Changes in the law in October 2012 have meant that many
defendants who don’t qualify for legal aid are now liable for their own legal
costs even when acquitted.
Given the expense of retaining a legal defence it is suspected
(by members of the legal profession apparently), that some defendants have
weighed this onerous financial impact against what they perceive as the ‘lesser
of two evils’ by pleading guilty.
After all, if the cost of proving your innocence is greater
than the consequences of pleading guilty and you are at a stage in life where a
criminal record isn’t likely to make a difference to the way you live, a person
would do well to take time to consider their options.
The principle that
the loser pays the winners’ costs has been fundamental to English law and was
the safeguard that prevented litigators and prosecutors from launching actions
on a whim.
In the
UK, we presume
innocence until proven guilty yet this new system proposes that even when
proven innocent, the defendant stands to lose. If we are convicting innocent
people because they can’t afford legal representation then the new system is
dangerously wrong and we are employing a system of justice for those who can
afford it and rough justice for those who can’t.
I am not an apologist for criminals of any kind or in any
way. I trust in the justice system of our country to safely convict criminals
in the vast majority of cases, based on evidential proof. There are always
going to be those who are wrongly convicted and whilst my heart goes out to
them, there is nothing I can do to alter the fact.
The purpose of my rant?
I’m shocked at the intense public divide of opinion in the prosecutions
of Dave Lee Travis, Bill Roache, Stuart Hall and other celebrities who have
been very publically ‘roasted’. . I’m not so much interested that these
defendants have been convicted or acquitted as concerned they have been judged fairly
and correctly. If only we had that confidence in the justice system, perhaps
people wouldn’t need to vent their opinions with such vitriol.
I’ve heard people talking, I read the papers etc.. and there
is such a chasm between those berating the authorities for bringing these cases
to court in the first place and those whose comments include; ‘guilty as hell’ , ‘a guilty man got off’ and ‘confiscate
his house and assets’, ‘put his wife on the street to die’ and ‘should die in
jail’.
The truth is, we don’t actually, physically, absolutely know
that Bill Roache and Mr Travis are innocent in the same way we don’t actually, physically,
absolutely know that Mr Hall is guilty – or a victim himself, in the way I’ve described above.
We’ve not been privy to the court papers and interview
transcripts and we certainly weren’t ‘there’ when these things ‘happened’, so
what right do we have to be so judgemental? We actually ‘know’ nothing and for
this reason, we do have the right to expect our justice system to balance the
scales evenly.
It should not matter if a person has wealth or none at all.
We should all have the right to defend ourselves without penalty – until such
time as proven guilty when penalties should apply.
We should all expect privacy, only the verdict being made
public - along with transcripts and notes. I looked at Oscar Pistorius on the
news this morning. Surrounded by cameras and media, his life being paraded,
every expression analysed. It is for the South African court to decide his
guilt, not the media, not us. His Prosecution should be the business of barristers,
a judge and jury. If he is found guilty his life should then become the
property of the state. Until then, leave the man alone.
We should all be able to believe in the incorruptibility of
our justice system and stop being encouraged by the media to become judge and
jury ourselves.
