Churchill spoke of a "special relationship" between the United States of America and, as he phrased it, "the British Commonwealth and Empire."
He also spoke of an "Iron Curtain" which had descended across Europe from "Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic."
Churchill urged adherence to the United Nations Charter which, at the time of the speech, had been in force less than 5 months.
80 years later, the UN continues
its work but on major issues (e.g. Iran) it cannot be seriously claimed that the central mechanism in the Charter for maintaining international peace - (Chapter VII) - is a major success?Churchill also referred to "two marauders" - war and tyranny - affecting the lives of people. He pointed to lack of freedom in many countries where power over citizens is exercised by "various kinds of all-embracing police governments." In stirring words he said -
" ... we must never cease to proclaim in fearless tones the great principles of freedom and the rights of man which are the joint inheritance of the English-speaking world and which through Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Habeas Corpus, trial by jury, and the English common law find their most famous expression in the American Declaration of Independence."
The speech continued -
"All this means that the people of any country have the right, and should have the power by constitutional action, by free unfettered elections, with secret ballot, to choose or change the character or form of government under which they dwell; that freedom of speech and thought should reign; that courts of justice, independent of the executive, unbiased by any party, should administer laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom. Here are the title deeds of freedom which should lie in every cottage home. Here is the message of the British and American peoples to mankind. Let us preach what we practise – let us practise what we preach."
On the 80th Anniversary of this famous speech, I do not propose to "unpick" Churchill's resonant references to historical topics such as Magns Carta. Some of his rhetoric adopted a somewhat romantic view of English history but, as a courageous defender of democracy and rule of law, he remains unequalled.
- Free unfettered elections
- Freedom of speech and thought
- Courts of justice independent of the executive
- Laws which have received the broad assent of large majorities or are consecrated by time and custom
- Trial by jury - (as opposed to trial by State officials such as the judiciary)
For Churchill, those were the TITLE DEEDS of freedom.
As the Courts and Tribunals Bill comes before the House of Commons we need to demand that Members of Parliament defend the ancient right - (and I believe it is is a right developed by English law)* - to trial by jury. This form of trial has served the nation well and is NOT the cause of trial delays in the Crown Court where, under Ministerial diktat, courtrooms lie empty on a daily basis.
The Criminal Bar Association is opposed to the government's proposals to curb jury trial. Politicians need to listen and withdraw most of this Bill.
Criminal Bar Association Monday Message 2 March 2026 and see their Nutshell Guide to the Courts and Tribunals Bill
UK Government - Criteria for Criminal Legal Aid
Previous Post - Courts and Tribunals Bill
-------
* Note: I have seen it argued that the citizen just has a right to a fair trial. That is the position under the European Convention on Human Rights which applies to all Council of Europe member States with all their different legal traditions. In England and Wales, the jury developed and became the means by which an individual charged with a serious offence is tried. The trial judge directs the jury on the law and ensures that the trial is conducted according to proper procedure. The jury is the fact-finder and decides criminal liability - guilty or not guilty. This method of trial is time-honoured, has served the nation well and has the confidence of the people. I believe that jury trial can properly be regarded as a legal right but it is now under attack from government which has no electoral mandate from the people to change the system. The proposals are based on the false foundation that the jury is responsible for trial delays. Further, the government plans to ram the changes through Parliament thereby curtailing adequate scrutiny. That ought not to be an acceptable way to make major changes to the law and due process.
No comments:
Post a Comment