Do or die
и снова ждёмRichard III would have raised an eyebrow at the thought of a public consultation to decide his final resting place, according to a High Court judge.
A two-day judicial review into the exhumation licence which states the 500-year-old king should be reinterred in Leicester concluded today, with a judgement expected within the next few weeks.
The claimants, a group of 15 people calling themselves the Plantaganet Alliance, are arguing the nation should be consulted about where the monarch – who was discovered in 2012 buried beneath a car park in the city centre - is reinterred.
This morning, Gerald Clarke, representing the Alliance, spelt out exactly who should be asked about the location of the king's reinterment.
Addressing the bench of three High Court judges, he said: “The Queen, Richard's descendants, the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the people of Leicester, the people of York and the national public all have role to play in deciding.”
The Alliance's case is built around dismissing the Ministry of Justice's exhumation licence, held by the University of Leicester, which says he should be buried at Leicester Cathedral.
Mr Clarke argued that the medieval monarch's discovery was “unique” and the public needed to be involved in deciding where in the country he should be reburied.
However, his case was questioned by Mr Justice Ouseley, who said: “I would have thought he [Richard III] would have raised an eyebrow at the thought of a public consultation over where he should be buried.”
A packed courtroom chuckled at the remark.
Mr Clarke replied: “He would probably have two eyebrows if someone had told him he would be buried in Leicester.”
The Alliance's case relies on convincing the bench that a public consultation should be carried out.
However, all three judges – Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, all repeated numerous instructions to deliver the submission in a clear and understandable way.
“It's pretty basic stuff to present your case clearly,” said Mr Haddon-Cave.
Eventually, Mr Clarke replied: “We're simply asking the government to have a public consultation.
“Recently on the legal aid proposals there's a public consultation and they're inviting representations from everybody.
“It wouldn't be difficult to formulate a similar process.
Submitting the case for Leicester City Council was Andrew Sharland, who also addressed the court today.
He said the comprehensive list of case law examples yesterday cited by his defence colleague James Eadie – representing the Ministry of Justice - showed there was no legal duty for a wider poll regarding the monarch's reburial.
He said: “It's clear that from the large number of cases cited by my colleague that there is no duty on us or the MoJ to consult and that there's no basis to suggest that any of the defendants have a duty to consult the public.
“It's time to let the remains of Richard III be buried in the beautiful and historic city if Leicester.”
Speaking outside the courtroom after the hearing, the Rev Pete Hobson, of Leicester Cathedral, said: "We have to wait. The case for the licence being upheld has been powerfully and ably presented, and we await the outcome of the review with full respect for the legal processes.
“We remain keen to proceed with our plans for the reinterment of King Richard III with dignity and honour on behalf of the whole nation.”
Комментарий: Shoddy misquoting here. I understand Mr Clarke actually said: 'Richard would not only raise two eyebrows but also two fingers at the thought of being buried in Leicester.'
A two-day judicial review into the exhumation licence which states the 500-year-old king should be reinterred in Leicester concluded today, with a judgement expected within the next few weeks.
The claimants, a group of 15 people calling themselves the Plantaganet Alliance, are arguing the nation should be consulted about where the monarch – who was discovered in 2012 buried beneath a car park in the city centre - is reinterred.
This morning, Gerald Clarke, representing the Alliance, spelt out exactly who should be asked about the location of the king's reinterment.
Addressing the bench of three High Court judges, he said: “The Queen, Richard's descendants, the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the people of Leicester, the people of York and the national public all have role to play in deciding.”
The Alliance's case is built around dismissing the Ministry of Justice's exhumation licence, held by the University of Leicester, which says he should be buried at Leicester Cathedral.
Mr Clarke argued that the medieval monarch's discovery was “unique” and the public needed to be involved in deciding where in the country he should be reburied.
However, his case was questioned by Mr Justice Ouseley, who said: “I would have thought he [Richard III] would have raised an eyebrow at the thought of a public consultation over where he should be buried.”
A packed courtroom chuckled at the remark.
Mr Clarke replied: “He would probably have two eyebrows if someone had told him he would be buried in Leicester.”
The Alliance's case relies on convincing the bench that a public consultation should be carried out.
However, all three judges – Lady Justice Hallett, Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Haddon-Cave, all repeated numerous instructions to deliver the submission in a clear and understandable way.
“It's pretty basic stuff to present your case clearly,” said Mr Haddon-Cave.
Eventually, Mr Clarke replied: “We're simply asking the government to have a public consultation.
“Recently on the legal aid proposals there's a public consultation and they're inviting representations from everybody.
“It wouldn't be difficult to formulate a similar process.
Submitting the case for Leicester City Council was Andrew Sharland, who also addressed the court today.
He said the comprehensive list of case law examples yesterday cited by his defence colleague James Eadie – representing the Ministry of Justice - showed there was no legal duty for a wider poll regarding the monarch's reburial.
He said: “It's clear that from the large number of cases cited by my colleague that there is no duty on us or the MoJ to consult and that there's no basis to suggest that any of the defendants have a duty to consult the public.
“It's time to let the remains of Richard III be buried in the beautiful and historic city if Leicester.”
Speaking outside the courtroom after the hearing, the Rev Pete Hobson, of Leicester Cathedral, said: "We have to wait. The case for the licence being upheld has been powerfully and ably presented, and we await the outcome of the review with full respect for the legal processes.
“We remain keen to proceed with our plans for the reinterment of King Richard III with dignity and honour on behalf of the whole nation.”
Комментарий: Shoddy misquoting here. I understand Mr Clarke actually said: 'Richard would not only raise two eyebrows but also two fingers at the thought of being buried in Leicester.'
@темы: Richard III