House Arrest In UK: Government Must Disclose Evidence

Britain's House of Lords ruled today that the British Government cannot impose House Arrests without disclosure of the evidence against the suspect.

Fear of Britain becoming a "police state" is the underlying theme of the ruling. Much as the Obama administration has sought to reverse the policies imposed by Bush and Cheney, the British high court seeks to ensure that the system of justice is transparent, stating that denying the public the evidence against a suspect brings disrepute and distrust to the judicial system in general.

Typically, evidence is withheld on the basis that it a "state secret" and that national security would be compromised by it's disclosure. Generally, these are not legitimate excuses on governments part but simply used to indict without sufficient evidence of wrongdoing.

The repeated abuse of employing the "state secrets" defense against full disclosure has worn thin, particularly since there are so few incidents of actual terrorist acts to point to.

Historically, the "state secrets" defense has been the excuse most often offered by a weak prosecution. These cases often are prolonged by the mere fact that evidence gathering is continuing or that inadequate evidence exists for prosecution.

The House of Lords is correct in its ruling if considered in light of the fundamental rights enjoyed and exercised by all Britain's. The rule should be that if the government has enough evidence to prosecute, and prevail, then it should do so. The House Arrest should be an unnecessary procedure in the process. Sphere: Related Content