<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: Belfast Project: Boston College Seeks To Vacate Judge Young&#8217;s Order And Dismiss Its Own Appeal	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/01/29/belfast-project-boston-college-seeks-to-vacate-judge-youngs-order-and-dismiss-its-own-appeal/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/01/29/belfast-project-boston-college-seeks-to-vacate-judge-youngs-order-and-dismiss-its-own-appeal/</link>
	<description>The Blog of International Judicial Assistance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:00:07 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=6.9.4</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Belfast Project: the Government Says The Case Is Not Moot &#124; Letters Blogatory		</title>
		<link>https://lettersblogatory.com/2013/01/29/belfast-project-boston-college-seeks-to-vacate-judge-youngs-order-and-dismiss-its-own-appeal/#comment-1092</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Belfast Project: the Government Says The Case Is Not Moot &#124; Letters Blogatory]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 13 Feb 2013 11:00:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://lettersblogatory.com/?p=12364#comment-1092</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] As predicted, the government has responded to Boston College&#8217;s suggestion of the death of Dolours Price by arguing that the investigation in the UK is not limited to making a criminal case against Ms. Price herself. In it&#8217;s memorandum, the government chides BC for making an argument so cursory that it &#8220;would ordinarily be deemed waived,&#8221; but because the question goes to the courts&#8217; jurisdiction, it addresses the substantive points. First, the government claims that the subpoenas sought materials htat &#8220;very well might include interviews implicating persons other than Price in [Jean] McConville&#8217;s death.&#8221; Second, and perhaps more interestingly, the government rebuts BC&#8217;s arguments based on the MLAT itself. BC had argued that under Article 1, &#167; 1bis of the MLAT, mutual legal assistance is only available &#8220;for matters in which the administrative authority anticipates that no prosecution or referral, as applicable, will take place.&#8221; But the government points out that &#167; 1bis and its limitations are inapplicable, because it applies only where assistance is requested by a &#8220;national administrative authorities&#8221; conducting an investigation &#8220;with a view to a criminal prosecution.&#8221; The more general provisions of the treaty permit &#8220;mutual legal assistance &#8230; for the purpose of proceedings&#8221; that include &#8220;any measure or step taken in connection with the investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses.&#8221; It&#8217;s hard to say, and I may be reading between the lines too much, but the government may be saying that while the UK are conducting an investigation of criminal investigation, there is not necessarily a plan for prosecution. Who knows? Unfortunately, we do not have access to the government&#8217;s ex parte submissions. [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] As predicted, the government has responded to Boston College&#8217;s suggestion of the death of Dolours Price by arguing that the investigation in the UK is not limited to making a criminal case against Ms. Price herself. In it&#8217;s memorandum, the government chides BC for making an argument so cursory that it &#8220;would ordinarily be deemed waived,&#8221; but because the question goes to the courts&#8217; jurisdiction, it addresses the substantive points. First, the government claims that the subpoenas sought materials htat &#8220;very well might include interviews implicating persons other than Price in [Jean] McConville&#8217;s death.&#8221; Second, and perhaps more interestingly, the government rebuts BC&#8217;s arguments based on the MLAT itself. BC had argued that under Article 1, &sect; 1bis of the MLAT, mutual legal assistance is only available &#8220;for matters in which the administrative authority anticipates that no prosecution or referral, as applicable, will take place.&#8221; But the government points out that &sect; 1bis and its limitations are inapplicable, because it applies only where assistance is requested by a &#8220;national administrative authorities&#8221; conducting an investigation &#8220;with a view to a criminal prosecution.&#8221; The more general provisions of the treaty permit &#8220;mutual legal assistance &#8230; for the purpose of proceedings&#8221; that include &#8220;any measure or step taken in connection with the investigation or prosecution of criminal offenses.&#8221; It&#8217;s hard to say, and I may be reading between the lines too much, but the government may be saying that while the UK are conducting an investigation of criminal investigation, there is not necessarily a plan for prosecution. Who knows? Unfortunately, we do not have access to the government&#8217;s ex parte submissions. [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
