"Some people argue they are something which help to protect us from a dictatorship but that is not an argument I find myself able to agree with. The only really defence against tyranny is a population which rises up against it and removes the tyrant"
I don't think people argue that they would protect against full-blown tyranny – rather, that they would help protect against sliding into full-blown tyranny, and against the kind of petty tyranny that would never provoke an uprising. As for the population rising up: surely part of the purpose of constitutional law is to provide mechanisms for the public to remove bad or oppressive rulers without recourse to violence?
There are one or two other points you make that I'm inclined to disagree with but I'll leave them till I've had time to think about them further.
It’s clear that you see *verdicts of conscience* as a threat to the rule of law. It’s also clear that you weren’t practicing in criminal law in the late 70’s to mid 80’s when the jury aquittal rate was 97% where the police evidence was unsupported by independent witnesses. This is what led to PACE being introduced & that has been inadequate to prevent huge numbers of miscarriages of justice (the concept that the prosecution decides what evidence is relevant to the defence is completely laughable & an affront to the rule of law). You will not be alone in misunderstanding the protective value of the rule of law here (see Silas Reid’s frankly embarrassing pronouncement) but as you do it’s probably better that you don’t draft any white papers until you have at least spent some time in the practice of criminal defence law. When you read this ask yourself what would happen if the death penalty were reintroduced… what is the last line of defence for society?
"Some people argue they are something which help to protect us from a dictatorship but that is not an argument I find myself able to agree with. The only really defence against tyranny is a population which rises up against it and removes the tyrant"
I don't think people argue that they would protect against full-blown tyranny – rather, that they would help protect against sliding into full-blown tyranny, and against the kind of petty tyranny that would never provoke an uprising. As for the population rising up: surely part of the purpose of constitutional law is to provide mechanisms for the public to remove bad or oppressive rulers without recourse to violence?
There are one or two other points you make that I'm inclined to disagree with but I'll leave them till I've had time to think about them further.
It’s clear that you see *verdicts of conscience* as a threat to the rule of law. It’s also clear that you weren’t practicing in criminal law in the late 70’s to mid 80’s when the jury aquittal rate was 97% where the police evidence was unsupported by independent witnesses. This is what led to PACE being introduced & that has been inadequate to prevent huge numbers of miscarriages of justice (the concept that the prosecution decides what evidence is relevant to the defence is completely laughable & an affront to the rule of law). You will not be alone in misunderstanding the protective value of the rule of law here (see Silas Reid’s frankly embarrassing pronouncement) but as you do it’s probably better that you don’t draft any white papers until you have at least spent some time in the practice of criminal defence law. When you read this ask yourself what would happen if the death penalty were reintroduced… what is the last line of defence for society?