The Defence

Highbury Corner Magistrates at Islington was one of my haunts in those heady days of Criminal Law practice, together with Camberwell Magistrates in South London, and Thames Magistrates at Bow Road in the East. I also sometimes strayed off my usual stomping grounds and headed to West London to attend juvenile court in Hammersmith, and right across London to places as far apart as Hendon, Westminster or Bromley, wherever my instructions required that I attend.

Criminal Law was always my favourite since from being a law student all those decades ago. And it was criminal defence, not prosecution. An unsuccessful attempt to join the Crown Prosecution Service as a prosecutor only reinforced this thought in my mind that I enjoyed being a criminal defence lawyer; visiting my clients when they were in police custody, or in prison - Wandsworth Prison, Brixton Prison, Wormwood Scrubs, Pentonville - getting to know them; seeking the most favourable outcomes for them, even when I knew they were guilty as hell. I guess there was a naughty side of me that took delight in this - siding with the bad guys, well, sort of.

Later when I moved on to more desk-bound roles, although equally intense and stressful - but better remunerated, the work was not quite as exciting, as, for example, springing my client out of jail who had been in custody for months and denied bail repeatedly; or successfully arguing for a suspended sentence for my client, even though I knew they deserved to be sent to prison. My overseas training was advantageous, because it came with the advocacy skills of a barrister that solicitors who are trained solely in England and Wales do not normally possess. I was involved in several Crown Court matters as well, the court where the more serious cases are tried, and where I sat behind barristers whom I had instructed. 

Given the limited audience rights of a solicitor in England, namely, audience rights limited to the lower courts, tribunals, panels, and so on, it is those lower court cases, especially some particularly fierce cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses that have remained in my thoughts for longer, since the advocacy itself was always my stronger side. 

When we legalise discrimination..

When a law such as the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Law recently passed in Nigeria is met with the kind of widespread support within Nigeria that we have seen, we know for sure that Nigeria is in deep, deep trouble. This is a country now firmly on it's slide down the slippery slope of repression and discrimination against a segment of its own citizens. 

As a diversionary tactic, this law has been an unmitigated success so far. It has diverted the minds of long-suffering Nigerians from the real issues; the poor quality of life for its citizens which the country's successive governments have made sure to maintain for decades, the lack of security, the lack of basic services and amenities that are taken for granted by the populations of most of the other top-50 largest economies of the world, of which Nigeria is one. (Nigeria is the country with the 37th largest GDP in the world, according to the United Nations, The World Bank, the IMF and the CIA Fact Book, all authoritative sources.) It is also the only country, which, although clearly regarded as a wealthy country, has nearly 85 percent of its population living on less than $2 per day and classed as a Low Human Development country in the UNDP's Human Development Index, lower even than the Republic of Congo and Tanzania. (See the 2013 HDI Report here). 

Respecting the law is not what Nigerians are known for, (it would be hard to disagree with me on this). The presumption, therefore, that this law is likely to be badly abused is not unfounded. If anything, this is a highly likely outcome, and more so given that the law's application extends to non-homosexuals who are alleged to be associated with suspected homosexual persons. I foresee widespread abuse. I predict situations where scores are settled between adversaries with allegations relating to homosexuality being wildly slung about and the myriad consequences of such, of the sort that we cannot now even begin to imagine. In short, this is a very bad law. It is a law that allows for Nigerians to be arrested on the streets on the mere suspicion that they may have homosexual associations. I personally, feel nothing but shame at this point in time, for I am connected with a country that promotes and upholds such hate, ignorance, intolerance, bigotry and prejudice. 

I will conclude with this very apt posting by someone on Facebook:

"For 50 years, Nigeria has been undermined by violence and rampant graft. Their solution? Bash harmless gay people.

Barely a day after they started their anti-gay witch hunt, Boko Haram launches a major bomb attack. Glad the Nigerian regime is focusing on the real danger, the gays!" - Brian Farenell

I came across the following in today's Premium Times, a progressive Nigerian publication. 

"We, the undersigned, wish to ally ourselves with these voices of reason. We unreservedly condemn the Same Sex Marriage Prohibition Law and urge civil society and human rights groups to start a campaign that we hope will soon result in its abolition. 

We also urge the eminent personages across the world who have condemned the so-called law to go beyond diplomatic gestures and put pressures on the Nigerian government wherever they can. Specifically, the United States and the United Kingdom should, forthwith, impose diplomatic sanctions (e.g., denial of visas) on all Nigerian functionaries, including journalists, the clergy, and policymakers associated with the passing of the law.

There are many reasons why every right-thinking person should oppose this law.

First, it is based on a spurious, uninformed and one-dimensional reading of ‘African culture.’ Second, it criminalizes a section of Nigerians for nothing other than their natural sexual inclination.Third, it ignores the fruits of many decades of scientific research which proves decisively that homosexuality is as natural as heterosexuality. Fourth, the law threatens to reverse the gains made by programs aimed at fighting the HIV-AIDS epidemic in the country.Fifth, it is absurd in terms of the jail time it stipulates for those who associate with LGBT people. Sixth, it casts Nigeria in a bad light for no good reason, putting it in the vulgar company of other countries where homosexuality is criminalized.Seventh, it gives law enforcement agents an open check to go after innocent Nigerians in the name of upholding the law. Finally, the law impinges on Nigerians’ freedom of speech and association, and expressly violates the rights of minorities in a free and democratic society. 

It is not the business of any state, let alone the Nigerian state, to interpose itself in the private affairs of two consenting adults. Any human act or practice that does not infringe on the freedom of others cannot and should not be criminalized. Homosexuality does not harm us as a society and people. It is the hypocrisy, venality, and corruption that pervade our society that are the source of our problems.

Signed:

Ebenezer Obadare, Lawrence, Kansas, USA; Akin Adesokan, Bloomington, Indiana, USA; Wale Adebanwi, Davis, California, USA; Lola Shoneyin, Abeokuta, Nigeria; Jude Dibia, Lagos, Nigeria; Jeremy Weate, Abuja, Nigeria; Chido Onumah, Abuja, Nigeria; Amatoritsero Ede, Ottawa, Canada; Mojubaolu Olufunke Okome, Brooklyn, New York, USA; Olufemi Taiwo, Ithaca, New York, USA; Tejumola Olaniyan, Madison, Wisconsin, USA; Ike Anya, London, UK; Kunle Ajibade, Lagos, Nigeria,; Moradewun Adejunmobi, California, USA; Sean Jacobs, Brooklyn, York, USA; Adeleke Adeeko, Ilorin, Nigeria; Olakunle George, Providence, Rhode Island, USA; Wendy Willems, London, UK; Ikhide R. Ikheloa, Maryland, USA; Rudolf Okonkwo, New York, USA; Jide Wintoki, Lawrence, Kansas, USA"

Burundi, children behind bars

Channel 4's programme Unreported World exposes the plight of hundreds of children in Burundi locked up for years without trial in adult prisons, among some of the most dangerous criminals in the country. (Click here to see it on the Channel 4 website). And they meet one man who has dedicated his life to freeing them; Pierre-Claver Mbonimpa is the only hope many of these children have.

(Note: The film is still available on the Channel 4oD website even now in 2013, but you will need to register if you're not already registered on the site and then navigate to the 2011 series. Use this link, it's worth the trouble).

Burundi has no juvenile justice system and children above the age of 15 are tried as adults. By law any child under that age should not be imprisoned, but in a country recovering from civil war and where record keeping is scant, many under-age children are slipping through the net and are being locked up.

There is no legal aid, and there are only 106 lawyers for a population of over eight million people. This is one of the reasons why three quarters of children are being held for long periods without trial.

While wrongly imprisoned for two years, 62-year-old Pierre found the body of a child prisoner who had been murdered. The incident affected him deeply and he decided to spend the rest of his life defending victims of injustice.

Reporter Ramita Navai and director Wael Dabbous travel with Pierre to a prison in Ruyigi province, one of the poorest parts of the country. They find more than 20 children in the jail, several of whom look younger than 15.

Many of them say they have been locked up having been accused of minor offences, such as stealing a bag of rice. Nestor tells Navai he is 12 and has been there for two months. 'My family never liked me. That's why they sent me here. They've left me here to die,' he says.

Navai and Dabbous travel with Pierre to Mpimba prison, the country's most notorious jail, which houses some of the most dangerous criminals. It was built for 800 prisoners but there are now more than 3300. The team finds nearly 100 boys sleeping in one cell, nearly all of whom are being held without trial. There's no room to lie down or sit, so the boys are all forced to stand.

One of them, Claude, says he is 13 years old. He has been accused of rape but appears to be the victim of a dispute between families. Like other children, he may have been falsely accused of a crime in order to settle a score. He's been held for five months without trial and says older prisoners abuse the children. Pierre decides to investigate his case.

Claude Tangishaka, who stated that he was 13

The team travels with Pierre to Claude's home province of Bubanza, where he meets the magistrate in charge of the case. He reveals that hospital records showed Claude's alleged victims had in fact not been raped and that there was a feud between Claude's family and another family.

Claude doesn't have a birth certificate as he was born during the civil war, and Pierre needs to prove he is under 15 to get him out of jail. He travels to his home village, where Claude's mother tells him she thinks he is 14 and that he had actually been accused of inappropriately touching his neighbours' children.

Back in Mpimba prison, the team meets some of the 100 female prisoners locked in with the 3000 men. There are also 24 babies and toddlers living in the jail, nearly all of whom were born inside. One prisoner tells Navai that that some women are forced to have sex for money in order to survive, and become pregnant.

Burundi's Director of Prisons tells Unreported World that a lack of resources makes it impossible to hold women and children separately. He also admits that under-15s are being illegally imprisoned and blames corrupt magistrates and policemen and a lack of proper records.

Pierre is still negotiating with Claude's neighbours who are demanding compensation to allow Claude to return to the village. The magistrate says that Claude cannot be released if his mother does not pay the compensation, as his life will be in danger and the villagers may kill him. His mother has nothing to give. While there is no way of knowing how long Claude will be behind bars, Pierre is still fighting to get him released.

Related reading:

Burundi: Children Behind Bars Suffer Abuse Human Rights Watch

Burundi: Children Behind Bars Suffer Abuse Stolen Childhood

Children behind bars suffer abuse in Burundi Save the Children

Burundi: Child soldiers living on the edges Stolen Childhood

Prisons in Africa: An evaluation from a human rights perspective www.surjournal.org

The Channel 4 reporter Ramita Navai writes:

'You're with Pierre, you'll be OK,' one of the prison directors told us, as we stepped into the sea of bodies swarming the courtyard in Mpimba prison. Pierre-Claver Mbonimpa is a human rights activist who works in Burundi's prisons, and Mpimba is the most notorious jail in the country. It was built for 800 inmates - there are now over 3300. There's barely room to sit.

Rapists and murderers are held alongside political dissidents and petty thieves - and they all stand aside to make way for Pierre. No other visitor is treated with the same reverence, for Pierre used to be one of them.

An ex-policeman, he was jailed for two years, wrongly accused of possessing an illegal firearm. It was in a tiny, black cell in solitary confinement when he decided that if he was ever released, he would dedicate the rest of his life to fighting injustice. But Pierre was not here to see these men, for among the heaving mass of prisoners are tiny, frightened figures in ragged clothes. Children in Burundi are kept in adult prisons and Pierre is fighting to get them out.

'Prison is not place for a child - just look around, these children live in fear,' said Pierre. At night, not even the armed guards dare enter the dark cells, bootleg alcohol fuelling the aggressive atmosphere. Outbreaks of violence are common. The criminal age of responsibility is 15, but many underage children end up in prison. Years of civil war means that birth certificates and public records are scarce, and that the justice system has been left shattered.

Almost hidden between the inmates, Pierre discovers Claude, who looks even younger than the 13 years he claims to be. Like many other boys here, he's been accused of rape. Pierre explains that most of the boys worked as household servants and were accused of rape by their employers. Pierre suspects it is a way to evade payment.

Sexual abuse is rife and there is not enough food. Nearly all of the children are being held without trial -some have been here for years.

But Pierre says he will never give up. He even gets death threats for his work, but undeterred, he continues to file his complaints and expose any corruption along the way. "Let them give me death threats, I'll never stop," he says in his gentle, calm voice. "I'm all these children have."

Nowhere to turn

"He came back from time to time to threaten to disclose my identity if I did not give in to his demands."

Kweku, Ghana

"I didn't dare to lodge a complaint. I was afraid they were going to question me and that it would come out that I was gay...I would have risked being locked up in prison."

Alex, Cameroon

"I feel trapped in a cage."

Symon, Malawi

Wherever lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) people are forced to keep their sexual orientation and gender identity secret for fear of prosecution, violence and other legal and social persecution, blackmail and extortion of LGBT people is endemic. In Africa, where a majority of countries criminalise same-sex sexual activity and where a variety of laws are used to penalise transgressive gender expression, blackmail and extortion are part of the daily lives of many LGBT people who are isolated and vulnerable to abuse.

The Report, Nowhere to Turn: Blackmail and Extortion of LGBT People in Sub-Saharan Africa (PDF) investigates the problem of blackmail and extortion of LGBT in Africa - a challenge that has remained unaddressed for far too long. The report illustrates how LGBT Africans are made doubly vulnerable by the illegality of same-sex activity and the stigma they face if their sexuality is revealed. Based on research initiated in October 2007, the volume features studies by a number of leading African activists and academics on the prevalence and severity of these crimes in Zimbabwe, Nigeria, Ghana, Malawi and Cameroon.

These contributions vividly depict the difficult position that LGBT people are placed in by blackmailers and extortionists - victims are often deterred from seeking help and justice, for fear of further persecution by authorities and communities and can end up being isolated from any supportive community, humiliated, manipulated and threatened with theft, vandalism, rape and even murder.

Human rights defenders, non-governmental organisations and governments have a responsibility to understand that these crimes are a constant reminder of LGBT people's legal and social vulnerability. The report's contributors explore the role the state plays in these crimes by ignoring blackmail and extortion when officials in the police and judiciary fail to ensure that victims are able to safely report incidents and obtain redress. It goes on to argue that states are in fact failing in their human rights obligations by refusing to acknowledge and respond when victims are robbed of their dignity, privacy, their autonomy violated with impunity and they are denied equal access to the protection of the law. The Report's concluding chapter urges attention to the rampant problem of blackmail and extortion of LGBT people and urges States to take concrete steps to reduce the incidence of these crimes by decriminalising same-sex activity and ensuring that all people are able to access the justice system.

Some excerpts from the Report:

Rashid, a 22 year-old student in Mamobi, met the man who would later blackmail him through a mutual friend. The two had several sexual encounters, until one day Rashid refused to have sex with him. Upon hearing this, the blackmailer removed his clothes and started to yell throughout the communal residence about Rashid’s sexuality. He would not stop until Rashid paid him 200,000 cedis. In these situations, blackmailers take advantage of the presumptive innocence that so often results from speaking up first – by announcing that they have been taken advantage of, the blackmailer immediately puts their victim on the defensive in front of a suspicious public.

*

Many of the most extreme threats were made by extortionists. Victims who did not comply with their demands were not only threatened with disclosure, but were also threatened with assault, rape, attacks on friends or family, damage to property, or murder if they did not comply with a set of demands. K.K., a 37-year old bar attendant, was raped at knife-point for several nights by a customer from his shop. K.K. remembers how the customer “came with a knife and fucked me every night,” using the threat of mutilation or murder to force K.K. to have sex with him. The kinds of threats that extortionists made were patently illegal, but without access to the police or the full protection of the law, gay and bisexual men were often helpless to stop them.

*

Yaw, a 28 year-old

Christian, was alarmed when someone he met through church threatened

to inform other members of the faith community about his homosexuality.

According to Yaw, “he threatened to report me to the church’s elders – saying

that I raped him and paid him off with the things he actually stole from my

room – if I kept on demanding them back from him.”

Here is what the IGLHRC had to say about this in a press release.

My Sleepwalker

The phone on my desk rang. It was Silla from reception asking if I was available to see a client who was very upset and wanted to see someone right away. I asked what the problem was and Silla said the woman didn't speak much English, but that she had indicated that her son was in some kind of trouble with the police. From the tone of Silla's voice, I knew she really wished that I should see the woman. I respected Silla, for her many years of experience, and for that Mauritian flair with which she expertly and confidently executed her duties at the front desk. So I deferred to her judgement, set aside what I was working on and asked that the woman be shown in. 

The door opened and a 30-something year old Somali woman entered my room carrying a child in her arms, a toddler. Following behind her was a lean bespectacled teenager. The resemblance was obvious to see, I could tell immediately that these two were mother and son. Mrs G's frustration was clear, so I did the best I could to get them to relax. I then got down to the business of finding out what I could do for them. Mrs G spoke little English, but her son A, who was 18 and attended school, acted as our interpreter.

The story was that sometime the previous week, policemen had visited their home and invited A, the son, to the police station. After the visit to the police station on that date, the son had been released on police bail and was requested to attend the police station again today. Mrs G had accompanied her son to the police appointment this morning, and, (thrusting the charge sheet at me), said her son had now been charged with the offence of breaking and entry.

Their neighbour next door, a female Polish immigrant, had made a complaint to the Police that she had been awoken from sleep in the middle of the previous night. On waking she realised that what had roused her were sounds and movements in her bedroom. She lived alone in her flat and normally left her bedroom window open at night during the summer months. She was alarmed, fearing that there might be an intruder in her bedroom so she switched on the bedside lamp. To her utter dismay she found a black man standing before her, inside her bedroom. She screamed, and the black man seeing that she had awakened, suddenly turned around, rushed to the open window, climbed out, and vanished into the darkness on to the roof of the kitchen extension of her building. She called the Police immediately and some officers were sent over to make sure this woman was alright. 

Seeing that she was okay the officers requested that the woman attend the police station in the morning to make a statement. In making this statement in writing at the police station, the woman suggested that the black man in her bedroom bore a striking resemblance to the young son of the Somali family that lived next door to her. (I know all of these facts because I later got to read the statement that this woman gave to the police. During their first visit to my office, Mrs G and her son had only told their side of the story).

Now what Mrs G said to me during that first visit was that throughout his childhood A had suffered from somnambulism. He had been a serial sleepwalker, but that as he reached adolescence the incidence of sleepwalking had reduced significantly. The family had been living in London since her son was about six years old, and as a child he had received medical treatment for the condition. She was afraid that his sleepwalking might have resumed, although apart from this present incident, there were no recent incidents that she knew of. She thought her son could have been sleepwalking when he climbed out of their upstairs bathroom window in the middle of the night, and made his way on to the roof of their patio extension. He must have crossed over to the roof of the neighbour's kitchen extension, crawled across that roof to the neighbour's upstairs bedroom window, which was open, and climbed into the neighbour's bedroom.

The son himself had no recollection of the incident. He told police that he did not remember climbing out of the bathroom window of their house. Mrs G said her son's bedroom was down the corridor from hers, and that she had heard nothing. But his bedroom was directly next to the bathroom, and going by the allegation made by the neighbour, she feared that her son might have done that which he was now accused of doing. I accepted the case because I thought this would be interesting. My client (A, the son) was due in court the next Monday morning.

Early Monday morning I arrived at the Camberwell Magistrates Court and obtained the Advance Information documentation from the Crown prosecutor. He (or she) is obliged to make these available to me. In this bundle of documents is contained the victim's statement, and the statements and reports of the police officers who had attended the scene and conducted the investigation. I also noted from the papers that the victim had subsequently positively identified my client as the "black man" she saw in her bedroom.

On the basis of the information contained in the Advance Information bundle I advised my client to plead "Not Guilty", and this is what he did when the charge was read out to him in the crowded courtroom. 

Monday morning in any magistrates court is busy because of the overnight cases from the previous weekend. Detained cases are given priority. These are mostly remorseful young men who let alcohol get the better of them during the Friday and the Saturday night just gone. On this day there was a wife beater too. I said the courtroom was crowded, but half of the public gallery was taken up by what seemed like the entire adult Somali population of the borough where my client resides. 

I genuinely doubted that the prosecution would be able to prove (to the standard of proof that is required) that my client "broke into and entered" the victim's "dwelling place, with the intention of committing an offence", the legal definition of the crime of 'breaking and entry', which is what my client was now charged with. I realised that the mental element, (the intent), was a crucial element of this offence and that the prosecution would have great difficulty in proving that my client indeed climbed into his neighbour's bedroom, if at all, with the intention of doing something unlawful.

It was a 'Not Guilty' plea then, so the matter was to be adjourned and a date set for trial. At this point I interjected, saying that my client would be relying on medical evidence in his defence. For this reason, a reasonable period of time was required to obtain the medical report. I requested an adjournment for four weeks, and my request was granted. The next date would be for a case management conference, a date for the court to assess the preparedness of the parties for trial.

Leaving court with me and surrounded by several loudly chattering Somali men and women, Mrs G was smiling, looking happier than I had ever seen her before then. I shook many appreciative hands, and I wondered why, since this was only the beginning of this case.

"Now to see to that medical report", I thought to myself, as I left them and headed back to the office.. (To be continued).

Uganda's homophobic frenzy

I broke out in a bout of hysterical laughter when I read the following excerpt from this press release from Human Rights Watch.

"This new draft bill includes a provision that could lead to the imprisonment for up to three years of anyone, including same-gender-loving persons, who fail to report within 24 hours the identities of everyone they know who is lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender, or who supports human rights for people who are."

This outbreak of frenzied homophobia is the epitome of the hypocrisy that pervades political life in Africa. At a time when expensive legislative time should be judiciously expended on the issues that really matter to the people of the country; when Ugandan lawmakers and the Ugandan government should be concerned about the welfare of vulnerable Ugandans, (including those very same same-gender-loving men and women in their society who are susceptible to wanton physical abuse and discrimination); when the Ugandan authorities should be looking to protect those of the country's citizens whose welfare is their responsibility; when the challenges that face our continent in this 21st Century are enormous; what we hear of instead is an Anti-Homosexuality Bill being introduced to Parliament. This bill is deemed necessary according to the MP David Bahati who introduced it. He claims that the purpose of the bill is to protect children and the "traditional family".

Now lets face it, the vast majority of the incidents of child rape in Uganda, as everywhere else, are not perpetrated by same-gender-loving persons. (In Uganda, child rape is referred to as 'defilement'). In fact, more often than not, the child victim has fallen prey to a predatory heterosexual rapist. It is this heterosexual rapist who children need protection from. And as far as I am aware, the laws that are currently in force in Uganda already make it an offence to engage in sexual relations with a minor.

Mr Bahati goes on to demand the death penalty for what he calls "aggravated homosexuality". I read this and I wondered if the said Mr Bahati has ever had the opportunity to sit inside a classroom in his life, given that unless he is starkly illiterate, he ought to know that there are no law books in any Common Law jurisdiction, (including Uganda), that refer to an offence known as 'homosexuality'. Homosexuality cannot be an offence. You cannot make it an offence and punish a person for having feelings of sexual and emotional attraction towards others of the same gender. You cannot prove 'homosexuality' in a court of law to the standard of proof that is required in a criminal court.

What the law describes as an offence is the act of "carnal knowledge against the order of nature", i.e., the physical act of sexual penetration by one person of another person of the same gender. Now, unless you can prove beyond reasonable doubt that this penetration has occurred, you do not have a case. Most of the homosexual sex that happens in this world is consensual, and not all of it is penetrative. Therefore, unless homosexual rape has occurred, a successful prosecution under the existing laws is virtually impossible. The operative word here is "rape", and a rapist should always be punished for his crime, be it homosexual or heterosexual rape. Similarly, a convicted paedophile must always be severely punished, and where he continues to pose a threat to children, be removed from society altogether until such a time as when that risk no longer exists...but most paedophiles are not homosexuals. Homosexuals are only a tiny minority of the overall population, and to ascribe to them such a disproportionate portion of the burden of guilt for child sex offences in Uganda is not only wrong, it is also manifestly prejudicial and irrational.

My point here is that you cannot prosecute for 'homosexuality'. There can be no such offence. Therefore, there cannot  be the aggravated form of a non-existent offence. The law cannot compel the impossible, 'Lex non cogit ad impossibilia'.  Section 140 of the Penal Code Act of Uganda already outlaws homosexual acts. The proper thing for lawmakers to do is to introduce an Amendment to the existing legislation, which in any event, I do not even see the need for, seeing as the existing law in Uganda is already one of the more draconian anti-same-sex laws anywhere in the world. On the whole, this bill is suggestive of the fact that Ugandan lawmakers are allowing their homophobic prejudice to run away with them. Surely, there are some intelligent people in the Uganda Parliament who know enough to be tolerant and to be moderate in their views? I am relying on their good sense to kill this ridiculous bill.

The right to die?

Should the elderly and the terminally ill who still have the mental capacity to decide whether to end their lives have the right to do so? In recent days there has been an overflowing on the airwaves here of a plethora of viewpoints on the subject. The views range from those who are completely in support, including those who have actually aided either directly or indirectly relatives and friends to commit suicide, to those who are dead set against a change in the UK law that makes it a crime punishable with imprisonment to assist the suicide of another.

There are very ill people for whom death is inevitable and not in the very distant future. At least, not in as distant a future as it appears for many of us who currently enjoy relatively good health. Those who are terminally ill or are suffering from degenerative illnesses which get progressively worse, with the prospect that as the effects of the disease worsen the suffering is increased. Do these people not suffer prolonged agony as doctors strive to prolong their lives with the full knowledge that the patient will inevitably die in the end? What are the benefits of prolonging the suffering of a terminally ill person? Is it humane to let dying people linger in their suffering? Even ordinary animals are routinely "humanely" euthanized by veterinarians in order to avoid prolonged suffering for the animal. Why should the same principle not apply to humans, especially if the person concerned actually desires it?

With the traditional approach of prolonging life at all costs, the process of dying is long drawn out and the dying person suffers unnecessarily for an extended period. Helpless relatives are forced to witness the suffering of their loved one, which causes untold harrowing anguish for the relatives themselves, whereas in the end the inevitable death must still occur. Would it not have been more humane for the ill person, while still of sound mind, to have had the opportunity to ask for their life to be ended, voluntarily, thereby avoiding the suffering for them and the anguish for their family, who will then be able to carry on with their own lives in the knowledge that their loved one did not suffer?

One of the counter arguments is that to allow assisted suicide is to create a slippery slope down which many people will inevitably slide, including those who become victims of the greed of others. It is feared that some relatives will seek to get rid of ill relatives from whom they wish to inherit property, persuading them by whatever means to choose the suicide option. Another powerful argument is put forward by disabled people, who fear that their lives will become devalued and that there could be psychological pressure put upon them to consider ending their lives. Further, it is strongly argued against assisted suicide that the emphasis should be on the improvement of the quality of palliative care for the dying, i.e, to focus on the provision of care that alleviates the pain and the suffering.

While I do not oppose the idea that efforts at improving palliative care should be pursued, the right to avoid the suffering involved in the dying process should not be denied to those who wish to avoid it. Improving palliative care for everyone does not seem to me an expedient use of resources, since ultimately the terminally ill person will inevitably die. I previously shared the view that all human life is sacred and that we should not have the right to make the decision regarding when we should die. But having carefully considered the arguments for and against, I am persuaded that giving people who are old and infirm, those who are terminally ill but still of sound mind the right to choose when to die, is the civilised and sensible thing to do. Those who wish for their lives to be ended should be allowed to die, provided they meet certain strict criteria. If there is concern that unconscionable relatives might try to take advantage of a system that permits assisted suicide to bump off relatives who stand in the way of their inheritance, this is one of the more important aspects on which the legal minds tasked with drawing up the legal framework should focus. It is important for assisted suicide to be tightly legally pinned down, offering a good dignified death to those who wish it, while at the same time protecting the vulnerable from relatives who might wish to get rid of them.

Got him out at last

I made it a point when I started blogging that I would never write about my work, not only because I am aware of my duty of confidentiality, but because I think work should remain where it belongs, at the office. Blogging for me is a hobby, something I've come to enjoy doing. But today something happened at work and I feel the need to share it here. 

My client had been in custody for well over a month. He has been refused bail twice in the last two weeks. First it was because the sureties had failed to attend court with their up-to-date financial details, the second because the name of one of the sureties appeared on the Police National Computer for some misdemeanor going back 15 years. The judge was not satisfied therefore that this was a suitable surety and in the meantime my client continued to be detained, much to my chagrin.

Today I was determined not to walk out of that courtroom with my client still behind bars. Conversely, it appeared that the judge was equally determined that bail was not to be granted and that my client would be spending this holiday weekend in jail. It was a battle of wills, the judge's against mine, and to cut a long story short I won in the end, because with the arguments that were put forward the judge's hands were tied. He had no choice but to grant bail, albeit grudgingly. The fact that the bail was granted reluctantly does not appear on the bail sheet. Bail is bail, reluctantly granted or not. My client is out, and that is what matters. And I feel just great.