind it all. In 1942, the Nazis set up the foundation for the European Union:

... with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion.

[34] I have carefully reviewed the timeline of wrongdoing found in the “Notice of Coercion”, and note that while this document concludes that a succession of UK Prime Ministers and governments engaged in high treason, treason, and sedition, that absolutely nothing described has anything to do with Canada. This leads me again to wonder how it is that Ms. Robinson and her followers can imagine that these declarations of UK (and Nazi) wrongdoing would purportedly affect the authority and legitimacy of Canadian governments and institutions.

[35] Then there is this strange claim:
... The last constitutionally correct coronation Oath was taken by the traitor James II in 1685.

[36] I assume that this claim follows the theory that Queen Elizabeth II was not properly crowned and never became the Queen, such that no legislation since then and no official acts have any validity. The defect in her coronation as I understand it is that the Queen did not kneel on the Stone of Scone when giving her oath. All Kings and Queens since James II had knelt on this famous stone, which was housed in Westminster Abbey in London. Shortly before the coronation, the Stone was stolen. Lore has it that the Queen knelt on a replica of the Stone, as the original had not been recovered from its thieves (allegedly Scottish Nationals).

[37] I am unaware of why coronations prior to that of Queen Elizabeth II are alleged to be invalid. The allegation is just another example of the gibberish that is in these documents.
Page: 7

  • III.
  • Steps Forward

[38] I am no longer the Case Management Justice for the AVI v MHVB child custody dispute. There is nothing more to do. AVI has sole custody and guardianship of Z. To my knowledge that decision is unappealed.

[39] In AVI #1, I sought submissions from Ms. Robinson on why she should not be prohibited from acting as a litigation representative or participating in litigation that involves persons other than herself. I received no submissions from Ms. Robinson, but her response was to continue her MCLR activities. She has even gone further, and publicly declared she has no intention to follow court instructions because she and her followers possess superior authority.

[40] Representing another person before the court is not a right, but a privilege: R v Dick, 2002 BCCA 27 at para 6. “Each court has the responsibility to ensure that persons appearing before it are properly represented ... and to maintain the rule of law and the integrity of the court

generally.” [emphasis added]: R v Dick, para 7.

[41] The Ontario Court of Appeal in R v Romanowicz (1999), 138 CCC (3d) 225 (Ont CA) ruled that a person should be barred from operating as a litigation representative if that representation would harm the individual being represented, where representation would interfere with the administration of justice, and if the candidate representative exhibits “... blatant disrespect for the law. ...”: para 74. Ms. Robinson has satisfied all those criteria. Ms. Robinson has contributed to the separation of a mother and daughter, and placed the health and well-being of a child at risk.

[42] The law in Canada is clear and consistent that a person who advocates or advances OPCA strategies is unfit to act as a litigation representative: R v Dick; Gauthier v Starr, 2016

ABQB 213; Shannon v The Queen, 2016 TCC 255; R v Ciciarelli, 2019 ONSC 6719.

[43] In light of Ms. Robinson’s failure to respond to my request for submissions in AVI #1, and her post-AVI #1 conduct, I order, effective immediately, that:

1.

Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. “Jacquie Phoenix” is prohibited from:

a) providing legal advice, b) preparing documents intended to be filed in any Alberta court for any person other than herself, and

c) filing or otherwise communicating with any Alberta court, except on her own behalf.

2.

Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. “Jacquie Phoenix” is prohibited from acting as an

agent, next friend, McKenzie Friend (from McKenzie v McKenzie, [1970] 3 All ER 1034 (UK CA) and Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, ss 2.22-2.23), or any other form of representation in Alberta court proceedings.

[44] Ms. Robinson’s MCLR materials sent to myself on June 27, 2020, and the October 16, 2020, materials received by the clerks of the Court may represent criminal conduct, “intimidation of a justice system participant”, Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, s 423.1; Re Boisjoli, 2015 ABQB 629 at paras 58-69.

[45] Ms. Robinson appears to be in contempt of court since she has ignored the Court’s Order

dated August 25, 2020, that requires her to only correspond with the Alberta Court of Queen’s

Page: 8

Bench as “Jacqueline Robinson”, and that Ms. Robinson again breached that Order’s prohibition

against her filing, preparing, witnessing, and otherwise formalizing any document in relation to

the AVI v MHVB action.

[46] I therefore also order that:

Jacqueline Robinson, a.k.a. “Jacquie Phoenix”, is prohibited from sending documents to

the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, or justices, officers, or employees of the Alberta

Court of Queen’s Bench, where those documents purport to claim, exercise, or impose

authority based on Article 61 of the 1215 Magna Carta.
[47] The Court will prepare and serve the Order giving effect to this decision. Ms. Robinson’s approval of the form and content of this Order is dispensed with pursuant to Rule 9.4(2)(c).

[48] Service of the Order on Ms. Robinson may be made by email or Facebook posting to Ms. Robinson’s last know electronic addresses, as well as a copy being sent by ordinary mail to the address Ms. Robinson has used in her communications with the Court. Such service is deemed good and sufficient on her.

Recommended publications
  • This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from Explore Bristol Research

    This Electronic Thesis Or Dissertation Has Been Downloaded from Explore Bristol Research

    This electronic thesis or dissertation has been downloaded from Explore Bristol Research, http://research-information.bristol.ac.uk Author: Torrible, Clare Title: How do civil actions against the police and police complaints interact and what does this interaction reveal about police legitimacy? General rights Access to the thesis is subject to the Creative Commons Attribution - NonCommercial-No Derivatives 4.0 International Public License. A copy of this may be found at https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode This license sets out your rights and the restrictions that apply to your access to the thesis so it is important you read this before proceeding. Take down policy Some pages of this thesis may have been removed for copyright restrictions prior to having it been deposited in Explore Bristol Research. However, if you have discovered material within the thesis that you consider to be unlawful e.g. breaches of copyright (either yours or that of a third party) or any other law, including but not limited to those relating to patent, trademark, confidentiality, data protection, obscenity, defamation, libel, then please contact [email protected] and include the following information in your message: •Your contact details •Bibliographic details for the item, including a URL •An outline nature of the complaint Your claim will be investigated and, where appropriate, the item in question will be removed from public view as soon as possible. How do civil actions against the police and police complaints interact and what does this interaction reveal about police legitimacy? Clare Torrible A dissertation submitted to the University of Bristol in accordance with the requirements for award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of Social Sciences and law.
  • Public Law and Civil Liberties ISBN 978-1-137-54503-9.Indd

    Public Law and Civil Liberties ISBN 978-1-137-54503-9.Indd

    Copyrighted material – 9781137545039 Contents Preface . v Magna Carta (1215) . 1 The Bill of Rights (1688) . 2 The Act of Settlement (1700) . 5 Union with Scotland Act 1706 . 6 Official Secrets Act 1911 . 7 Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 . 8 Official Secrets Act 1920 . 10 The Statute of Westminster 1931 . 11 Public Order Act 1936 . 12 Statutory Instruments Act 1946 . 13 Crown Proceedings Act 1947 . 14 Life Peerages Act 1958 . 16 Obscene Publications Act 1959 . 17 Parliamentary Commissioner Act 1967 . 19 European Communities Act 1972 . 24 Local Government Act 1972 . 26 Local Government Act 1974 . 30 House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 . 36 Ministerial and Other Salaries Act 1975 . 38 Highways Act 1980 . 39 Senior Courts Act 1981 . 39 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 . 45 Public Order Act 1986 . 82 Official Secrets Act 1989 . 90 Security Service Act 1989 . 96 Intelligence Services Act 1994 . 97 Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 . 100 Police Act 1996 . 104 Police Act 1997 . 106 Human Rights Act 1998 . 110 Scotland Act 1998 . 116 Northern Ireland Act 1998 . 121 House of Lords Act 1999 . 126 Freedom of Information Act 2000 . 126 Terrorism Act 2000 . 141 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 . 152 Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 . 158 Police Reform Act 2002 . 159 Constitutional Reform Act 2005 . 179 Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 . 187 Equality Act 2006 . 193 Terrorism Act 2006 . 196 Government of Wales Act 2006 . 204 Serious Crime Act 2007 . 209 UK Borders Act 2007 . 212 Parliamentary Standards Act 2009 . 213 Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 . 218 European Union Act 2011 .
  • New Media, Free Expression, and the Offences Against the State Acts

    New Media, Free Expression, and the Offences Against the State Acts

    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2020 New Media, Free Expression, and the Offences Against the State Acts Laura K. Donohue Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/2248 https://ssrn.com/abstract=3825722 Laura K. Donohue, New Media, Free Expression, and the Offences Against the State Acts, in The Offences Against the State Act 1939 at 80: A Model Counter-Terrorism Act? 163 (Mark Coen ed., Oxford: Hart Publishing 2021). This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Constitutional Law Commons, European Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Legislation Commons, and the National Security Law Commons New Media, Free Expression, and the Offences Against the State Acts Laura K. Donohue1 Introduction Social media has become an integral part of modern human interaction: as of October 2019, Facebook reported 2.414 billion active users worldwide.2 YouTube, WhatsApp, and Instagram were not far behind, with 2 billion, 1.6 billion, and 1 billion users respectively.3 In Ireland, 3.2 million people (66% of the population) use social media for an average of nearly two hours per day.4 By 2022, the number of domestic Facebook users is expected to reach 2.92 million.5 Forty-one percent of the population uses Instagram (65% daily); 30% uses Twitter (40% daily), and another 30% uses LinkedIn.6 With social media most prevalent amongst the younger generations, these numbers will only rise.
  • Terrorist Speech and the Future of Free Expression

    Terrorist Speech and the Future of Free Expression

    TERRORIST SPEECH AND THE FUTURE OF FREE EXPRESSION Laura K. Donohue* Introduction.......................................................................................... 234 I. State as Sovereign in Relation to Terrorist Speech ...................... 239 A. Persuasive Speech ............................................................ 239 1. Sedition and Incitement in the American Context ..... 239 a. Life Before Brandenburg................................. 240 b. Brandenburg and Beyond................................ 248 2. United Kingdom: Offences Against the State and Public Order ....................................................................... 250 a. Treason............................................................. 251 b. Unlawful Assembly ......................................... 254 c. Sedition ............................................................ 262 d. Monuments and Flags...................................... 268 B. Knowledge-Based Speech ................................................ 271 1. Prior Restraint in the American Context .................... 272 a. Invention Secrecy Act...................................... 274 b. Atomic Energy Act .......................................... 279 c. Information Relating to Explosives and Weapons of Mass Destruction............................................ 280 2. Strictures in the United Kingdom............................... 287 a. Informal Restrictions........................................ 287 b. Formal Strictures: The Export Control Act ..... 292 II. State in
  • The Criminal Justice Bill 2 DECEMBER 2002 Bill 8 of 2002-03

    The Criminal Justice Bill 2 DECEMBER 2002 Bill 8 of 2002-03

    RESEARCH PAPER 02/72 The Criminal Justice Bill 2 DECEMBER 2002 Bill 8 of 2002-03 This paper is concerned with the Criminal Justice Bill, which is due to be considered on second reading on Wednesday 4 December. The Bill is to introduce major reforms to the criminal justice system designed to rebalance it in favour of victims, witnesses and communities. Most of the reforms are based on proposals made in two major reviews commissioned by the Government, of the legal framework of sentencing, and of the criminal courts. This paper provides a general background to the Bill and considers the provisions of the Bill relating to police powers, drug testing requirements, bail and conditional cautions. Other research papers in this series consider the provisions relating to sentencing, double jeopardy, prosecution appeals, disclosure, evidence, mode of trial and juries. Arabella Thorp and Sally Broadbridge HOME AFFAIRS SECTION HOUSE OF COMMONS LIBRARY Recent Library Research Papers include: 02/60 Unemployment by Constituency, October 2002 13.11.02 02/61 The Health (Wales) Bill [Bill 1 of 2002-03] 20.11.02 02/62 The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill 21.11.02 02/63 Communications Data: Access and Retention 21.11.02 02/64 Iraq and UN Security Council Resolution 1441 21.11.02 02/65 Agriculture, Modulation and Environmental Policy 21.11.02 02/66 The Community Care (Delayed Discharges etc) Bill 22.11.02 02/67 Telecommunications and the Communications Bill [Bill 6 of 2002-03] 26.11.02 02/68 Media Ownership and the Communications Bill [Bill 6 of 2002-03]
  • Part 2 and Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002

    Part 2 and Schedule 3 to the Police Reform Act 2002

    POLICING AND CRIME BILL: KEELING SCHEDULES This document shows provisions in Part 2 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (Complaints and Misconduct) as they would be amended by the Bill. It is intended to assist the consideration of these provisions in the Bill and should not be taken a definitive statement of the law as it would have effect on the enactment of the Bill. Deletions are shown struck through and additions in italics. Provision in the Police Reform Act 2002 Page Section 9 2 Section 10 4 Section 11 7 Section 12 10 Section 15 13 Section 16 16 Section 18 18 Section 20 20 Section 21 22 Section 23 26 Section 29 29 Schedule 2 33 Schedule 3 44 1 SECTION 9 OF THE POLICE REFORM ACT 2002 Section 9: The Independent Police Complaints Commission The Office for Police Conduct (1) There shall be a body corporate to be known as the Independent Police Complaints Commission (in this Part referred to as “the Commission”). (1) The body corporate previously known as the Independent Police Complaints Commission— (a) is to continue to exist, and (b) is to be known instead as the Office for Police Conduct. (2) The Commission shall consist of— (a) a chairman appointed by Her Majesty; and (b) not less than five other members appointed by the Secretary of State. (2) The Office is to consist of— (a) a Director General appointed by Her Majesty, and (b) at least six other members. (2A) The other members must consist of— (a) persons appointed as non-executive members (see paragraph 1A of Schedule 2), and (b) persons appointed as employee members (see paragraph 1B of that Schedule), but the powers of appointment under those paragraphs must be exercised so as to secure that a majority of members of the Office (including the Director General) are non-executive members.
  • Police Reform

    Police Reform

    House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Police Reform Fourth Report of Session 2004–05 Volume I Report, together with formal minutes Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 22 February 2005 HC 370–I Published on 10 March 2005 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £13.50 Home Affairs Committee The Home Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Home Office and its associated public bodies; and the administration and expenditure of the Attorney General’s Office, the Treasury Solicitor’s Department, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Serious Fraud Office (but excluding individual cases and appointments and advice given within government by Law Officers). Current membership Mr John Denham MP (Labour, Southampton, Itchen) (Chairman) Janet Anderson MP (Labour, Rossendale and Darwen) Mr James Clappison MP (Conservative, Hertsmere) Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas MP (Labour, Crosby) Mrs Janet Dean MP (Labour, Burton) Mr Damian Green MP (Conservative, Ashford) Mr Gwyn Prosser MP (Labour, Dover) Bob Russell MP (Liberal Democrat, Colchester) Mr Marsha Singh MP (Labour, Bradford West) Mr John Taylor MP (Conservative, Solihull) David Winnick MP (Labour, Walsall North) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the Internet via www.parliament.uk. Publications The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the Internet at www.parliament.uk/homeaffairscom.
  • United Kingdom: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention On

    United Kingdom: Phase 2 Report on the Application of the Convention On

    DIRECTORATE FOR FINANCIAL AND ENTERPRISE AFFAIRS UNITED KINGDOM: PHASE 2 REPORT ON THE APPLICATION OF THE CONVENTION ON COMBATING BRIBERY OF FOREIGN PUBLIC OFFICIALS IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND THE 1997 RECOMMENDATION ON COMBATING BRIBERY IN INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS This report was approved and adopted by the Working Group on Bribery in International Business Transactions on 17 March 2005. TABLE OF CONTENTS A. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................4 1. Nature of the on-site visit ................................................................................................4 2. General observations .......................................................................................................5 a) Observations about system of government and legal system ....................................5 b) Economic factors .......................................................................................................6 c) General observations about the United Kingdom’s implementation of the Convention and 1997 Recommendation..........................................................7 d) Developments since the Phase 1 Examination...........................................................8 (i) Phase 1 and Phase 1 bis Examinations ..................................................................8 (ii) The Draft Corruption Bill ......................................................................................9 (iii) Other Legislative
  • Police Reform Act 2002

    Police Reform Act 2002

    Status: This version of this Act contains provisions that are prospective. Changes to legislation: There are outstanding changes not yet made by the legislation.gov.uk editorial team to Police Reform Act 2002. Any changes that have already been made by the team appear in the content and are referenced with annotations. (See end of Document for details) Police Reform Act 2002 2002 CHAPTER 30 An Act to make new provision about the supervision, administration, functions and conduct of police forces, police officers and other persons serving with, or carrying out functions in relation to, the police; to amend police powers and to provide for the exercise of police powers by persons who are not police officers; to amend the law relating to anti-social behaviour orders; to amend the law relating to sex offender orders; and for connected purposes. [24th July 2002] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen’s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:— PART 1 POWERS OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE 1 National Policing Plan After section 36 of the 1996 Act there shall be inserted— “36A National Policing Plan (1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, before the beginning of each financial year, to prepare a National Policing Plan for that year. (2) The Secretary of State shall lay the National Policing Plan for a financial year before Parliament. (3) Subject to subsection (4), any such plan must be laid before Parliament not later than 30th November in the preceding financial year.
  • Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Page 1

    Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Page 1

    Crime and Disorder Act 1998 Page 1 Crime and Disorder Act 1998 1998 CHAPTER 37 Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. UK Statutes Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty©s Stationery Office. An Act to make provision for preventing crime and disorder; to create certain racially-aggravated offences; to abolish the rebuttable presumption that a child is doli incapax and to make provision as to the effect of a child©s failure to give evidence at his trial; to abolish the death penalty for treason and piracy; to make changes to the criminal justice system; to make further provision for dealing with offenders; to make further provision with respect to remands and committals for trial and the release and recall of prisoners; to amend Chapter I of Part II of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997 and to repeal Chapter I of Part III of the Crime and Punishment (Scotland) Act 1997; to make amendments designed to facilitate, or otherwise desirable in connection with, the consolidation of certain enactments; and for connected purposes. [31st July 1998] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen©s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:Ð PART I Prevention of crime and disorder CHAPTER I England and Wales Crime and disorder: general 1.Ð Anti-social behaviour orders. (1) An application for an order under this section may be made by a relevant authority if it appears to the authority that the following conditions are fulfilled with respect to any person aged 10 or over, namelyÐ (a) that the person has acted, since the commencement date, in an anti-social manner, that is to say, in a manner that caused or was likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to one or more persons not of the same household as himself; and (b) that such an order is necessary to protect relevant persons from further anti-social acts by him.
  • THE COMMON LAW in INDIA AUSTRALIA the Law Book Co

    THE COMMON LAW in INDIA AUSTRALIA the Law Book Co

    THE HAMLYN LECTURES TWELFTH SERIES THE COMMON LAW IN INDIA AUSTRALIA The Law Book Co. of Australasia Pty Ltd. Sydney : Melbourne : Brisbane CANADA AND U.S.A. The Carswell Company Ltd. Toronto INDIA N. M. Tripathi Private Ltd. Bombay NEW ZEALAND Sweet & Maxwell (N.Z.) Ltd. Wellington PAKISTAN Pakistan Law House Karachi The Common Law in India BY M. C. SETALVAD, Padma Vibhufhan, Attorney-General of India Published under the auspices of THE HAMLYN TRUST LONDON STEVENS & SONS LIMITED I960 First published in I960 by Stevens & Sons Limited of 11 New Fetter Lane in the City of London and printed in Great Britain by The Eastern Press Ltd. of London and Reading Stevens & Sons, Limited, London 1960 CONTENTS The Hamlyn Trust ----- page vii 1. RISE OF THE COMMON LAW 1 2. CIVIL LAW -------63 3. CRIMINAL LAW ------ us 4. THE INDIAN CONSTITUTION - - - - 168 EPILOGUE 224 HAMLYN LECTURERS 1949 The Right Hon. Lord Denning 1950 Richard O'Sullivan, Q.C. 1951 F. H. Lawson, D.C.L. 1952 A. L. Goodhart, K.B.E., Q.C, F.B.A. 1953 Sir Carleton Kemp Allen, Q.C, F.B.A. 1954 C. J. Hamson, M.A., LL.M. 1955 Glanville Williams, LL.D. 1956 The Hon. Sir Patrick Devlin 1957 The Right Hon. Lord MacDermott 1958 Sir David Hughes Parry, Q.C, M.A., LL.D., D.C.L. 1959 C. H. S. Fifoot, M.A., F.B.A. 1960 M. C. Setalvad, Padma Vibhufhan VI THE HAMLYN TRUST THE Hamlyn Trust came into existence under the will of the late Miss Emma Warburton Hamlyn, of Torquay, who died in 1941, aged eighty.
  • 268KB***The Law on Treasonable Offences in Singapore

    268KB***The Law on Treasonable Offences in Singapore

    Published on e-First 14 April 2021 THE LAW ON TREASONABLE OFFENCES IN SINGAPORE This article aims to provide an extensive and detailed analysis of the law on treasonable offences in Singapore. It traces the historical development of the treason law in Singapore from the colonial period under British rule up until the present day, before proceeding to lay down the applicable legal principles that ought to govern these treasonable offences, drawing on authorities in the UK, India as well as other Commonwealth jurisdictions. With a more long-term view towards the reform and consolidation of the treason law in mind, this article also proposes several tentative suggestions for reform, complete with a draft bill devised by the author setting out these proposed changes. Benjamin LOW1 LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore). “Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”2 I. Introduction 1 The law on treasonable offences, more commonly referred to as treason,3 in Singapore remains shrouded in a great deal of uncertainty and ambiguity despite having existed as part of the legal fabric of Singapore since its early days as a British colony. A student who picks up any major textbook on Singapore criminal law will find copious references to various other kinds of substantive offences, general principles of criminal liability as well as discussion of law reform even, but very little mention is made of the relevant law on treason.4 Academic commentary on this 1 The author is grateful to Julia Emma D’Cruz, the staff of the C J Koh Law Library, the Lee Kong Chian Reference Library and the ISEAS Library for their able assistance in the author’s research for this article.