How Did The Court Reach Its Decision
Q1) How did the court reach its decision?
In the following case, the High Court of Justice had to decide if they should grant permission to allow the claimant to bring proceedings for judicial review to allow the prosecutions of the interested parties, due to involvement in the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein and their alleged crime of aggression.
The decision of DJ (MC) Snow, at the City of Westminster’s Magistrates on 24th November 2016, was his refusal to allow the claimant permission to issue a summons for a prosecution of the interested parties (Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith) for the crime of aggression. The court was bound by Jones , where the House of Lords decided that there was no such crime in England and Wales.
The claimant applied for permission …show more content…
Mr Mansfield QC on behalf of the claimant had argued that ‘it was not possible for a prosecution’ before an international court, suggesting there had been a failure to apply the law on an international plane and try those who commit the crime of aggression. Furthermore, he contended that it was the duty of the courts of England and Wales to try the interested parties, otherwise it would amount to ‘a failure to uphold the rule of law.’
The judge had criticized his claim and utilised the Rome Statue. The statue requires acceptance from other nations and they may only exercise jurisdiction over ‘crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification…by thirty states parties’ . The 30th state ratified on the 26th June 2016. However, the article states that this would not be effective until one year after that date. Meaning no prosecution could occur for a crime committed before the 26th June 2017.
However, whether the domestic courts could prosecute the interested parties was reliant on the reasoning of the decision in Jones and the probability of the Supreme Court deciding that there was an error in that
In the following case, the High Court of Justice had to decide if they should grant permission to allow the claimant to bring proceedings for judicial review to allow the prosecutions of the interested parties, due to involvement in the invasion of Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein and their alleged crime of aggression.
The decision of DJ (MC) Snow, at the City of Westminster’s Magistrates on 24th November 2016, was his refusal to allow the claimant permission to issue a summons for a prosecution of the interested parties (Tony Blair, Jack Straw and Lord Goldsmith) for the crime of aggression. The court was bound by Jones , where the House of Lords decided that there was no such crime in England and Wales.
The claimant applied for permission …show more content…
Mr Mansfield QC on behalf of the claimant had argued that ‘it was not possible for a prosecution’ before an international court, suggesting there had been a failure to apply the law on an international plane and try those who commit the crime of aggression. Furthermore, he contended that it was the duty of the courts of England and Wales to try the interested parties, otherwise it would amount to ‘a failure to uphold the rule of law.’
The judge had criticized his claim and utilised the Rome Statue. The statue requires acceptance from other nations and they may only exercise jurisdiction over ‘crimes of aggression committed one year after the ratification…by thirty states parties’ . The 30th state ratified on the 26th June 2016. However, the article states that this would not be effective until one year after that date. Meaning no prosecution could occur for a crime committed before the 26th June 2017.
However, whether the domestic courts could prosecute the interested parties was reliant on the reasoning of the decision in Jones and the probability of the Supreme Court deciding that there was an error in that