Tim Worstall

Another Piece of Freedom Gone

Difficult to know whether to laugh or weep at the latest action of our latest Home Secretary.

Convicted criminals who are "plainly guilty" are
being freed by the Court of Appeal because of trial irregularities, the
Government says in a consultation document published today on possible
changes in the law on appeal cases.

John Reid,
the Home Secretary, says the quashing of convictions because of
technicalities or loopholes is damaging to public confidence in the
criminal justice system and may also put the public at further risk of
crime.

…

The paper states: "Under the current law, a convicted person can have
his or her conviction quashed even where the Court of Appeal have
formed the view that he or she was indeed guilty of the offence. The
conviction is overturned in such cases because the Court are
dissatisfied with some aspect of the trial or pre-trial process. The
Government wants to ensure that, where the Court of Appeal are of the
view that a conviction is, in the normal sense of the word, ‘safe’, it
should not be possible to quash it."

These "technicalities" that they wish to obliterate from the appeal process. They seem to have completely lost the plot. They are not there so that the guilty can get off, they are there so that the innocent do not get convicted. Things like access to a lawyer, appearance in court, being charged properly, having all the evidence available. Do away with the requirement that these are indeed to be considered and we move to a system of administrative justice: you’re guilty because we say so, not because we’ve proved it. You’re guilty because the Court of Appeal thinks you are, not because a jury, having heard all of the evidence, thinks you are.

No, bad law and John Reid should be fired for even suggesting it.

In

7 responses

  1. Tim Almond Avatar
    Tim Almond

    It’s just tabloid porn, and nothing will come of it.
    John Reid should have a word with Chris Mullin about “technicalities”.

    Reply
  2. Anoneumouse Avatar
    Anoneumouse

    “No, bad law and John Reid should be fired for even suggesting it.”
    As he himself would advocate, he should be fired for even ‘THINKING’ it.
    But then again, he is only making our laws compliant with the European Justice System.
    The Common Law has only 5 days left!!!!!

    Reply
  3. Frank Fisher Avatar
    Frank Fisher

    It’s not tabloid porn – I think I know what’s behind this.
    http://blog.frankfisher.org/blog/_archives/2006/9/18/2336543.html

    Reply
  4. James von Simson Avatar
    James von Simson

    Or perhaps it’s being changed so someone who IS guilty doesn’t get let off because some clerk misfiled or because a policeman – tired from form filling – failed to date something correctly.
    Or maybe I’m just being naïve…

    Reply
  5. dearieme Avatar
    dearieme

    I’d be happy if a court could announce that Jack Ripper was guilty as hell, but that the Home Sec was being fined fifty thou for the pre-trial irregularities. Plus a 10% Lanarkshire allowance.

    Reply
  6. NotSaussure Avatar
    NotSaussure

    Mr von Simson is being a bit naive, I fear; though, while I think I agree with Mr Worstall, it’s not quite as clear cut as one might think.
    The report makes it clear that they’re talking not about clerks misfiling things or tired policemen not doing the paperwork properly — that’s ignored anyway so long as it doesn’t mess up the trial (e.g. a clerk misfiles some evidence the jury should have seen). Rather, they’re talking about the 20-odd cases a year where there’s no doubt about the chap’s guilt but the Court of Appeal use their discretion to overturn a conviction, because, in effect, they want to register a protest about how badly wrong things have gone.
    Maybe the best example discussed in the report is that of Mullen [1999] EWCA Crim 278, who was found guilty of very serious offences — he got 30 years — after a trial that was perfectly properly conducted. However, rather than extraditing him from Zimbabwe, we kidnapped him, which the Court of Appeal thought was really a bit much.
    I’m of the opinion — apart from the fact that anything John Reid advocates is almost certainly a bad idea, of course — that hard cases make bad law, and the overall effect of letting letting the authorities cut too many corners is going to be far worse than letting out a handful of people each year. But I still want to think about it a bit more, though.
    The consultation paper, BTW, stresses that it’s about what changes will be made rather than about whether changes should be made at all.

    Reply
  7. pete Avatar
    pete

    One advantage of such an appalling system is that we could sack all the expensive judges and prosecution lawyers and replace them all with 19yr old magistrates on the minimum wage equipped with a big rubber stamp reading ‘guilty’.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading