Your legal rights stand in the way of their "justice"

Scan page 4

police at the Labour Party the "right of appeal" for the conference, and who has prosecution if a defendant is expressed interest in acquitted, and stringent 'McNee's proposals for police checks on jurors to powers, which he admits they already exercise illegally.

Anti-picket

But of course after hearing a few months ago from Sir David's notorious predecessor Sir Robert Mark that the police, weighed down with anti-picket assignments and escort duties for the National Front was too busy to fight crime, it should come as no surprise to hear from a top civil servant that the law itself now apparently stands in the way of "justice"!

Lessons from the ten year military repression of the six counties of Ireland are beginning to percolate through into the British legal system.

"Suspects".

Hetherington focusses attention in particular on revising the law on confessions extracted from "suspects" under threat or inducement.

Such confessions should ruled inadmissable only Rees if they were of a sort "likely to be rendered unreliable in consequence of that threat" or inducement, he suggests.

The likelihood of any confession being ruled inadmissable under such conditions is clearly minimal, with the scope for police frame-up correspondingly increased.

Hetherington also wants to offer police a further encouragement to beat up "suspects" by ensuring that:

"facts discovered result of, and subsequently proving confirmatory of, an otherwise inadmissible confession should render it admissible."

As for the traditional formality whereby: police are obliged to caution "suspects" before launching into interrogation, and to cease interrogation after a suspect has been charged-these should be scrapped, he suggests.

They are, in his words:

«a hindrance to the interests of justice and ought to be abolished."

Clearly, then, in Hetherington's view, the "interests of justice" are identical to the interests of the police in securing highspeed convictions, regardless of the rights of their hapless victim-be he bank robber, dope smuggler, picket, unemployed youth or antifascist demonstrator.

This view is obviously shared by Home Secretary Merlyn Rees, who won the applause of the entire Tory press and the media with his spirited defence of the increased police powers.

New submission These proposals have now been extended by a new submission by the Association of Chief Police Officers, who favour new powers to compel wives and husbands to testify against their partners, introducing 'HOTO: John Smith, IFL Police-encouraged to beat up suspects exclude anyone with criminal convictions.

The size of jury majority to secure a conviction should be reduced, the ACPO continues.

PIOSECUIEE 357955 should attentios in coum, at ities should be denied ber rE: to give their evidence last in the defence case, argue these defenders of democracy.

Lawyers, they argue, take a 'subiective view' in defending existing legal rights, since they make their living from court hearings. The police, however, we are led to believe, are completely unbiased and objective in the matter!

"Impartiality"

With similar laughable hypocrisy, which is so typical of British bourgeois 'justice'. , DPP Hetherington feels obliged to wind up his proposals by laying claim to "impartiality":

"I believe that my independence from political influences is a factor of considerable importance in maintaining public confidence in the fair and impartial administration of the criminal law."

Clear warning

As an integral part of the state machinery of the ruling capitalist class Hetherington is no more politically "impartial" than the leader of the capitalists' main political party, Margaret Thatcher.

These pronounced new moves to the right by the state spell out a clear warning to every worker and youth: if a fight is not taken up now against the nght wing Labour government and for the overthrow * capitalișm, then even i=m acratic rights you ==senty enjoy will be :breatened!

Scan page 5

'Maggie in a Muddle' was the headline of Labour Weekly following Thatcher's unionbaiting interview on the ITV Weekend World' "The editorial mildly chastised the Tory leadership for 'failing to learn the lessons of the fall of the Heath government'. (No doubt if Thatcher would only listen to the wiseacres at Transport House future Tory governments could sit more firmly in the saddle).

Discomfiture

At a time when the rightwing traitors in the Labour Wednesday 7 January, 1979 moment, but nothing like have increased their for the damage profits during. industrial action), this would deliver a crushing blow to the independence of the working class movement in Britain.

Prepared ground

Yet what Labour Weekly cannot say is that Callaghan has done everything possible to prepare the ground for such measures. If a Tory govérnment is returned to power in the next election it will be thanks to Callaghan, and the working class movement would - have to rely entirely upon its own organised strength to beat back the attacks of the ruling class.

In fact workers would have to use the very weapons that it is at present using against Callaghan himself.

Thatcher was interviewed by a fawning admirer-exLabour MP Brian Waldenwho did nothing to disguise his enthusiasm for state attacks on workers..

Walden, like Prentice, is distinguished only by the fact that he has not been afraid to openly declare the affinity of Labour's right wing to Tory measures. Yet, also like Prentice, he was allowed to sit in the Labour Party leadership until he decided that he had no further use for assocation with the labour movement.

Today more clearly than ever, the fight to kick out this breed-Callaghan, Healey and their lackeysis an imperative if the labour movement is to defend itself on any front. .

This is what. Labour Weekly, not to mention the 'left' Labour leaders who claim to oppose the government, will not and dare not say.

As a consequence this task of exposing and driving out the traitors falls to Socialist Press and the Workers Socialist League.