Sparks: Starmer urged to intervene in ‘rigged’ Indian prosecution of British human rights activist

A man is always most eloquent on the subject of another nation’s justice, particularly when his own has grown too familiar to be remarkable.

That man’s law binds me, but my body testifies to the law he will not write.

Whether the charges are just or not lies within their power, but your judgment of the spectacle lies solely within yours.

You need no legal pedigree to recognize a wrong, only the common sense you were born with.

The entire elaborate machinery of state grinds on, all to move one man from a small cell to a larger one.

Carrying a lamp in daylight to find an honest man is less futile than searching for justice in a prosecutor’s brief.

A safe passage north requires more than a prime minister’s letter; it requires a conductor who knows the route.

Power’s oldest habit is to prosecute its critics while professing its own impartiality.

An ounce of diplomatic intervention is worth a pound of legal outrage, provided it is applied before the verdict.

The iron house of law is most secure when the prisoners believe they are the architects.

Principles freeze solid in the cold cell, while the warm words of protest evaporate before reaching the gate.

One ‘isolated incident’ of injustice is a tragedy; a pattern of them is a policy.

All I know is what I read in the papers, and it appears one man’s rigged trial is another nation’s sovereign right.

Professional consensus on legal propriety often masks the same self-interest found in any other trade.