Controversy exists in all walks of life. It could be argued that it is within the practice of medicine and the interpretation of the law that that condition when it does exist affects most people most often most seriously. To some extent the judicial oath should minimise or eliminate much of the controversy in our courts. “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” Medical practitioners have their own historic words to affirm their intentions in the practice of their profession. Many people think that doctors still swear the Hippocratic Oath. It is not compulsory but in fact many medical schools now hold a ceremony where graduating doctors do swear an updated version. It is often said that the exact phrase "First do no harm" (Latin: Primum non nocere) is a part of the original Hippocratic oath. Although the phrase does not appear in the AD 245 version of the oath similar intentions are vowed by, "I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm".
And so to a situation where these two declarations clashed at City of London Magistrates’ Court. At this point I must declare an interest. As I have written previously I have experienced the result of Extinction Rebellion`s determination as an organisation to disrupt the daily lives of ordinary people going about their ordinary or extraordinary but lawful business by blocking the public highway. Having said that the following comment is based simply on fact.
Section 14 of the Public Order Act 1986 grants the police the power to impose conditions upon public assemblies which govern the time, location and circumstances of such assemblies. They are only permitted to do this if a senior police officer reasonably believes that:
1. An assembly may result in serious public disorder, serious damage to property or serious disruption to the life of the community; or
2.The purpose of the assembly is to intimidate others into doing or not doing something which they have a legal right to do.
In the case of the Extinction Rebellion protests the Met Police have stated that they believe the protests have caused serious disruption to the community, following what they say have been ongoing breaches of previous section 14 conditions. The courts have said that any conditions imposed under s.14 must not amount to a disproportionate interference with the rights to freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. Earlier this month seven medical professionals were acquitted by a District Judge of a breach of article 14 on the grounds that he was "not convinced that the necessary steps that are required for the imposition of section 14 had been taken". Of reports that I have checked none has reported if the judge explained that observation. In my humble opinion the court, the CPS and the public are owed an explanation for his action. Certainly from my own experience of the admittedly relatively limited times of presiding over high profile cases the legal advisor would have politely suggested that my pronouncement should include the complete reasoning for the bench`s decision including what said steps deemed to have been omitted. In addition it appears that the judge was pre disposed to the fact that the defendants were doctors. According to a report "The judge was ‘impressed by the integrity and rationality of their beliefs’ and found doctors’ evidence ‘highly moving’." Thus by his own comment the judge was emotionally motivated in reaching his decision. The defendants` occupations had obviously been a major factor in his conclusions. Consider for one moment what the decision might have been had these defendants been unemployed or poorly educated workers exercising what they had considered to be their "rights". Indeed in that instance would the police themselves have acted differently. These questions should not arise from this case. The law should be equal for all. This hearing shows clearly that that is and has been for decades a misconception.
No comments:
Post a Comment