The Logical Conclusion Politics and progress

Guilty Until Proven Innocent?

Something we are taught in this country, from a very early age in most cases, is that every single person should be considered innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Now, we know that this right of men has been subverted in the United Kingdom, with the introduction of control orders and our media being all too happy to condemn suspects, but in the past 3 months, these subversions of liberty have taken an entirely new and more sinister look.

I'm going to talk about two recent cases where British courts have taken it upon themselves to punish people who have never been convicted of the crime they are being punished for: the case of Christopher Tappin and the case of Arran Coghlan.

These are two very different cases as Tappin has no prior run-ins with law enforcement, whilst Coghlan is known to the establishment, having received convictions for dishonesty and having been tried (and cleared) for three murders and drug smuggling offences. However, the common theme in both cases is that the burden of evidence has been hoisted upon to the accused rather than the accuser.