Are people aware that Katherine Gun (UK whistle-blower) won her case?

[AP]

Last week the gov't failed to provide any evidence at all against Gun's defense of necessity.

I know you all think Blair's an ass, but the government provided NO evidence. They let her win. The case has established a precendent (albeit only at the trial court level) of an argument that could serve progressives and liberals well in the future.

[number6]

1. good.

..

[G_j]

2. from what I understand

the government didn't pursue the case because it would have brought to light evidence damaging to itself.

[fedsron2us]

3. Were the defence going to ask for 'discovery' ?

This would require the prosecution to provide all the documents relating to the case against the defendant. Perhaps they were worried the Attorney General's advice to Blair on the legality of the Iraq war would be made public.

[fedsron2us]

4. Disclosure and Public Interest Immunity in the UK

It appears that the British Government may have been worried that the traditional Public Interest Immunity claim to prevent the disclosure of sensitive information would not be upheld in the courts. The attached link contains some interesting information on this subject. The section on the Matrix Churchill case is particularly illuminating

http://webjcli.ncl.ac.uk/1996/issue2/scott2.html

[G_j]

6. Matrix Churchill was very interesting

thanks for the link
----------
Interesting also that the spy allegations have not developed any traction here in the US.

[G_j]

5. here is the article

Spy Charges Dropped for Fear of Exposing Illegality of Iraq War
...
www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0227-01.htm

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, agreed that secrets charges against the former GCHQ employee Katharine Gun should be dropped after the defense made clear that potentially hugely damaging evidence about the legality of invading Iraq would be disclosed in court, the Guardian has learned.

Serious doubts about the legality of the invasion were expressed in the run-up to war by senior lawyers throughout Whitehall, including the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defense

The doubts were expressed by the entire FO legal establishment, and not only Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the former deputy head of the FO's legal team who has said publicly that she resigned last year because she was unhappy with Lord Goldsmith's legal advice.

The FO argued, partly on the basis of intelligence, that the threat posed by Saddam Hussein did not warrant a pre-emptive strike. It also questioned Lord Goldsmith's interpretation of international law and the standing of past UN security council resolutions.

Fresh evidence about the FO's doubts were sent by Ms Gun's defense lawyers to the prosecution on the day it decided to abandon the case against Ms Gun.

<snip>

[AP]

7. Then why'd they bring the charge in the first place?

I think they're having it both ways with the intentional nod towards progress, rather than towards fascism.

That's just me though.

Gun's lawyer says he finds the whole thing confusing, implying that it doesn't make sense according the common theory--ie, yours.

I think it makes a little more sense according to mine. You have trial court precedent. (Of course, it's a on the basis that the defense wasn't challenged -- however, it'd be interesting to read the court's opinion. If it was liberal judge he or she would have had some room to lay down a little law that could be very valuable in the future.)

[G_j]

8. that was my immediate question

it seemed at first they were very determined to punish Gun.
Perhaps one hand didn't understand what the other was doing, Ineptitude? There certainly has been plenty of that to go around it seems.
:shrug:

[AP]

9. My suspcision was they were always determined to let her off after a trial

The first clue was when she introduced the defense, which was extremely novel in this context, and they didn't challenge it. I'm sure they have some smart appeals solicitors and barristers who could have come up with something to keep that defense out. And that defense was very obviously going to work. The whole game was lost when the defense was allowed.

It became a show at that point, but a good kind of show.

[muriel_volestrangler]

10. I don't think any court precedent was established

Here's a report:
During today's hearing, the charge was formally put to her that between January 30 and March 2 last year she disclosed information relating to security or intelligence contrary to the Official Secrets Act of 1989.

Then after she pleaded not guilty, prosecutor Mark Ellison told the court the case would not go ahead. He said: "The prosecution offer no evidence against the defendant on this indictment as there is no longer sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction. It would not be appropriate to go into the reasons for this decision."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1155681,00.html

So there was no reason given, in court, for dropping the case - and the defence did not actually get started. So I don't think this establishes any legal precedent at all.

It may show that the government thought it would have problems getting past the defence of necessity - that she would say she felt she was acting to prevent loss of life, and the jury would side with her, whatever evidence was shown. It may be that they wanted to make sure the Attorney General's advice was never shown. Their judgement on the reaction of the jury may have been made taking current public opinion into account.

However, there is another case going through the courts, in which the government has succeeded in keeping the advice out of the case. In this case, there was no jury involved, and it is a ruling from a district judge, so I think that might establish a precedent (but I have no legal training, so I don't know).
Lawyers acting for Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, yesterday succeeded in preventing his advice to the government on the legality of the war against Iraq from being revealed in court.

The advice was sought by 14 Greenpeace activists charged with aggravated trespass for chaining themselves to tanks at the Marchwood military port, near Southampton, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. They are pleading not guilty at Southampton magistrates court, claiming a defence of "necessity" - that they acted to prevent the loss of life in an illegal war.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1166925,00.html