One law for us…

I wonder what a judge would say to most people if they were accused of a crime yet attempted to get the judge to set up a gagging order to prevent anyone knowing they were on trial for breaking the law? I rather suspect that if we weren’t a muslim/politician/policeman/lawyer then we’d get pretty short shrift, the legal people looking after their own and in the case of a muslim, falling for the ‘cultural’ reasoning that they seem to come out with to keep their names out of the press…


A judge allowed two Muslim solicitors accused of trying to cheat the legal system to hide behind a cloak of secrecy for ‘cultural reasons’, the Daily Mail can disclose.
He banned reporting of the case of Asha Khan, 30, and her brother Kashif, 34, to prevent them allegedly being shamed in the eyes of their community.
In the latest farce involving secret justice, the pair were told they could enjoy the court’s protection because members of their family would pass judgment if the case was reported.
It is a privilege rarely bestowed on defendants in the justice system, which has operated on the principle of transparency for centuries. However, following a challenge by the Daily Mail, the restriction was lifted – enabling the case to be reported.
Judge Peter Hughes reversed his original ban after deciding that the principle of open justice was more important than saving the embarrassment of a defendant.

One wonders just what kind of judgement their families would pass on a speeding fine… although the real killer charge was perverting the course of justice, neither of which I suspect would faze their community, it’s not like they doodled the paedo-prophet now is it?

Not that points swapping is entirely unknown either, just ask Vicki Pryce the ex-wife of ex-MP Chris Huhne and the ludicrous lengths he went to, to cover up his misdemeanour.

No, I suspect most of this was simply personal to try and keep their names out of the press and perhaps… just perhaps not give muslims in general another bad news day.

Yet it does strike me that if the ruling had not been overturned, this would have set a precedent, with all ethnic and cultural groups saying their trials should not be reported for fear of shaming them in their community? After all, precedents are the basis of most new legal decisions with regard to dealing with points of law.

Then again I rather doubt a Christian Lawyer or a Jewish Lawyer would have had the stones to attempt something so blatant to keep their names and their communities names out of the press. I rather suspect this was an attempt to try and tag ‘muslim’ onto a submission in an attempt to avoid publicity, it’s not like judges have not attempted to block publicity on muslim trials in the grooming cases ongoing within the country after all.

Still, kudos to the Daily Mail (for once) in getting this precedent removed, God alone knows what would have happened if it was allowed to stand.