*/
Have we disconnected our legal system from the people?
December 3, 2018:
‘One man’s transparency is another’s humiliation.’
– Gerry Adams
I have been getting behind in keeping my diary, through the demands of the approaching festive season and an irresistible TV channel. Talking Pictures specialises in many black and white films from yesteryear: particularly crime stories and extensive legal dramas. They are refreshingly familiar to barristers and solicitors of a certain age: showing a system that was far from perfect, particularly over disclosure, but had a balance which gifted some advantages to the Defence and some to the Prosecution in a way that defied precise scientific analysis but generally worked fairly within a jury system. Changes were introduced sparingly: permitting evidence to be read by agreement, for instance, or requiring notice of alibi. Most were statutory, introduced at a speed allowing absorption without fundamentally altering the essence of the system.
Unfortunately, the pace of statutory alteration grew during the 1990s, reaching a fever-pitch in the first ten years of the 21st century. Such was the volume of statutes dealing with the Criminal Law that over a 13-year period more Acts of Parliament in this area were passed than in the whole of the previous century. Recently, procedural and sentencing reform has been by the judiciary’s hand or bodies such as the Sentencing Council.
It took Paddy Corkhill, an irrepressible senior junior with a love for the grape, to bring it all home to me. I had invited him round for some prematurely seasonal mince pies with brandy butter and an always-welcome bottle of Aloxe-Corton. I switched on my favourite channel in time for us to watch a courtroom drama in which a wrongly accused man, fitted-up by the true murderer and plagued by the honest but mistaken evidence of a rather dim young teenager, was acquitted only because his loyal fiancée spotted the villainous witness she had seen from the public gallery unwisely revisiting the murder premises, together with some help from a very open-minded police officer who rather fancied her.
Paddy enjoyed every twist and turn. At the end, he stirred the dregs of the red wine by moving his glass round and looked at me. ‘Be difficult nowadays, wouldn’t it?’ he said. ‘What would be?’ I asked. ‘Making this film. I mean, it depends on the murderer giving evidence and that troubled child getting it all wrong.’ Spotting a second bottle of red wine on my shelf, this time a claret of a distinguished vintage, and before I could move it quickly out of harm’s way, Paddy had plunged the corkscrew into the cork and I realised a long night was ahead.
Sitting back on my sofa and producing a huge cigar, Paddy continued: ‘Nowadays, the murderer could shelter behind a courtroom curtain on the basis his testimony would then be more effective. You bet! And because the teenager is obviously vulnerable we would quite properly hear her evidence in-chief on video followed by a cross-examination with pre-constructed judicially approved questions, such as: “Mr Gordon says you didn’t see him coming out of the door that night. Is Mr Gordon telling the truth?” And that wonderful chase-scene when the police capture the true murderer and instead of saying “you’re nicked” would have to have said “you are under arrest. You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence,” whilst all the actors froze. The fiancée would not have recognised the murderer later anyway because she would never from the public gallery have seen him give evidence in the first place and anyway would probably have been asleep from boredom.’
There is no doubt that our well-meant changes have altered fundamental elements of the criminal trial. Some changes were statutory, others procedural and yet more involved interpretation of the law by the judiciary. The visitor from the 1950s would not only fail to recognise the trial system, but, in most trials, would not even be able to see crucial parts of them. There is a chilling effect. It starts at ‘Security’ on entering the building. It often ends in a complex sentencing phase involving voluminous sentencing guidelines and the judge having to gas incomprehensibly for half an hour before the poor miscreant even realises his fate. The combined effect is to push the public further and further away from seeing and understanding the process.
Dear Paddy: perceptive as always… Wouldn’t do to tell him though, so I just said: ‘Give me a puff on your Montecristo, you old soak!’
December 3, 2018:
‘One man’s transparency is another’s humiliation.’
– Gerry Adams
I have been getting behind in keeping my diary, through the demands of the approaching festive season and an irresistible TV channel. Talking Pictures specialises in many black and white films from yesteryear: particularly crime stories and extensive legal dramas. They are refreshingly familiar to barristers and solicitors of a certain age: showing a system that was far from perfect, particularly over disclosure, but had a balance which gifted some advantages to the Defence and some to the Prosecution in a way that defied precise scientific analysis but generally worked fairly within a jury system. Changes were introduced sparingly: permitting evidence to be read by agreement, for instance, or requiring notice of alibi. Most were statutory, introduced at a speed allowing absorption without fundamentally altering the essence of the system.
Unfortunately, the pace of statutory alteration grew during the 1990s, reaching a fever-pitch in the first ten years of the 21st century. Such was the volume of statutes dealing with the Criminal Law that over a 13-year period more Acts of Parliament in this area were passed than in the whole of the previous century. Recently, procedural and sentencing reform has been by the judiciary’s hand or bodies such as the Sentencing Council.
It took Paddy Corkhill, an irrepressible senior junior with a love for the grape, to bring it all home to me. I had invited him round for some prematurely seasonal mince pies with brandy butter and an always-welcome bottle of Aloxe-Corton. I switched on my favourite channel in time for us to watch a courtroom drama in which a wrongly accused man, fitted-up by the true murderer and plagued by the honest but mistaken evidence of a rather dim young teenager, was acquitted only because his loyal fiancée spotted the villainous witness she had seen from the public gallery unwisely revisiting the murder premises, together with some help from a very open-minded police officer who rather fancied her.
Paddy enjoyed every twist and turn. At the end, he stirred the dregs of the red wine by moving his glass round and looked at me. ‘Be difficult nowadays, wouldn’t it?’ he said. ‘What would be?’ I asked. ‘Making this film. I mean, it depends on the murderer giving evidence and that troubled child getting it all wrong.’ Spotting a second bottle of red wine on my shelf, this time a claret of a distinguished vintage, and before I could move it quickly out of harm’s way, Paddy had plunged the corkscrew into the cork and I realised a long night was ahead.
Sitting back on my sofa and producing a huge cigar, Paddy continued: ‘Nowadays, the murderer could shelter behind a courtroom curtain on the basis his testimony would then be more effective. You bet! And because the teenager is obviously vulnerable we would quite properly hear her evidence in-chief on video followed by a cross-examination with pre-constructed judicially approved questions, such as: “Mr Gordon says you didn’t see him coming out of the door that night. Is Mr Gordon telling the truth?” And that wonderful chase-scene when the police capture the true murderer and instead of saying “you’re nicked” would have to have said “you are under arrest. You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence,” whilst all the actors froze. The fiancée would not have recognised the murderer later anyway because she would never from the public gallery have seen him give evidence in the first place and anyway would probably have been asleep from boredom.’
There is no doubt that our well-meant changes have altered fundamental elements of the criminal trial. Some changes were statutory, others procedural and yet more involved interpretation of the law by the judiciary. The visitor from the 1950s would not only fail to recognise the trial system, but, in most trials, would not even be able to see crucial parts of them. There is a chilling effect. It starts at ‘Security’ on entering the building. It often ends in a complex sentencing phase involving voluminous sentencing guidelines and the judge having to gas incomprehensibly for half an hour before the poor miscreant even realises his fate. The combined effect is to push the public further and further away from seeing and understanding the process.
Dear Paddy: perceptive as always… Wouldn’t do to tell him though, so I just said: ‘Give me a puff on your Montecristo, you old soak!’
Have we disconnected our legal system from the people?
Sam Townend KC explains the Bar Council’s efforts towards ensuring a bright future for the profession
Giovanni D’Avola explores the issue of over-citation of unreported cases and the ‘added value’ elements of a law report
Louise Crush explores the key points and opportunities for tax efficiency
Westgate Wealth Management Ltd is a Partner Practice of FTSE 100 company St. James’s Place – one of the top UK Wealth Management firms. We offer a holistic service of distinct quality, integrity, and excellence with the aim to build a professional and valuable relationship with our clients, helping to provide them with security now, prosperity in the future and the highest standard of service in all of our dealings.
Is now the time to review your financial position, having reached a career milestone? asks Louise Crush
If you were to host a dinner party with 10 guests, and you asked them to explain what financial planning is and how it differs to financial advice, you’d receive 10 different answers. The variety of answers highlights the ongoing need to clarify and promote the value of financial planning.
On the 50th anniversary of the pub bombings, even now it is still unresolved. Chris Mullin, the journalist and former MP who led the campaign leading to the release of the Birmingham Six, looks back at events
Adele Akers’ reflections on health and wellbeing support at the very junior end of the Bar
Not one to say, ‘I told you so,’ Sam Thomas continues his cyber series with the key learnings from the major supply chain attack affecting 80 law firms and at least one set of chambers at the end of 2023
One year on and the Court of Appeal fails to quash convictions after receiving evidence of racism in the jury room, and there are still no revisions to the Equal Treatment Bench Book , says Keir Monteith KC
Increasing sophistication and frequency of attacks have led many chambers to ask ‘when’ not ‘if’ they will suffer a cyber incident. Simon Davis sets out the factors to consider when renewing your cyber cover