I have avoided any reference to human rights and have been looking purely on the basis of foundational British law. But this is very complex stuff. So, I have done another AI just to flag up possible further areas of discussion. I would be interested if you could ask the same question of Anthropic:
The question I asked was:
'would a system where a tribunal decides that a particular accused won't receive a trial if they are certain of his guilt be a denial of justice under magna carta'
This is what it came back with:
Why skipping a trial violates Magna Carta
- Mandatory Due Process: The phrase "lawful judgment" requires a formal legal process to determine guilt. A tribunal deciding guilt before a trial effectively skips the very process the Charter was written to guarantee.
- Protection Against Arbitrariness: Magna Carta was specifically designed to prevent the King (or any state authority) from acting on personal "certainty" or arbitrary whims. The requirement for a trial ensures that guilt is proven through established law, not just declared.
- Right to Justice: Clause 40 famously states, "To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice". Abolishing a trial based on a pre-determined outcome is a functional denial of the "right to justice".
- Presumption of Innocence: Modern interpretations of these clauses underpin the principle that everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law—a standard that cannot be met if the trial itself is cancelled.
While
Parliamentary sovereignty allows the UK government to create new laws, any system that removes the requirement for a trial would be widely condemned as a violation of the constitutional spirit and foundational protections of
Magna Carta.
