Magnacartaballs rides again…

Shami Chakrabati in the Indie on Sunday

“If the House of Lords doesn’t stand up for the Magna Carta, then it’s hard to know what the Magna Carta is for.”

Don’t worry Shami, those Barons won’t let you down.


David Davis and Magna Cartaballs

Over at the New Statesman, Simon Hooper has kindly linked to my earlier comments about Davis’ ‘defence’ of Magna Carta.

Magna Cartaballs 2

Of course, David Davis’ resignation speech:

‘This Sunday is the anniversary of Magna Carta, a document that guarantees the fundamental element of British freedom, habeas corpus. The right not to be imprisoned by the state without charge or reason.’

More Magna Cartaballs…

Tony Benn: “I never thought I would be in the House of Commons on the day Magna Carta was repealed”.

Published in: on June 11, 2008 at 6:34 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

42 Day Detention, Magna Carta and Habeas Corpus

Predictably, a whole load of journalists and politicians have been trotting out well-worn cliches concerning the threat to ‘habeus corpus, the idea born in Magna Carta which has inspired every democracy that ever existed.’ (sic.)

I don’t think anyone has put the *actual* content of Magna Carta better than Seller and Yeatman in 1066 And All That:

  1. That no one was to be put to death save for some reason – (except the Common People)

Magna Carta simply guarantees that ‘due process’ will be followed. If due process involves banging people up for 42 days without charge, that’s fine. Whether this contravenes the HRA is another matter, but given the nature of British law, either way it won’t formally annul a new counter-terrorism act.

Likewise Habeas Corpus, which was not enshrined in Magna Carta but is a piece of late medieval law finally codified in the 1679 Habeas Corpus Act. Writs of Habeas Corpus only demanded that the lawfulness of the prisoner’s detention be examined. Hence, though such writs could notionally have been used during, say, the periods of internment during the First and Second World Wars, they would have been legally useless because of the terms of the Defence of the Realm Acts. The same will apply to the counter-terrorism bill, should it come into force.

I’ve blathered on about all this before. Yes, the counter-terrorism bill is a terrible piece of legislation, but it signifies less a devil-may-care attitude to our civil liberties (though that, of course, is wholly evident) and more the very limited nature of ‘British liberty’ itself.