John Rowland wrote
"Mait001" wrote
[...]
Your first question: all legislation that criminalises conduct
which, at the time it was performed, was not a criminal act;
e.g. Sexual Offences Act 2003,
which criminalises certain conduct restrospectively.

I didn't know that, the *******s. How can we live our lives free of
fear if

nobody else did either perhaps ?

http://www.hmso.gov.uk/legislation/uk-expa.htm

we never know what the *******s are going to retrospectively
criminalise
next? I hope the next Tory Prime Minister makes the passing of
retrospective
legislation retrospectively illegal, and then locks up Blair and
every MP
who "aye'd" that bill. The only purpose of retrospective legislation
is to
please bullying politicians who get a kick out of making the general
public
afraid.

Sure you havn't got a penkife in your briefcase ?

Bullying pressure groups rather.

Your second question: the same Act is an example: people
(usually men) can now be subjected to a Sexual Offences
Prevention Order even if acquitted of the offence with which
they have been charged. The Order can prohibit anything
from travelling on public transport to owning or using a
telephone, camera, computer, television: there is no
exhaustive list so the Court an literally order anything at all.

Strange, it has been possible since 1485 or so to bind over a acquitted
person 'to keep the peace' and there is no "exhaustive list" of
conditions that may be imposed there either (was used against 'peeping
toms', so same subject matter).

Can't both of these points be overturned in the European Court Of
Human
Rights?

If they are indeed ex post facto criminal laws then yes (or declared
'incompatible with the ECHR' under the Human Rights Act 1998 by our
appeal courts as per this month's example).

As per my other post I suspect that what the group's barrister and the
previous and new chairman of the Bar Council say is more sound bite
with ten minutes thought and no historical memory than contribution to
public discussion with citations and references.

The latest wish to jail anyone with a penknife (no 3 inch blade
exception) is a bigger threat to the public.

--
Mike D