JUSTICE OPINION

There have been some interesting commentaries on the justice system this week.  In Peru we had the sort of action I believe is common in America - the two British girls charged with drugs smuggling have been protesting their innocence in court, but, with the prospect of 15 years in prison, were advised to plead guilty and receive a mere 6 years sentence.  This says nothing about their guilt or innocence of course, but merely that the local justice system is punitive.

In the UK, we are less punitive in this way.  But there remain anomalies.  Voting rights for prisoners is one.  Although a recent decision in Parliament was not to afford voting rights to prisoners, that decision is now being re-examined.  It is generally acceptable here that those convicted of a crime may be incarcerated (not quite as readily as in the US).  But it does seem inequitable that, if you have a penal system based on rehabilitation, as we have here, you should deny prisoners access to basic rights throughout the process of their return to society.  The possibility of restoring voting rights towards the end of a sentence is now being considered.  This makes good sense, although one has to accept that the voting pattern of prisoners may not be in line with patterns throughout the country.  The world is divided on this question.  US State legislatures have also taken differing views.  What public opinion may make of the new proposal is to be seen; one possibility may well be that the public will see crimes as lying on some sort of scale of awfulness - it may be OK for burglars to vote, although maybe not child killers.  But I like that there is a debate.

With the death of the notorious/famous gangster Ronnie Biggs, the media has been replaying his life and some of his public statements.  One that struck me was from while he had been on the run 12 years (I think) after he had escaped from prison.  He was asked whether he didn't feel that he ought to return to UK to finish his prison sentence.  'No,' he said.  'The aim of incarceration is rehabilitation.  I have been living outside of prison for 12 years during which time I have committed no crime of any sort.  I am therefore completely rehabilitated and have no need to return to prison.'  Good point!  Would that more criminals could achieve rehabilitation without the cost to the State of their incarceration.

One issue which seems to raise people's blood pressure more than others is that of MPs' or Lords' parliamentary expenses.  There have been a number of criminal convictions now of members who made false statements in order to claim expenses.  This is as it should be and should satisfy the public that such matters are properly policed.  But recent cases of Lords attending the House for 30 minutes and thus claiming an attendance allowance has caused further ire.  I just wanted to say that actually, however mean you might think this practice to be, it is not illegal.  If you attend your place of work, you are entitled to the payments due from that attendance.  Until the rules are rewritten or laws passed, even if it seems that 30 mins is an unacceptable length for a working day, it is the rules not the members' practices that are at fault.  One member of the public interviewed on this subject, however, was so incensed that he demanded that all Lords should be sacked - thus effectively destroying any reasonable argument there might be for doing something about this situation.  He then compounded his irrational outburst by saying that 'they only do the job for the money.'  Er, yes, that's the general idea of employment.

Clearly, MPs and Lords have a lot of PR work to do.  But also I do find interesting this apparent view that our actions should not only be legal, but also fair and perhaps moral.  There is currently no way for the courts to consider such a concept, but nor do I believe that all we humans behave all the time in such an equitable way.  But maybe we should try to bring more of this moral consideration into the justice system.  Perhaps we could start with sentencing.  I was fascinated that the police managed to persuade the courts that the Great Train Robbers, Biggs included, should be given prison terms of up to 25 years.  This was pure vindictiveness on the part of the police, at a time when more serious crimes received lesser sentences (or am I constructing my own scale of awfulness?).  Or perhaps the sentences were a message to the criminal underworld that we frown on organised crime.  But this was a crime unique, or perhaps just of its time, in that no guns were used.  25 years for an unarmed robbery was not a good message to criminals though even then and the justice system did not in that case appear to have considered for example that the robbers might have tried to minimise injuries and have been less brutal than say a mugger or a rapist.

Finally, I can't finish this piece without a comment on the Charles Saatchi case.  Two employees of the Saatchis (Charles and Nigella Lawson) were on trial accused of stealing or misusing several hundred thousand pounds from Charles' bank account.  The defence case was that Nigella Lawson had condoned the theft of Charles' money in exchange for their concealing her drug use.  In these unusual circumstances, although Nigella was not charged with any offence, indeed although it was the employees who were on trial and she was a witness for the prosecution, the judge permitted her cross-examination.  The net result is that the only details of the trial that emerged were the employees' unsubstantiated allegations of Nigella's lifestyle and their criticism of her household management and her childminding abilities.  I am appalled.  Nigella denies the allegations of course.  But, even were the allegations true, no proof has been offered to the court; as far as I know, Nigella has committed no crime; and an opinion poll seems to have found that the public are still content that Nigella's alleged lifestyle is acceptable.  Yet Nigella's life has been pulled apart in the media, through no fault of her own (arguably) and hardly anything has been said about the accused's dissolute lifestyle.  The jury has decided to accept the word of two women who clearly dipped freely into Charles Saatchi's bank account to treat themselves to holidays and expensive clothes, which, whether condoned or not, is entirely irrelevant to their employment, two women who claim that they were in effect paid off to conceal evidence ie allowed to commit a crime by dissembling to their employer and keeping a confidence which they have now anyway broken, and who one might say have now revealed their true characters by selling their stories immediately to the media, no doubt aiming further to justify their nefarious activities and blacken further the name of a woman who has been neither accused nor convicted, nor given the opportunity to defend herself.  This seems to be the opposite of fairness in court.  The justice system has done itself no good in my eyes today.

GUILT EDGE

I am fascinated by recent developments which give a complex, multi-layered picture of what we understand by criminal culpability and how we deal with it.  At one time it was a clear, and praiseworthy, feature of British justice that one was innocent until proven guilty.  Once proven guilty, the whole weight of British justice would fall on your head.  Yet I also thought that one was accepted back into society once punished and rehabilitated.  But these days we seem to hold slightly different views of these things.

The first case that raised questions in my mind was (is) that of Abu Qatada.  For those that don't know the case, he has been imprisoned many times in the UK in recent years for inciting racial hatred.  He is a Jordanian, living in Britain somehow, almost universally reviled and not wanted here by anyone I think.  Yet somehow we seem unable to do anything about his presence.  He has now been convicted in absentia in Jordan of terrorism crimes and they wish him to be deported to Jordan for imprisonment.  But we seem unable to deport him either, thanks to the silly European Court.  He is currently at liberty on bail and pursuing appeals through the courts.  I don't understand what he is doing in this country, but, on the other hand, however horrible a man he is, he has been convicted of no criminal offence here.  We seem to be determined to get rid of him (once the courts have lumbered through the judicial process), but somehow his guilt here has built up mostly through the media and Government statements.  The European Courts may not be so silly.  But none the less, he is convicted in his own country and should not still be at large here.

Given the above case, the case of Christopher Tappin is even more curious.  He is wanted for trial in America for allegedly selling batteries to Iran (which might have been used on missiles).  He denies the charge, but, as with Jordan, we have an extradition agreement with the US which means that, in this case, as requested, we extradited Tappin to America.  What I find difficult about this case is that Tappin is likely to be kept in an American prison for up to 2 years while his case comes before the courts.  This although he is presumed innocent (presumably).  And in this case, for some reason, the European Court refused to become involved (perhaps his being European made him less interesting to them?).  He has now been released on bail pending trial on payment of $1m - quite a sum for an innocent foreigner.  Or does the question of aiding Iran's nuclear missile programme carry more weight than his innocence?

Of more immediate currency here is the continuing News of the World saga.  When Mr Murdoch was the most influential media mogul in Britain, politicians were falling over themselves to meet him at parties or to invite his henchmen to private meals.  Such contacts can be traced back over the last 4 Governments.  Yet, now his star is in the descendant, the current media MInister (and even the PM) are under attack for their closeness to him.  The Labour leader said of the Minister, 'It beggars belief that he is still in his job'.  But it's not entirely clear to me where his guilt lies.  His office sent e-mails keeping Murdoch informed of progress on media decisions affecting him.  That seems no worse than speaking to him at a party or telephoning him, as previous PM's have done.  But there we are, I guess the Minister will have to bow to pressure and leave his job eventually, whether he is guilty of anything or not. 

Finally, on a different level, there is, pre-Olympics, a debate about the British lifetime ban on drugs cheats.  When they are caught, drug-using athletes always become contrite and often set up campaigns to help prevent other athletes making the same mistakes they made.  All very commendable.  But does this enforced change of heart mean that they are rehabilitated and should be forgiven and invited back into the British team?  I'm not so sure.  For once the rapid rehabilitation fails to impress me.  Yet how does that square with my view that rehabilitation is the aim?  Are drug cheats in sport more guilty than say a murderer that has completed his sentence? 

Clearly there is more to innocence and guilt than I used to think.  Do media and political campaigns sway my views or do they simply help increase the sense of guilt in the accused?  Should we continue to want to be shot of Abu Qatada because he is a nasty man (according to whom?  I've never met him, have you?)?  And should the British Olympic team welcome back the drug cheats, because actually they are all nice people? 

Who is guilty of what here?

WHISTLES, TRUMPETS AND HORNS

There have been interesting developments lately involving secrecy.  I give some of my time to the local District Council, by chairing a committee which examines complaints against Councillors.  Of course, I start from the position that the Councillor is not guilty unless proven otherwise.  But it wouldn’t occur to me to look critically at the complainant for revealing sensitive information about the activities of the Council or the proceedings of the committee on which he sits.  In fact, when we wrote our Code of Conduct some while ago, we inserted a clause which says that we will respect and not punish whistleblowers, or something along those lines.

The situation in America seems to be becoming less tolerant than that.  Of course, terrorism has become the new neurosis.  But there have been a number of cases recently of investigation of citizens for espionage or inappropriate use of position or ‘exceeding authority’, etc, when what they have actually done is shed some light on the hidden activities of the administration.  This smacks a little of authoritarianism, if not guilt.  I do believe that there should be some limits on such revelations, but I also think we should know what our democratically elected representatives are actually doing.  This illiberal trend certainly won’t help the case of Bradley Manning.  I don’t expect him to be given the death sentence, but I don’t suppose the ‘no criminal intent’ defence will get him off either.

In this country, at another level, we had the fascinating period of the super-injunction, when celebs (mostly footballers it seemed) would obtain a court order preventing anyone (usually the press and a woman they’d shagged) from saying anything in public about their nefarious activities.  The justification was that disclosure would harm their family life, as though it was the whistleblower that caused the harm, rather than the shagger himself.  What was really interesting was that the press were not even permitted to reveal that a super-injunction had been granted.  That too was secret.  I think all that has stopped now.  But, who knows?  I haven’t been told.

One of these cases sort of came to court the other day, when the subject of a super-injunction had to apologise for words spoken about the object of a super-injunction.  We’re not allowed to know that there was a super-injunction of course.  Isn’t the law wonderful?!  So we’re not to know the name of the footballer (or it might have been a film star or a politician) who was granted the super-injunction, but because he said some disparaging words about the alleged object of the super-injunction, he was taken to court and had to apologise publicly, even though there might not have been a super-injunction.  Are you with me so far?  In court, the shaggee was known as ‘CTB’ to protect her identity and the shagger was known as ‘RJG’ to protect his family.  After the case, Imogen Thomas made a public statement outside the court saying that she was relieved (which was probably the point of the alleged incident in the first place) and vindicated, but of course couldn’t say who she was or what she was relieved about.  The press then reported the whole story with the real names of those involved (since there is no injunction on this subsequent case).  Well, at least secrecy was maintained, the super-injunction wasn’t broken and Ryan Giggs name didn’t come out as the shagger in the woodpile.

We have also seen the US military withdraw from Iraq.  No secrecy was involved here of course, but one interesting outcome of all the secrecy that had gone before was that the military had signally failed to win over hearts and minds, which, as we all know, is the second most important role of the military overseas.  The debate about whether we should have invaded Iraq or whether the cost was worthwhile I leave to history.  But, since they have been in Iraq, the US has improved electricity generation and transmission, improved irrigation and drainage and increased the amount of land under agriculture, created a new sewage collection and treatment system, increased civil aviation capacity and upgraded airports, repaired the fibre-optic network and built a new telephone exchange, increased oil production and reduced import dependence, built prisons, barracks, entry points, and equipped and trained the military, security forces and police, not to mention establishing local administrative committees and democratic elections.  It’s not perfect, but it’s not a bad state to leave the country in. 

But somehow this information has not permeated down to the Iraqi population.  If there’s one thing that needed not to be kept secret, surely it was this.  Now's the chance to get Wikileaks to leaflet the population.  Ask any Iraqi what they think about the US withdrawing and they will say ‘good riddance’, ‘they didn’t do anything for us, except maybe kill my brother’, ‘things were better under Saddam’, etc.  What a waste.  All that expense and cost and all that has been created is resentment and maybe hatred.  If ever there was a need for whistleblowers!  Or at least blowing one’s own trumpet.  Or is it tooting one’s own horn?

GAGS OFF

I shall try not to say, ‘PC gone mad’.  Oh, I just said it.  Anyway the fact is that PC is mad, so technically it can only go madder (though not in fact possible) or saner.  Can the latter at last be happening?  Is there finally a non-PC backlash?

I did wonder this the other day when there was the outcry about Frankie Boyle who likes to attack taboos with his humour.  Personally, I don’t find much of this stuff funny and so it does come across as tasteless and gratuitous.  It’s outrageous and insulting to specific persons, but not, I think, wit.  Maybe it’s also rather lazy, puerile writing.  It reminds me of when I was at school and we used to tell jokes like, ‘why did the leper lose at poker?’*  I’m not even always sure about Michael McIntyre who occasionally raises a laugh by slating someone/thing just for effect (rather than for real humour).  But I accept that many people like this.  It is in any case often the way stand-up is.  And I have always appreciated comedians like Joan Rivers or Ruby Wax who rarely take prisoners (but who I think are consistently funny too). 

And humour has fashions, like anything else.  Maybe there is no place these days for the comedians of yore (although I though the Christmas Ronnie programme was pretty popular.) (Perhaps that was only amongst the older population?).  But maybe attitudes have fashion too?  Has the PC approach had its day?

A propos my last post, I imagine for example that the BBC will be careful to find good reasons in future why it is appointing certain persons as presenters.  It won’t necessarily flood our screens with old people.  That case rather goes against the trend, except that in their final judgement, the tribunal also criticised the BBC for being obsessed with recruiting ethnic minorities.  Maybe that misguided policy will change too?  But hopefully with selection of the best candidates, rather than some extension of the present positive discrimination.

Anyway I was much encouraged by former Home Secretary Jack Straw’s comments on Pakistani gangs.  I have always thought quite a lot of him and his willingness to say ‘Pakistani’ earned him much respect from me (since that’s what they are).  You can read the position of the police here.  This reticence was understandable, if palpable nonsense.

I wondered too if the present government was detecting a mood for greater incorrectness, or whether it just wished to start a movement to break down the sillier aspects of correctness, when it stated in the Education White Paper last month that it wished to increase teacher authority in schools.  I think even parents have had enough of this ludicrous situation where teachers have to put up with abuse because they can’t punish pupils without breaking some over-hyped code.

Next, it would be nice to see a few more infringement of rights cases thrown out by the courts.  Especially those brought by women who never seem arsed to do any work, but winge loudly on their mobiles about how badly done by they are as they go down the shops to buy fags, diet Coke and undersized underwear and then fall over steps they can't see under their bellies.  Oh, am I allowed to say all that?

*  because he threw in his hand.