It’s difficult to see what the DPP is going on about here.
Ken Macdonald, QC, head of the Crown Prosecution Service, said that
elitist attitudes had helped to break the bond of trust between the
public and the criminal justice system.
In
an extraordinary warning, he said that the country would enter
dangerous territory if the public felt that justice was not being
delivered by the courts.
Mr Macdonald also called for a move away from the position
held by many lawyers that only the defendants’ rights matter. Greater
emphasis should be given to the rights of victims and witnesses, he
said. “Few sounds are less attractive than well-educated lawyers
patronising vulnerable victims of crime with inflexible platitudes.”
If he means, as other parts of the speech imply, that victims and witnesses should be better treated, better informed, taken care of better, well, of course. If, however, he means that there should be some change to the system so that the rights of the victim are placed in some way above the rights of the accused then he’s obviously wrong.
He said that there had to be fairness for both victims of crime and
suspects: “The view that only defendants’ rights matter, still quite
commonly held by many criminal lawyers, appears to me to be a
fundamentalist position that we should move away from.
“My own view is that liberal commentators need to start by
acknowledging that the public have a point. The service given to
victims and witnesses has traditionally been appalling.”
See what I mean? It’s not really clear which of the two changes he’s advocating.
The speech, which was given to an audience of lawyers and
criminologists, will provoke anger among many lawyers, particularly
those representing suspects, and it will raise suspicions that Mr
Macdonald wishes to water down traditional legal safeguards for
defendants. But in it he insisted that the principles of jury trial,
presumption of innocence, a right to appeal and full disclosure of the
state’s case were all non-negotiable.
Really? Silence no longer inculdes the presumption of innocence, jury trials may be limited in complex fraud cases, full disclosure does not happen in terrorism cases when asking for extended custody nor in cases of control orders. So these are the non-negotiable lines in the sand that the DPP will maintain? Sold the pass already dear boy.
John Cooper, a leading criminal law barrister, said: “The
fundamental of a trial in the criminal justice system is the analysis
of facts and evidence to decide if the prosecution have proved their
case.
“It is not, and never should be, an arena where victims
primarily undertake a cathartic exercise for the allegation that is
tested at the trial.”
Quite right. Look, the intent and purpose of a criminal justice system is not that difficult to define. To lock up the maximum number of baddies while still protecting the civil liberties of all. That means that those certain protections, habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence, jury trial and so on are never breached, for they are, in the long term, the protections of those civil liberties. That maintaining them means that some bad guys don’t get locked up is unfortunate but better that than not having the liberties. As someone who has lived and worked in a country that doesn’t operate its criminal justice system in this way, believe me, you really don’t want it to be the other way around.
Leave a Reply