Despite a ban on films that show support for gay lifestyles, Dalam Botol’s ‘non-explicit vision’ has proved a box office success in Malaysia The first homegrown movie with gay themes to be shown in Malaysia has proved an unexpected box office success in the conservative Muslim country. Opening less than a week ago, Dalam Botol (In a Bottle), about a post-op transsexual who comes to realise that she may have been better off as a man, has already earned more than one million ringgit (£206,000) at Malaysian cinemas, easily recouping its production and marketing costs of 970,000 ringgit. Prior to filming, writer and producer Raja Azmi Raja Sulaiman had to submit details to the country’s strict censorship board, which nevertheless gave its approval following a couple of amendments. Malaysian films are not allowed to show support for gay lifestyles: the country still maintains a law against sodomy, which is punishable by up to 20 years in prison, though prosecutions are rare. Dalam Botol offers a non-explicit vision of gay romance, featuring heterosexual actors who hug but do not kiss. However Sulaiman told the Associated Press she believed the box office results “prove that Malaysian audiences can handle such movies, that they’re more open and not so conservative any more.” She added: “I hope it’ll inspire more films that are meaningful and linked to the reality of people’s lives.” In Dalam Botol , a Muslim man undergoes a sex-change operation because he thinks it will please his boyfriend. Ultimately, both of the them end up unhappy. Box office appears to have been heavily driven by controversy over the film, which has been at the centre of speculation that it might be banned. Azmi based on the experiences of a friend who had sex-change surgery in Thailand. The film is not necessarily popular with Malaysia’s gay community. “Many of us Malaysian gays, lesbians and transgenders have absolutely no regrets being who we are,” said rights activist Pang Khee Teik, co-founder of the Malaysian sexual rights awareness group Sexuality Independence. Azmi said her next film would most likely feature both gay and straight relationships. She plans a “fantasy drama” about a young man who prefers older partners but whose closest friend is a fish in a bowl that suddenly transforms into a man. Gay rights Malaysia Ben Child guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
The “nappy curriculum” is drastically in need of reform, a government-commissioned review will say today Childminders and nursery workers feel they’re spending too much time filling in forms, says Dame Clare Tickell, who has reviewed the early years curriculum for the government. Tickell’s review of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) will recommend today that the curriculum be scaled right back, reducing the number of goals young children are expected to meet from 69 to 17. The EYFS, dubbed the “nappy curriculum”, was introduced by the last Labour government and became mandatory in September 2008. Tickell, chief executive of the Action for Children charity, says: “The early years curriculum is a fantastic resource that has unified and united teachers, and before its introduction there wasn’t the regulation, but what we have now needs revising.” She told the BBC: “We had enormous feedback from people during the review – 3,300 responses. What came back is that practitioners felt a lot of time was taken up filling in boxes and not enough with the children. Much of this work isn’t actually in the early years goals, but it is the way it has been interpreted. “What we have tried to do is make it slimmer and more simple. We have reduced the number of goals from 69 to 17 by clustering them.” She added: “The areas which are important to look at are personal, social and emotional development. But physical is important too. Professionals need to recognise when a child is not developing and understand what to do.” Tickell’s report will say that the EYFS is “too bureaucratic” at present. Primary school teachers have said the EYFS reports they get on five-year-olds are meaningless because the children are being measured against too many targets. A revamped EYFS should be more in line with what children will be expected to learn at primary school, to help get them ready for the classroom. Tickell was asked to carry out a review of EYFS last summer, after ministers raised concerns that the curriculum was too rigid and put too many burdens on childcare workers. Dr Mary Bousted, general secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, says: “We hope the review looks at children’s overall readiness to go to school, including their communications, social, physical, and emotional development, and does not just focus on literacy and numeracy.” Early years education Primary schools Schools Teaching Children Childcare Judy Friedberg guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Press F5, refresh or hit auto-update for the latest • Email rob.smyth@guardian.co.uk with your thoughts • Debate the Mother of all Matches on our CWC blog • Buy the Guardian’s Ashes book , if you like 6th over: India 49-1 (Tendulkar 8, Gambhir 1) Excellent stuff from Wahab Riaz: just two runs and that crucial wicket. “Room 101,” says Peter Mattessi. “People who employ stupid, moronic, infantile internet speak, written or spoken. ‘Oh noes’, ‘I haz a hunger’, ‘respek’ etc. Grow up you effing imbeciles.” But… but… but… look at the cute cat ! WICKET! India 48-1 (Sehwag LBW b Wahab Riaz 38) Silence in Mohali. Virender Sehwag has gone! Wahab Riaz replaced Abdul Razzaq and struck with his fifth ball. It was speared in towards middle and leg from over the wicket, and was certainly hitting the stumps as Sehwag flicked around his front pad. Simon Taufel gave it out, but Sehwag reviewed the decision straight away, presumably thinking or hoping it pitched outside leg. It didn’t, and he has to go after a storming innings of 38 from 25 balls. 5th over: India 47-0 (Sehwag 38, Tendulkar 8) Another over, two more boundaries for Sehwag. The first was crunched wristily through midwicket when Gul overpitched just a touch. You could almost hear the boing of his wrists as he played the stroke. Two balls later he reached high above his head to steer a slower, wider bouncer over backward point and away for four. Pakistan surely have to go to spin soon. “I’m a British Pakistani on a road trip with a British Indian, from London to jerusalem in an old Mercedes 190,” says Zubair Shah. “Today we are in Damascus and I’m desperately trying to find somewhere showing the game. There are 1014 channels on my hotel TV showing everything in the world but no cricket. Maybe I should have listened to my mum and stayed at home. OBO Zindabad is all I can say!” 4th over: India 39-0 (Sehwag 30, Tendulkar 8) I already have 70 unread email so, er, PLEASE STOP keep ‘em coming. And apologies if I don’t get round to yours. It’s not me, it’s you. Or something. Early impressions are that this is a 300 pitch, and Sehwag’s start means that Tendulkar can play his usual game – anchoring the innings at a strike rate of 100. He squirts Razzaq past point for three and then Sehwag smears a disdainful boundary down the ground. Utter contempt. He has raced to 30 from 17 balls, and when he gets off strike Tendulkar completes another expensive over with a classical extra-cover drive for four. “Room 101 candidate,” begins Harkarn Sumal. “The first time that I heard anyone using the word ‘texed’ as a past tense of ‘text’ (the recently coined noun), I despaired at the riff-raff. But now that it seems to have crept in to common usage I’ve taken this as my cue to entirely give up on modern civilisation. My wife’s started doing it now and this pretty much guarantees one major domestic every week, along the lines of ‘why can’t you say it properly?’ – invariably triggering the default response ‘Why are you completely useless in every respect?’ and a great big hufty strop.” 3rd over: India 27-0 (Sehwag 25, Tendulkar 1) Astonishing stuff from Virender Sehwag, who has just smacked Umar Gul’s second over for 21! It includes an amazing five boundaries – two to midwicket and one each through square leg, backward point and cover – and also a front-foot no-ball. Gul is Pakistan’s best seamer, and Sehwag has just treated him like Martin McCague. “I’ve travelled for four hours on local Kentish buses (Room 101 please!) to visit my gran,” says Niall Harden. “She has Sky Sports. Pure coincidence.” I hope she’s cancelled her subscription without telling you, and has only the five basic channels and an Are You Being Served DVD. 2nd over: India 6-0 (Sehwag 5, Tendulkar 1) Pakistan decide not to open with spin, despite the success of that tactic in the quarter-final defenestration of the West Indies, so it will be Abdul Razzaq to share the new ball. Accurate medium pacers have given Tendulkar a few problems down the years – none more so than Hansie Cronje , absurd as that sounds – and he is watchful for a few deliveries before getting off the mark with a very tight single to mid on. Wahab Riaz’s throw missed the stumps, although I think Tendulkar was just home. Two singles from the over. “I’d like to put into Room 101 people asking bar staff if they can ‘get’ whatever they want to order,” says Phil Lamb. “‘Can I get a pint of Amstel?’ No, you can’t. The bar staff will get it.” That’s the kind of wonderfully minor thing that we should include. I love the idea of Phil Lamb’s entire Friday night out being ruined by some punter’s frivolous use of the word ‘get’. 1st over: India 4-0 (Sehwag 4, Tendulkar 0) Umar Gul roars in to bowl the first ball, and Sehwag plays and misses at a filthy wide delivery. There is usually a bit of [Michael Holding voice] pace and bounce [/Michael Holding voice] at Mohali, and the general consensus is that this is a belter. Sehwag gets the party started with an effortless cover drive for four off the third delivery, holding the pose theatrically at the end of his follow through. Gul responds with a good one that beats Sehwag’s angled-bat force. A lively start. “You’re just two games away from being the first OBOer to avoid the World Cup meltdown,” says Alex Netherton, who is referring to an, a-hem, proud Guardian cricket World Cup tradition in evidence here and here . Don’t worry, Alex: if this game goes to a Super Over, the only word I’ll be capable of typing will be ‘Wibble’. Where are you watching today’s game? Tell us your stories, obviously the more interesting the better. An ‘I’m at work in Farringdon eating cheese bread and filling in some forms’ probably isn’t that interesting. Statgasm department Pakistan have never beaten India at a World Cup or a World Twenty20. Recycling old riffs department What would you put in Room 101? Not the obvious stuff – smoking, Toploader, football, the internet, eye contact – but the little things that annoy you inordinately. Like the word ‘tweeps’. And the word ‘peeps’. And trendy shop assistants in trendy shops who are too hip and trendy and very to bother with the word pounds, and instead say “that’s 20 please”. Twenty what? Pence? Clams? Epiphanies? Seconds to comply? “Usually,” says Ian Copestake, “squeaky bum time is reserved for the end of matches, not before they’ve even begun.” Previously on India v Pakistan… We tend not to do Joy of Sixes on cricket, but if we had done India v Pakistan, the list might have been something like this: Javed Miandad’s legendary last-ball six to win the Australasia Cup final of 1986… Anil Kumble’s ten-for in 1999… Wasim Akram’s astonishing over to Rahul Dravid , also in 1999… Javed Miandad getting friendly with Kiran More in 1992… Sunny Gavaskar’s heroic 96 in his final Test innings (and in a stunning series decider, with which the unfamiliar should acquaint themselves quick smart ) … and Majid Khan’s response to some negative bowling from Kapil Dev in 1978. India have won the toss , to wild cheers, and will bat first. They have brought in the left-arm seamer Ashish Nehra for the offspinner Ravichandran Ashwin. Pakistan are unchanged, which means no place for Shoaib Akhtar. Bah! Shahid Afridi, emitting his usual hyperactive cool, announces that the toss isn’t important anyway, and that the pitch will help the spinners. India Sehwag, Tendulkar, Gambhir, Kohli, Yuvraj, Dhoni (c/wk), Raina, Harbhajan, Zaheer, Patel, Nehra. Pakistan Hafeez, K Akmal (wk), Shafiq, Younis, Misbah, U Akmal, Afridi (c), Razzaq, Wahab, Gul, Ajmal. The mood of the day, captured in one email from Waqas Mir “Bloodyhellbloodyhellbloodyhell!” Preamble Morning. There has been so much hype about this game that it’s important we put it in perspective. It is, after all, only the biggest game in cricket history. The fact that the winners go through to a World Cup final is almost incidental. This is India v Pakistan. India v Pakistan. India v Pakistan. India v Pakistan . Everybody wants to win cricket matches, but it’s hard to imagine that anybody has ever needed to win a match as much as these sides today. Take the thing you have needed the most in your life – to hold the hand of The One, perhaps, or a fish-finger sandwich when all you have to cook in the flat is bread, fresh air and some intimidatingly funky cheese – multiply it by a thousand and you’re still nowhere near. Those of us born and raised in Britain have not got a clue how big this game is. There is an obvious hope concern that it will kick off, and at least one of the losing team will probably have their house stoned tonight, but hopefully the cricket will take precedence. Both sides have otherworldly talents – and the pick of them, Sachin Tendulkar, is on 99 international centuries. If he becomes the first man to reach a hundred hundreds today, the entire known universe may grind to a halt. Cricket World Cup 2011 India cricket team Pakistan cricket team Over by over reports Cricket Rob Smyth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
BP sends letters to 13,000 Louisiana residents whose data was stored on computer, notifying them of potential security breach A BP employee has lost a laptop containing personal data belonging to thousands of Louisiana residents who filed claims for compensation after the Gulf oil spill. The firm said it had sent letters to roughly 13,000 people whose data was stored on the computer, notifying them about the potential security breach and offering to pay for their credit to be monitored. The laptop was password-protected, but the information was not encrypted. The data included a spreadsheet of claimants’ names, social security numbers, phone numbers and addresses. Curtis Thomas, a BP spokesman, said the company did not have any evidence that claimants’ personal information had been misused. “We’re committed to the people of the Gulf coast states affected by the Deepwater Horizon accident and spill, and we deeply regret that this occurred,” he said. The data belonged to individuals who filed claims with BP before the Gulf Coast Claims Facility took over the processing of claims in August. BP paid roughly $400m (£250m) in claims before the switch. As of Tuesday, the GCCF had paid roughly $3.6bn to 172,539 claimants. BP said no one would have to resubmit a claim because of the lost data. The employee lost the laptop on 1 March during “routine business travel”. “If it was stolen, we think it was a crime of opportunity, but it was initially lost,” Thomas said. BP is offering to pay for claimants to have their credit monitored by Equifax, an Atlanta-based credit bureau. Asked why nearly a month elapsed before BP notified residents about the missing laptop, Thomas said: “We were doing our due diligence and investigating.” BP oil spill United States BP guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Restricting support to disputes featuring claims of domestic violence will encourages false allegations, says select committee Making eligibility for legal aid in divorce and custody cases dependent on accusations of domestic violence will create a “perverse incentive” that encourages false allegations, according to a group of MPs. Ministers should reconsider plans to restrict financial support in family courtroom disputes to only those where physical abuse is a feature, the justice select committee said. There is political consensus over the need to cut the UK’s annual £2.2bn legal aid bill because it is “one of the most expensive in the world”, a report by the group said. But some of the solutions being pursued by the Ministry of Justice risk being counter-productive, it cautioned. Poorer and more vulnerable groups could be hit hardest by the reduction in support and there is danger that such reforms could lead to inflated costs in other areas of the legal system, the committee suggested. In a sideswipe at the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), the study expressed concern at “poor decision making” on social security payments, which had led to a doubling of appeals over disputed benefits that received legal aid or help – rising from 72,000 cases in 2004/5 to 144,000 in 2009/10. A punitive mechanism could be introduced to force the department to pay for legal costs when it is in error, the report said. “There is potential for such a ‘polluter pays’ principle to be extended considerably, with the DWP … required to pay a surcharge in relation to the number of cases in which their decision making is shown to have been at fault. “Rejecting this idea as a ‘robbing Peter to pay Paul’ transfer of funds around the public purse, the minister is overlooking the potential benefit such a policy would have in providing a financial incentive to public authorities to get their decisions right first time.” The Ministry of Justice’s aim is to trim £350m from the annual legal aid budget. Most of the savings will come by reducing the types of cases entitled to public funding. Controversy has centred on family law, where most claimants will no longer be able to apply for legal aid unless domestic violence is an issue. “We are concerned that using the presence of domestic violence as a proxy for the most important cases will lead to a perverse incentive to make false allegations of such violence,” the select committee warned. It will also ensure that domestic violence, where it has occurred, will feature more prominently than it might otherwise have done, harming children and adding unnecessary expenses, it added. If the government was to insist on using domestic abuse as a criterion for eligibility, it should ensure that the definition “incorporates non-physical abuse”, the report said. In terms of restricting access to justice, the reforms could lead to an influx in poorly informed litigants clogging up the courts. “The ability of the most vulnerable people to present their cases will be weakened because they will not have had help and advice in preparing them,” the report said. “This could deny justice to the individuals concerned and increase the time and expense necessary to deal with cases at tribunal.” The precise impact of the changes could not be predicted, the MPs continued, and they would impose a severe strain on the voluntary sector, straining David Cameron’s vision of a “big society”. The report said: “Organisations in this field have made it clear they do not believe it will be possible to meet all the demand which will be created by the proposed changes to legal aid.” The chairman of the justice select committee, Sir Alan Beith MP, said: “There is a cross-party consensus on the need to reduce the cost of the legal aid budget, which is one of the most expensive in the world. “Concerns remain, however, that there is the potential for vulnerable groups of people to be disproportionately hit by the changes. The government’s proposals need considerable further refinement before moving forward and alternative ways of achieving savings should be examined.” Legal aid Family law Owen Bowcott guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Japanese officials concede they are no closer to resolving nuclear crisis as high levels of radiation is detected in ocean Japanese officials have conceded they are no closer to resolving the nuclear crisis at Fukushima Daiichi power plant, as new readings showed a dramatic increase in radioactive contamination in the sea. The pressure to make progress also took its toll on Tokyo Electric Power (Tepco), the plant’s operator, whose chief executive, Masataka Shimizu, was taken to hospital on Tuesday night suffering from exhaustion. The country’s nuclear and industrial safety agency, Nisa, said radioactive iodine-131 at 3,355 times the legal limit had been identified in the sea about 300 yards south of the plant, although officials have yet to determine how it got there. Hidehiko Nishiyama, a Nisa spokesman, said fishing had stopped in the area, adding that the contamination posed no immediate threat to humans. “We will find out how it happened and do our utmost to prevent it from rising,” he said. The government’s acceptance of help from the US and France has strengthened the belief that the battle to save the stricken reactors, now well into its third week, is lost. On Tuesday, a US engineer who helped install reactors at the plant said he believed the radioactive core in unit 2 may have melted through the bottom of its containment vessel and on to a concrete floor. The government’s chief spokesman, Yukio Edano, could not say how long the operation at Fukushima would last. “We are not yet in a situation were we can say we will have this under control by a certain period,” he said. While Nisa officials attempted to play down the contamination’s impact on marine life, any development that heightens health concerns among consumers will dismay local fishermen, many of whom already face a long struggle to rebuild their businesses after the 11 March earthquake and tsunami. Experts say the sea’s ability to dilute radiation will weaken its ability to contaminate fish and other marine life. Robert Peter Gale, a US medical researcher who was brought in by Soviet authorities after the Chernobyl disaster, said recent higher readings of radioactive iodine-131 and caesium-137 should be of greater concern than reports earlier this week that tiny quantities of plutonium found in soil samples. But he added: “It’s obviously alarming when you talk about radiation, but if you have radiation in non-gas form, I would say dump it in the ocean.” Gale, who has been advising the Japanese government, told the Guardian: “To some extent that’s why some nuclear power plants are built along the coast, to be in an area where the wind is blowing out to sea, and because the safest way to deposit radiation is in the ocean. “The dilutional factor could not be better – there’s no better place. If you deposit it on earth or in places where people live, there is no dilutional effect. From a safety point of view, the ocean is the safest place.” Analysts said a prolonged crisis at the Fukushima plant could place intolerable pressure on the economy. “The worst-case scenario is that this drags on not one month or two months or six months, but for two years, or indefinitely,” said Jesper Koll of JPMorgan Securities in Tokyo. “Japan will be bypassed. That is the real nightmare scenario.” Criticism of Tepco is building after safety lapses last week put three workers in hospital – though all have been discharged – and erroneous reports of radiation data. Shimizu, 66, has not been seen since appearing at a press conference on 13 March, two days after the disaster. He had reportedly resumed control of the operation at the firm’s headquarters in Tokyo after suffering a minor illness , but on Tuesday he was admitted to hospital suffering from high blood pressure and dizziness. Tepco said on Wednesday that he was not expected to be absent for long. Tepco shares plunged by almost 18% on Wednesday morning and have lost 75% of their value since 11 March. Reports on Tuesday said the government was considering nationalising the beleaguered utility. The hundreds of workers at the plant must now find a balance between pumping enough water to cool the reactors, while avoiding a runoff of highly radioactive excess water. But as yet they do not have anywhere to store the contaminated water. The options under consideration are to transfer the water to a ship or cover the reactors to trap radioactive particles, Edano said. Japan disaster Japan Nuclear power Nuclear waste Waste Justin McCurry guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Broadcaster’s new chief creative officer, Jay Hunt, has told staff that genre has become tired, according to sources Channel 4 is quietly calling time on list shows, which it has been running successfully for more than a decade on Saturday and Sunday nights on its main network and digital spin-off E4. According to a senior programming source, Channel 4′s new chief creative officer, Jay Hunt, who has been in her job for less than three months, has told colleagues that the programming genre, which usually relies on the findings of an online poll to rank subjects, has had its day. “It is felt that they are popular but we can be doing bolder and different things rather than something which is fun but which some people feel can feel a little spurious,” said the source. Instead the money saved from airing clip shows will be ploughed back into original programming, particularly comedy. Last year Channel 4 broadcast three list shows – 100 Greatest World Cup Moments, 100 Greatest Stand Ups and 100 Greatest Toys. E4 also broadcast three, The 50 Greatest Plastic Surgery Shockers, The Idiot Awards and How to Be Famous, alongside a handful of repeats. However, this came despite claims in 2007 by Channel 4′s then director of television and content, Kevin Lygo, that the broadcaster would be abandoning them. “I don’t think we will be commissioning them any more,” Lygo, who left last year to become managing director of ITV Studios, said at the time . But while the format never quite went away, Channel 4 insist that the end really is nigh for the list show except under very exceptional circumstances. The broadcaster plans to keep Rude Tube, its occasional rundown of amusing or interesting internet clips presented by Alex Zane. And one list show waiting in the wings for a broadcast in April is 50 Worst Weddings, which will form part of its coverage of the royal wedding. “The Jonathan Ross rundown of the nation’s favourite toys did well last year and if Jonathan comes up with an exceptionally brilliant idea like that we may do it,” added the Channel 4 source. “But the direction of travel is now very much not to do them any more.” •
Continue reading …Broadcaster’s new chief creative officer, Jay Hunt, has told staff that genre has become tired, according to sources Channel 4 is quietly calling time on list shows, which it has been running successfully for more than a decade on Saturday and Sunday nights on its main network and digital spin-off E4. According to a senior programming source, Channel 4′s new chief creative officer, Jay Hunt, who has been in her job for less than three months, has told colleagues that the programming genre, which usually relies on the findings of an online poll to rank subjects, has had its day. “It is felt that they are popular but we can be doing bolder and different things rather than something which is fun but which some people feel can feel a little spurious,” said the source. Instead the money saved from airing clip shows will be ploughed back into original programming, particularly comedy. Last year Channel 4 broadcast three list shows – 100 Greatest World Cup Moments, 100 Greatest Stand Ups and 100 Greatest Toys. E4 also broadcast three, The 50 Greatest Plastic Surgery Shockers, The Idiot Awards and How to Be Famous, alongside a handful of repeats. However, this came despite claims in 2007 by Channel 4′s then director of television and content, Kevin Lygo, that the broadcaster would be abandoning them. “I don’t think we will be commissioning them any more,” Lygo, who left last year to become managing director of ITV Studios, said at the time . But while the format never quite went away, Channel 4 insist that the end really is nigh for the list show except under very exceptional circumstances. The broadcaster plans to keep Rude Tube, its occasional rundown of amusing or interesting internet clips presented by Alex Zane. And one list show waiting in the wings for a broadcast in April is 50 Worst Weddings, which will form part of its coverage of the royal wedding. “The Jonathan Ross rundown of the nation’s favourite toys did well last year and if Jonathan comes up with an exceptionally brilliant idea like that we may do it,” added the Channel 4 source. “But the direction of travel is now very much not to do them any more.” •
Continue reading …
Inside the independent body set up to investigate miscarriages of justice after the court of appeal has thrown them out The view from Alpha Tower, the looming skyscraper that is home to the criminal cases review commission, stretches from the knotted mess of Spaghetti Junction to the open wilds of the Malvern Hills. But behind the closed doors of the CCRC’s glass-walled office, where the case of a young man who claims he was wrongly convicted of raping his sister is being considered, all eyes are focused on a single sheet of paper. Requisitioned from a stash of prison officers’ private notebooks going back many years, the document is yellowed with age, smudged and unclear. “Does this say ‘offence’ or ‘offences’?,” asks Julie Goulding, one of the three panel members, a lawyer and former NHS trust chief executive. “Did this man make a number of firm admissions of guilt in prison – or one weak admission when he was applying for parole?” “Whose signature is this anyway? It’s so smudged,” she sighs. “Even if we can work out whose notes these are, we can’t ask them: it’s ridiculous to even hope they’ll remember such a small detail, scribbled in their private papers and concerning one of a zillion cases dealt with years ago. Added to which, the officer might well have retired by now – or moved away entirely.” She squints at the file again. “I just wish I could work out if that’s an ‘s’ or not.” An independent body charged with investigating suspected miscarriages of justice in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the CCRC is the last bastion of hope for those whose cases have already been rejected by the court of appeal. By conducting its own investigations, starting from scratch and reaching into corners the original inquiry might have missed or not been legally able to delve into, the commission decides whether the original judgment was safe. If it has doubts, the case is referred back to the court of appeal and a fresh trial begun. The first organisation of its kind in the world was set up in 1997 after a series of catastrophic wrongful convictions corroded respect for the British criminal justice system – the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven, and Judith Ward. The human costs of uncorrected miscarriages of justice are disastrous. Paddy Hill recently described almost two decades after his release, his 16 years wrongful imprisonment for the 1974 Birmingham bombings have lead to breakdowns, alienation and uncontrollable rages. Gerry Conlon, falsely convicted of the Guildford and Woolwich pub bombings, has also talked of breakdowns, attempted suicide and struggles with addiction after 15 years in prison. Creating the CCRC was a proud achievement of the-then Conservative government, which, with cross-party support, made the long-overdue acknowledgment that the police, the courts and the Home Office sometimes get it wrong. And not always accidentally. But the commission is a secretive body. The Guardian is the first newspaper to have been granted access to its case committee meetings. And it was during rare interviews with its chairman, Richard Foster, that he warned the commission may find it impossible to correct miscarriages of justice if the planned closure of the Forensic Science Service (FSS) goes ahead. The material collected and stored by the FSS is, said Foster, crucial to CCRC investigations, which can order the retesting of forensic material many years after the initial conviction: Foster illustrates his concerns by pointing to the sort of material the Commission may need when investigating a murder conviction. “If there is no independent evidence to either confirm or undermine the applicant’s claim of innocence but a science – for example, DNA profilling – has moved on, we might want to see if there are tissue samples or other samples which may be available for testing. Such a process can reveal a miscarriage of justice. “If, on closing the FSS, the work is distributed in some way to a number of companies then without special arrangements being put in place the commission will not be able to access material which can go to the very heart of a review,” said Foster, a former chief executive of the Crown Prosecution Service. “Not only will the work currently under way need to be redistributed but so will the vast quantity of scientific material and evidence held in its archives, storage facilities and on its databases … It is not clear who will fill the vacuum. Many former prisoners owe their freedom to the CCRC, including Barry George, wrongly convicted of the murder of TV presenter Jill Dando; Sally Clark, who was wrongly convicted of murdering her infant sons – and who died within four years of her release from prison; and Sion Jenkins, convicted of battering to death his foster daughter, Billie-Jo Jenkins. Warren Blackwell, freed after the CCRC referred his case back to the Court of Appeal in 2006, last month announced he was bringing a claim for damages against the police for his wrongful conviction as a sex offender. Relatives for whom justice arrived too late have seen names cleared, albeit decades after their death, including that of Derek Bentley, hanged for the murder of a police officer in 1953. But the commission has also faced criticisms. The final chapter in Hope For The Innocent?, a recently published book of essays by some of Britain’s leading lawyers and academics, claims: “It is clear … that the CCRC is not the solution to the wrongful conviction of the innocent.” The editor, Michael Naughton, says that because it is shackled by the requirement to refer only those convictions it believes might be quashed by the court of appeal, the commission overlooks cases where evidence of innocence is inadmissible on strict legal grounds. Other critics also accuse the CCRC of being too cautious: of the 13,368 applications received since it was set up, only 470 have been sent back to the court of appeal. Of the 449 so far ruled on, 314 have been quashed. The high success rate, claims Naughton, proves the CCRC is, at best, too cautious – and at worst, too in thrall to the whims of the court of appeal. The campaigning Miscarriages of Justice Organisation agrees. John McManus, co-founder of the group, believes that as prison population continues to rise and the proportion of prisoners with mental illness rises with it, there are as many innocent people locked up as in the dark days of the 1970s.But the claims frustrate Foster. “It’s utterly spurious to claim we’re not interested in innocence,” he says. “The claim that we wouldn’t refer a case if we had evidence of innocence is both ridiculous and offensive. It is true that we’re not in the business of seeking to establish who did and didn’t commit a crime. We’re in the business of establishing whether or not a conviction is safe – and our critics should be glad that we are.” Ewan Smith, former chair of the Serious Fraud Association and vice-chair of the Criminal Appeals Lawyers Assocation, feels a similar frustration. “In the four and a half years I’ve been on the Commission, I have only come across two people I believed to be absolutely innocent. In all the other cases I’ve sent back to the Court of Appeal, I’ve only been able to say I thought their conviction was unsafe,” he says. “I have certainly referred people back who I personally believed were guilty.” Back in the tower block, the case committee is still trying to decide about the 14-year-old boy. The complexities of sister’s accusation at the time of the trial, her later retraction and subsequent re-accusation has been put to one side, still undecided. Now the panel is trying to establish whether guidelines on the physical signs of rape updated by the Royal College of Pediatricians since the original trial, suggest that perhaps no crime took place after all. “These knotty problems are very much par for the course in our work,” said Foster. “A case where there are powerfully conflicting views, with one person repeatedly changing their evidence, and medical evidence that was unambiguous at the time of the original trial but which is now in doubt: it’s all part of a usual day’s work.” After three hours of deliberation, they refer. Not all members of the panel are happy but, says Foster, that is not unusual. “By their very nature, the cases that come before us are complex, controversial and contentious. They evoke strong passions,” he says. “If there was clear proof of innocence or guilt, the case would not have reached our doors in the first place. Our remit may not please everyone but we confront the system and keep it honest. But if the system cannot safely prove someone is guilty, they must be considered innocent. “That is our raison d’être. We believe it to our core.” UK criminal justice Forensic science Crime Guildford Four Birmingham Six Jill Dando murder Amelia Hill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Matt Foot, solicitor at Birnberg Pierce, says the detention of 145 activists will ‘threaten the right to peacefully protest’ A lawyer at a leading civil liberties firm has expressed fears for the future of direct action protest after the mass arrest of UK Uncut activists during last Saturday’s anti-cuts demonstrations in London. Matt Foot, a criminal defence solicitor at Birnberg Pierce, said the detention of 145 activists during an occupation of luxury food store Fortnum and Mason in Piccadilly was “unprecedented”. He has questioned the police’s motivation. After being arrested for aggravated trespass and criminal damage, scores of Uncut campaigners were dispersed to police stations around London as far apart as Harrow, Ilford and Romford and were held in police cells for up to 24 hours. The next day the accusation of criminal damage was dropped but 138 activists were bailed on the charge of aggravated trespass . Foot, son of the campaigning journalist Paul Foot , said: “It is unprecedented to arrest so many people for simply protesting peacefully in a building. And then it is intimidating to keep peaceful protesters for so long at the police station and then charge them so quickly without reviewing the evidence first. “To rush to treat people in this way and charge them on such a scale suggests the police want to make a statement. This is going to threaten the right to peacefully protest through direct action.” Commenting on video footage obtained by the Guardian in which a senior officer inside Fortnum’s was captured telling Uncut campaigners they were “non-violent” and “sensible”, Foot said: “It’s fascinating that the police clearly took a view that these were peaceful protesters.” “Given the police’s public comments about violence on the demonstration, it is extraordinary that the overwhelming numbers of arrests and charges have been for non-violent protesters. One has to question the motivation behind this.” Replying to a Commons question on Monday about whether UK Uncut activists had been “misrepresented”, the home secretary, Theresa May, said the police were right to make the arrests. “I say to them [UK Uncut] that they certainly have not been misrepresented and I think that what we need to do at this point in time is make it absolutely clear; the police are right in what they were doing in trying to prevent violence for taking place in our streets,” May said. The Guardian has published further footage from the event showing that senior officers on the ground at Fortnum and Mason were confused as to whether UK Uncut activists would be arrested or not. Luke Heighton, a 32-year-old trainee journalist from East Dulwich, saw the exchange between police officers outside the store as he stood beside police lines with his girlfriend. “I was within a couple of feet of a police officer in a fluorescent standard issue jacket who I took to be one of the more senior officers there and I overheard what was being said. Speaking to an officer in black riot gear and a peaked cap, he said: ‘It’s you that’s stopping me from letting them out. What’s the problem?’” Heighton said a second officer in black riot gear and a peaked black cap replied: “We don’t want them let out yet. We want them detained and arrested.” “The officer [in the fluorescent jacket] didn’t contradict that. He looked baffled by the decision,” Heighton said. “You got the sense that he was being overruled but he immediately issued that order to other members of the Met. The whole conversation probably took less than two minutes.” A Guardian video producer who was at the protests with officers from the Met’s public order unit, the Territorial Support Group, captured a pre-demonstration briefing that made it clear senior officers wanted to draw a “line in the sand” over legal and illegal occupations. Adam Ramsay, a campaigner with UK Uncut who was detained for more than 20 hours, said the arrests might have been politically motivated or to faciliate information gathering on the group. “At the time the chief inspector at Fortnum and Mason effectively told us there we had committed no criminal damage – that we were all ‘non-violent’ and ‘sensible’. But moments later we were all arrested for criminal damage – a charge later dropped. This certainly looks to me like political policing.”. “Perhaps they did this because it’s easier to catch people sitting peacefully in a shop than people running round the streets outside. Perhaps they wanted to gather intelligence on a network of peaceful protesters. Either way the Met have serious questions to answer.” In a statement the Metropolitan police said: “The matter is now sub judice. It would be inappropriate to discuss further whilst proceedings are active.” UK Uncut UK civil liberties Protest Liberal-Conservative coalition Police Shiv Malik guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …