{"id":"5fda32a06cee07000670ae82","slug":"fake-law-en","title":"Fake Law","audio_url":"https://hls.blinkist.io/bibs/5fda32a06cee07000670ae82/5fda32a06cee07000670ae84-T1608135421.m4a?Expires=1652841956&Signature=aPstFp2VzYcHAMgUVx1yeazVRo~6Cn-PaVgdOdtaajadZHv5jBKk79UE4s8qwiwSaAG-2cAJ1xS~Bir2ByLQyK9Ih2ppoGMyFZrOZMk3SFWSw7YicBuTGIzeQme8MZJbHNSMi9aScJAasmwZWntJvOHwe7uJjWbo6uwvNHsBE0LS1zTluJ85iq-6tRZQWolfv-K1MOd-zNYZ3afRiARyxk6bWJ8WvPWvaaXSqx3CIPEIuooBNNrglK8EOwi4daLqsokV~g9gI3p4OtXqza1PADulXogdScm1oaTUswJKqKgGSlRnSaW0xjAWXMpr9N9Jlei3ORnIncjOh~XZ5MGs1Q__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJXJM6BB7FFZXUB4A","chapters":[{"id":"5fda32a06cee07000670ae84","title":"Fake law tells us that homeowners defending themselves are treated like criminals.","text":"

If an Englishman’s home is his castle, these days it may seem he no longer has the right to defend it. Consider the infamous case of Tony Martin, a farmer who was convicted of murder in 2000, for shooting dead an intruder who broke into his farmhouse in the middle of the night. Martin was described in the popular press as a hero and a tragic example of how the law turns innocent homeowners into criminals.

But, in reality, English law clearly states that you can defend yourself, your family, and your property against intruders.

The key message here is: Fake law tells us that homeowners defending themselves are treated like criminals.

Under English self-defense laws, even killing can be legally permissible as long your actions fulfill two vital criteria.

First, you must have believed that using force was necessary to protect yourself from harm. Crucially, it doesn’t matter if you’re correct in this assumption, it only matters that you genuinely thought, at that moment, that your life was in danger. For instance, if you seriously injure a masked attacker who runs at you with a machete, and afterward realize that it was actually a children’s entertainer dressed as Winnie the Pooh, then you could still claim that you acted in self-defense.

Second, your response must be proportionate to the threat you face. For example, if someone slaps you and your response is to shoot them, then you’d struggle to convince a jury that you acted reasonably.

Convicted homeowner, Tony Martin, claimed that he suddenly came face to face with the home intruders, but the truth was far more sinister. Instead, Martin heard the intruders approaching his house. While they were still in his garden, Martin silently dressed, loaded his gun, and went downstairs. Then, he lay in wait until he was sure that the intruders had entered and couldn’t escape. Finally, he shot to kill.

Rather than believing that he was defending himself and his property, Martin appointed himself judge, jury, and executioner that night, using deadly, and wholly disproportionate, force.

So, he wasn’t convicted because the law is biased against homeowners, but because he failed to meet either of the vital criteria for self-defense.

"},{"id":"5fda32a06cee07000670ae85","title":"English law is bound to act in a child’s best interests.","text":"

Charlie Gard was just two months old when he was diagnosed with a rare disease called mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, or MDDS. By the time he was six months old, Charlie was a permanent resident in Great Ormond Street Children’s Hospital, unable to breathe without a ventilator. He was effectively blind and deaf, couldn’t move his arms and legs, and had severely abnormal brain function. His quality of life was so low, in fact, that his doctors wanted to withdraw ventilation from him.

But Charlie’s distraught parents didn’t agree. They wanted to take Charlie to the United States, where a doctor had offered him pioneering treatment. So, the court was asked to rule on whether Charlie could travel to America, or whether he should stay in England, and die.

The key message here is: English law is bound to act in a child’s best interests.

When the courts sided with the National Health Service, the outcry was heard around the world. Both the Pope and Donald Trump spoke out against the court’s decision. Many commentators opined that Charlie’s parents should be the ones to decide what was best for their son.

But as sad as this case is, should the law always allow parents to have the final say over their child’s welfare? Arguably, no.

Consider a 2005 case involving the child of devout Jehovah's Witnesses. The courts ruled that the child could undergo a life-saving operation, even though the parents were against it due to their religious beliefs. In the case of Charlie Gard, the treatment his parents were suggesting had only ever been tested on mice and had no proven success in humans.

Since the mid-twentieth century, English courts have resolved disputes over children’s welfare based on what’s in the child’s best interests, rather than the wishes of their parents. Putting the child’s best interests first ensures that children have their own rights, as well as their own protection under the law.

Charlie Gard passed away on July 28, 2017. Although this was a sad case with no winners, it’s clear that Charlie’s best interests were always at the heart of the legal decision.

"},{"id":"5fda32a06cee07000670ae86","title":"English law states that citizens have a duty of care toward their fellow citizens.","text":"

If media reports are anything to go by, it’s never been easier to get money for nothing. Open any tabloid newspaper in the UK and you’ll likely find articles about its crazy lawsuit culture. Like the kid who was splashed by custard in the school cafeteria and won a £6,000 payout, or the cleaner who fell over their own mop and received £9,000 in compensation.

These cases may sound ridiculous, but when we examine English personal injury law, we begin to see how mishaps with custard and mops can justify such large sums.

The key message here is: English law states that citizens have a duty of care toward their fellow citizens.

This means that when people engage in any activity in England, either as an employer, a service provider, or as a private individual, they have a duty to carry out that activity in a way that they wouldn’t reasonably expect to cause harm to anyone else.

If you’re a factory owner, for example, you have a duty to ensure your employees have the right protective equipment, and that your machines are well-maintained, and not likely to cause harm to those using them. If you don’t bother to do these things, and one of your employees is injured as a result, then the law may decide that you’ve breached your duty of care.

But how do the courts decide how much compensation to award victims of personal injury?

To arrive at an appropriate figure, the court considers the pain and anguish that victims have suffered as a result of their injuries. Then, the court accounts for the immediate financial costs to the victims, such as unpaid time off work to recuperate, or any costs incurred for medical bills. Finally, the court also considers any future financial losses that the victims are likely to incur, for instance, if their injuries reduce their long-term ability to work.

In the case of the child who received £6,000 for being splashed with custard, what the newspaper reports didn’t mention was that the custard was so hot that the child was left with a badly burned face. And, as a result, will be scarred for life. With this in mind, ask yourself whether this personal injury claimant really did get something for nothing, or whether it’s yet another example of fake law.

"},{"id":"5fda32a06cee07000670ae87","title":"Fake Law accuses The Humans Rights Act of championing dangerous criminals.","text":"

It should go without saying that human rights are important, but what happens when human rights law goes too far? Consider the case of Mohammed Ibrahim, an Iraqi national living illegally in Britain. In 2003, he was convicted of driving offenses after being involved in a road traffic accident in which a twelve-year-old girl died.

When Ibrahim was released from prison, the UK government attempted to deport him back to Iraq but found that they couldn’t. Why? Because a judge ruled that deporting him would be a breach of his human rights.

The key message here is: Fake Law accuses The Humans Rights Act of championing dangerous criminals.

But just how accurate is this assessment? Let’s start by taking a closer look at the UK’s human rights law.

The UK’s human rights laws are enshrined in the Human Rights Act 1988, which is itself based on the European Convention of Human Rights. The European Convention guarantees every single person in Europe their basic human rights, such as the right to life, the right not to be tortured, and the right not to be discriminated against on grounds such as race, sex, or religion.

In a modern democracy, these rights don’t sound all that controversial. So why is the Human Rights Act accused of championing dangerous foreign criminals?

Much of the tension stems from Article 8 of the Humans Rights Act, which concerns the right to a family life. Under this provision, for example, a non-British national can fight their deportation order on the grounds that they have a family in the UK, and were they to be deported, they’d be deprived of family life.

In the case of Mr. Ibrahim, for example, the judge took into account his two dependent young children. But what many fail to realize is, the courts not only take the claimant’s right to a family life into account, but also their children’s right to a family life. After all, if Mr. Ibrahim was deported, his young children would have lost their father and suffered as a result.

Of course, cases like Mr. Ibrahim’s are complicated, and some may not agree that justice was served. But it’s not the case that the Human Rights Act is on the side of dangerous criminals. Instead, it simply views criminals as people, and parents, too.

"},{"id":"5fda32a06cee07000670ae88","title":"The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.","text":"

It’s an uncomfortable reality of the English justice system that not all victims of crime receive justice.

Consider a scenario in which a rape victim’s case goes to court. The victim takes the stand and gives evidence; a grueling ordeal which makes the victim feel as if they’re the one on trial. Yet after all this, the attacker is found not guilty.

As the defendant walks free, the victim is left feeling as if the justice system was stacked against them from the start. And they may have a point. But, the reason our hypothetical rape victim felt as if they were the one on trial during the proceedings, is because, in a sense, they were.

The key message here is: The burden of proof lies with the prosecution.

This means that it’s the prosecution’s job to persuade the jury that the defendant is guilty, while the defendant is presumed to be innocent. Not only that, the prosecution needs to persuade the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty. This requirement is known as the standard of proof.

In our scenario, this means that everything about the victim’s story, from their reputation, to their character, to their version of events, will be aggressively disputed by the defendant’s legal team. And often, in cases that hinge on one person’s word against another, this extremely high standard of proof can’t be met with the available evidence, and the jury can’t convict the defendant.

Although this might sound deeply unfair, there are sound reasons why the law operates in this way.

If the burden of proof lay with the defense, then defendants would have to prove their innocence. Given that proving a negative is often impossible, the result would be that more innocent people would be found guilty.

And what would the consequences be if the standard of proof was lowered?

Although the high standard of proof required means that some guilty people escape punishment, it also ensures that, in theory, law-abiding citizens have nothing to fear from the criminal justice system. If jurors didn’t need to be convinced, but only mostly sure of someone’s guilt, then many people could end up convicted based on weak evidence and shoddy witness testimony.

Would you want to take that risk to ensure that every guilty person ends up in jail?

"},{"id":"5fda32a16cee07000670ae89","title":"We’re all entitled to be treated equally by the law.","text":"

Is it ever justifiable that someone receives special treatment under the law? In 2008, the British public seemed to think so. The name of that someone was Sir Fred Goodwin, and in the months following the 2008 financial crash, he became public enemy number one.

Thanks to his lousy decision-making as the Chief Executive of the Royal Bank of Scotland, the bank had to be bailed out by the government at great taxpayer expense. After he was forced to resign, the media learned he was still entitled to a £700,000 annual pension from the bank – for life.

It wasn’t long before government ministers weighed in. Harriet Harman, the leader of the House of Commons at the time, said that Goodwin’s contract may have been enforceable in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion, it wasn’t acceptable. The government, she said, would make sure that Sir Fred did not get his pension.

The key message here is: We’re all entitled to be treated equally by the law.

Although Harman’s comments might sound justified, the reasoning behind them was deeply flawed.

One of the founding principles of the modern justice system is that we’re all equal before the law, and the law applies equally to every one of us.

Since the introduction of Magna Carta in the thirteenth century, it has been forbidden, at least in theory, for anyone in England to receive special legal treatment on the basis of who they are. This legal position was strengthened in 1689 with the introduction of The Bill of Rights, which asserted that no one, not even Kings and Queens, was beyond the reach of the law. Today, whether we like it or not, this noble principle of equality also extends to people that we don’t particularly like – even people like Sir Fred Goodwin.

In other words, the court of public opinion may have found Fred Goodwin guilty of being arrogant and undeserving of his pension, but that doesn’t stop his employment contract from being legally binding. We’re all entitled to the protection of the law, regardless of our sex, race, religion, and politics. Indeed, even if we’re deeply, universally, unpopular.

"},{"id":"5fda32a16cee07000670ae8a","title":"The British judiciary did not, in fact, stop Brexit.","text":"

In June 2016 over 17 million British people voted to leave the European Union – the highest number of people who had ever voted for anything in British political history. After this astonishing victory, Britain’s eurosceptics looked forward to a swift exit from the EU.

But just months later, as the UK government prepared to start the withdrawal process, they found an unexpected obstacle in its path, in the form of three High Court judges. To the bitter chagrin of millions, these judges ruled that the government couldn’t proceed with Brexit as planned.

The key message here is: The British judiciary did not, in fact, stop Brexit.

The judges ruled that the government would have to hold a vote in the UK Parliament, to ask whether it could go ahead with the Brexit withdrawal process. If the government refused to do this, or if they held the vote and Parliament said no to going ahead, then Brexit couldn’t proceed.

The effect of this judgment was seismic, according to the headlines. The Daily Mail declared the judges “Enemies of the people!” Their interference in Brexit wasn’t just wrong, as many politicians and pundits decried, it was also undemocratic. The people of the United Kingdom had spoken, and now, what many considered to be, the “left-leaning, europhile judiciary” was stabbing them in the back.

To get to the truth of the matter, though, let’s examine why these judges were asked to rule on Brexit in the first place.

The case against the government’s Brexit plans was brought by activist Gina Miller. Her lawyers argued that the government didn’t have the authority to go ahead with Brexit without consulting Parliament. The High Court agreed with her, arguing that the consequences of leaving the EU would be so far-reaching as to amount to a change in UK domestic law. Under the British constitution, changes to domestic law need to be voted on and approved by Parliament.

Thus, rather than stopping Brexit, the judges were simply outlining how the government could properly achieve it. And they weren’t interfering in politics, because this case didn’t concern a political question at all, but a legal one.

Two months later, Parliament voted to begin the withdrawal process, and Brexit finally got underway. Though many were relieved, others, especially in the legal profession, were greatly disturbed at the populist outpouring of rage toward the judiciary.

Fake law, it seems, is here to stay, and the stakes have never been higher.

"},{"id":"5fda32a16cee07000670ae8b","title":"Final summary","text":"

The key message in these blinks:

Fake law would have you believe that the English justice system protects criminals and tramples on the rights of the British public. But the complex truth is that all UK citizens are entitled to equal protection and consideration under the law, even those that society deems undeserving. Thanks to centuries of hard-won progress, the court of law protects both democracy and human rights, and is entirely separate from the capricious court of public opinion.

Got feedback?

We’d love to hear what you think about our content! Just drop an email to remember@blinkist.com with Fake Law as the subject line and let us know your thoughts!

What to read next: The Secret Barrister, by The Secret Barrister

Now you’ve been introduced to the fascinating complexities behind English law, why not take a closer look at the criminal justice system of England and Wales? The blinks to the author’s first book, The Secret Barrister, will take you on a behind-the-scenes tour of the often chaotic and disorganized world of criminal law. You’ll also learn about the funding cuts and reforms that threaten its integrity. Packed with original insights and details from real criminal trials, these blinks are a rallying cry to improve a broken system and a manual for achieving positive change.

"}]}

Log in to Blinkist

Sign up for Blinkist

Learn more, live more