| |
At times of crisis courts must stick to principles
• JEREMY Corbyn, the “libertarian” rebel backbencher and Islington North MP, now indicates that he too favours the government’s proposed “witness protection” scheme as outlined in a bill currently going through parliament (Knife crime: MP backs new secrecy bill, July 25).
Who doesn’t wish for the conviction and punishment of those guilty of crimes? Who doesn’t feel terrible for those parents whose children have been maimed or killed in the growing epidemic? But an “answer” which excludes a prosecution witness from courtroom cross-examination in order to ensure a conviction is not an “answer”. It jeopardises the rights of the innocent who are falsely accused and so compromises essential principles of the legal process.
I don’t speak from a cushioned vantage point – a penknife was pulled on one of my children. I have had a knife pulled on me, and on more than one occasion I have stepped in to protect a stranger’s child who was being dangerously assaulted.
Of course, there should be tough punishment for crime, but the police themselves should take responsibility for protecting witnesses and encouraging them to come forward. When I was assuring a worried victim of assault that the police would do everything they could to protect him from retaliation should he want to press charges, I turned to the police officer present to reassure the young man of this. The officer was non-committal. No charge was brought.
This is the problem area. If we compromise the court process in order to make the police’s job easier for them, and thereby sacrifice the rights of those who are falsely accused, to use the current jargon we “systematise” injustice.
This ultimately helps no one. Children already react to the adult example, and they watch, with unnerving clarity of vision, as police, teachers, parents and politicians preach about being “fair” but increasingly do only what is immediately expedient. It is even more important at times of crisis that, at the very least, our justice system sticks to its principles.
KATE BUFFERY
Tytherton Road, N19
• I WAS sorry to read that Jeremy Corbyn supports the Criminal Evidence (Witness Anonymity) Bill. It is a classic example of Labour’s habit of bending the rules of evidence in order to seem to do something about a real problem and it is no surprise that it is supported by discredited figures like Jack Straw.
Mr Corbyn is respected because until now he has not gone along with such policies. Even if the police were incorruptible, the bill is bad because it will allow witnesses to give perjured evidence which the defendant, not knowing who the witness is, cannot challenge.
“Noble cause corruption” is a euphemism used by senior police officers to excuse perjury and perverting the course of justice by police officers who “know” someone is guilty, as they “knew” the Birmingham Six were guilty, but have no, or not enough, evidence to prove it. Witness anonymity makes noble cause corruption easy and exonerating the unjustly convicted impossible.
The bill’s supporters are doing the victims’ families and friends no favours by telling them it will stop or reduce knife crime. The young men who commit such crime must know that, if convicted of murder, they will go to prison for a long time. Many have without, it seems, deterring the rest.
I cannot be sure why this is so but would guess that either they believe they will be lucky or they avoid thinking about it at all or they do not care. If I am right, then increasing the number of convictions by making it easier to fit up defendants will make no difference to the amount of knife crime because its perpetrators cannot be deterred.
Our government’s American patriotism is beyond question. It should take to heart what Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
STEPHEN HORNE
Islington Green Party, N4
• I SUPPORT Jeremy Corbyn in his defence of anonymity for witnesses. Concerns about perjury can be dealt with by judicial oversight and discretion. For instance, anonymous evidence from convicted criminals must be weighed differently than from ordinary witnesses.
Liberty is opposed to anonymity but this rule has always helped criminals and undermined justice. But perhaps Liberty, although it includes sensible and reasonable individuals, is dominated by the legal profession.
It has become detached from reality. This ended up with Liberty endorsing the view that Belmarsh is a “concentration camp”. How can anybody expect a mature view from such an organisation until it puts its house in order.
And Geoffrey Robertson QC has himself recently been involved in a case where the evidence was not made public and the reason for this has also not been revealed.
ANGELA PINTER
E2
|
 |
|
| |
| Your Comments : |
| |
| |
| |
