Woolf Supports Murder Law Review

UK — The most senior judge in England and Wales has backed moves that could end mandatory life sentence for murder. Lord Woolf has said he opposes Parliament passing laws that force judges to impose particular sentences and has supported the Home Office’s decision to launch a review of the law on murder, saying, ‘I’m not in favour of mandatory sentences full stop.’ Last October, the Home Office announced a major review of the law on murder — the first for more than 50 years.

Lord Woolf’s comments follow concerns expressed by some judges that they were being forced by ministers over how to punish offenders. Asked if he favoured ending mandatory life sentences for murder, he said, ‘I think there is a need for a review … It may not make any practical difference if you have a right definition for murder … If you intend to kill someone deliberately then a life sentence may be the only appropriate sentence.’ Regarding his support for the Home Office review, Lord Woolf added, ‘You can have someone who has a relative who is suffering pain of severity which someone in my position can only try to imagine, and they feel it’s what that person wants — to be relieved of that misery… To treat that person as you treat someone who deliberately kills for a different purpose is very difficult. That is why we look to have a punishment that fits 
the crime.’

Prime Minister Tony Blair is expected to outline plans for a new definition of murder to exclude crimes such as mercy killings or create a new category of murder with different sentences to reflect degrees of severity. Last August an independent Law Commission, which advises ministers on changes to the law, said that the legislation governing murder was a ‘mess’. Its research revealed that 64 respondents out of 146 — including 21 judges — believed a mandatory life sentence for every case of murder was ‘indefensible and should cease’. In May this year, Ken MacDonald QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, backed the introduction of a system that recognised degrees of homicide. (Source: news.bbc.co.uk)

Draft Law Reducing Police Powers

China — Top legislators are considering reducing police powers when dealing with minor public order offences to safeguard citizens’ rights. The proposal put forward by the National People’s Congress seeks to cut police powers with regards to the questioning of suspects. Current police powers to question suspects for 36 hours and detain them for 30 days without charge would be cut to a maximum of 12 hours and 20 days respectively once the new draft is made law.

The new draft also has a special chapter on the supervision of public security authorities and police officers to combat some who have treated money from fines as a bonus to their regular salary. The draft picks out 10 specific kinds of police behaviour when dealing with minor offences that would result in administrative punishment or in some cases, criminal responsibility, including torturing suspects, restricting their freedom and keeping 
fine monies.

Public security departments or police found guilty of any of the above, would be required to apologise and shoulder civil responsibilities in accordance with the offence committed. (Source: www.china.org.cn)

Law to Make Drug Taking Criminal

China — A new narcotic control law is being mapped out as part of China’s efforts to combat drug use, production and trafficking. The draft lists drug taking as a crime. At the moment China has no laws specifically aimed at tackling narcotics. Although existing laws acknowledge the illegal possession of drugs, they fail to classify drug taking as a crime.

According to Professor Yang Hongtai from East China University of Politics and Law, drug taking does great harm to society and in failing to categorise it as a crime the nation falls short of the legal support necessary for a serious crackdown. Under the current laws, many drug addicts cannot be prosecuted because there is no legal basis for criminal charges.

The latest legislative efforts have been welcomed by legal experts as China’s anti-narcotics measures face a serious challenge as production and sale of drugs such as ice and ecstasy rise. (Source: www.china.org.cn)

File-Sharing Suffers Major Defeat

US — The Supreme Court has ruled that file-sharing companies are to be blamed for what users do with their software. The surprise ruling could start a legal assault on the creators of file-sharing networks such as Grokster and Morpheus. The case was brought by 28 movie and music makers who claimed that rampant piracy was denting profits. The Supreme Court judges were expected to rule in favour of the file-sharers because of legal precedents set when video recorders first appeared. However, the unanimous ruling is a victory for recording companies and film studios in what is widely seen as one of the most important copyright cases in years.

The latest ruling setting aside earlier lower court decisions also means that makers of a technology have to answer for what people do with it if they use it to break the law. In the ruling Justice David Souter wrote: ‘The question is under what circumstances the distributor of a product capable of both lawful and unlawful use is liable for acts of copyright infringement by third parties using the product … We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright … is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.’

John Kennedy, head of the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry said of the ruling, ‘It quite simply destroys the argument that peer-to-peer services bear no responsibility for illegal activities that take place on their networks.’ 
(Source: news.bbc.co.uk)