"The Banner" is the Newsletter of the Socialist Civil Liberties Association               Page Four

 
     

TO > Page 1 - Page 2 - Page 3 - Page 4 - Page 5 - Page 6 - Page 7 - Page 8 - Page 9  - Page 10 - Page 11 - Page 12

Queen’s Speech  Criminal Justice 

November 2002  SOCLA acknowledges the Government’s drive to reduce crime and civil disorder, by addressing both its causes and its manifestations.

Penalty Notices  The extension of fixed-penalty notices for minor offences has the potential to strengthen law enforcement and improve the effectiveness of local Police forces, although there must be effective statutory constraints upon their oppressive deployment, and upon Police corruption.

Double Jeopardy  Scientific advances do call for a revision of the “double jeopardy” rule, which has traditionally prevented the re-trial of any accused following an initial acquittal. Subject to retention of the strictest constraints upon such re-trials, SoCLA acknowledges that reform of the double-jeopardy rule has the potential to strengthen public confidence in the administration of justice.

Victims and Witnesses  SoCLA welcomes Government proposals to improve the support and recognition given to the victims of crime; indeed, it was Labour that pioneered criminal injuries compensation, and Labour has always shown a keen understanding of the stresses imposed by the judicial system both on victims and witnesses.  SoCLA shares the position of LIBERTY in this matter.  It is vital to the standing of the Courts and the authority of their verdicts that all participating citizens meet with sympathy and concern, and their voices heard.

     

 

Hearsay   Further, there are sound reasons for reconsidering the operation of the Hearsay Rule, and  SoCLA will support appropriate reform. 

However, other proposed changes raise different issues.

Jury trial is a treasured institution of our participatory democracy, enabling ordinary citizens to play an active part in the governance of their society. It would be wrong to seek the curtailment of jury-trial either (a) because of threats of juror intimidation or (b) because of the deemed complexity of cases to be adjudged.  Both problems, where they arise, are capable of appropriate management and should be so managed. These changes would further alienate citizens from the processes of civic governance, and would represent an impoverishment of our civic society.  Public confidence in the administration of justice, far from being enhanced, would be diminished.

Personal “record” as evidence  In the UK, the law has always required prosecuting authorities both to rely on evidence of the specific alleged crime and to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.  These principles operate to maintain, in the day-to-day administration of criminal justice, the balance of a fair trial. Only in very exceptional cases is the Prosecution permitted to rely on the personal prior record of the accused.  Those exceptions are long-established and well-understood.  It would be wrong to extend them, by allowing trial judges to permit the disclosure of records where the specific evidence is unconvincing. The balance of fair trial would be disturbed by the proposed reforms.  They should not be enacted.

 
 

This is a pioneering Web-to-print intitiative from SoCLA                            >>> Page Six