You may have guessed from reading some of the items on this blog that David Blunkett is no longer on my Christmas card list. He seems to be able to come up with some of the most ludicrous statements. This example taken from the Home Office website
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1113
Blunkett is referring to the Order laid before Parliament 25th October 2004, which would “help make a defendant’s previous convictions admissible evidence in criminal trials, if the defendant has a previous conviction that falls within the same category as the offence with which he is charged.”
He adds "These reforms put victims at the heart of the justice system"
Blunkett’s idea that he can only put victims at the “heart of the justice system” by removing rights from defendants is preposterous. What victims need first is a fighting chance that those who commit crimes are arrested. The clear-up rates of most offences that cause more aggravation are frighteningly low. And that is so even though the Treasury seem to have an inexhaustible cash pile to pay for anything marked “getting them locked up” Secondly, if they are victims of violence, they are entitled to proper compensation for their injuries. There used to be a generous system operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Before 2001,The Board were instructed to value a claim as if the injuries had been caused in an industrial accident. In the latest 2001 Scheme it’s simply a question of looking at a table, running your finger along the box and reading off the compensation. Most lawyers involved in assisting clients in these claims consider the scheme designed to put off claimants. Should an applicant manage to get their claim considered the compensation awarded is miserly.
And finally, should a victim have to give evidence at court, he or she must have maximum assistance. Most Victims’ Support Groups are funded almost entirely by voluntary donations.
Then Blunkett continues:
"Trials should be a search for the truth and juries should be trusted with all the relevant evidence available to help them to reach proper and fair decisions."
The English criminal trial, unlike that in say France or Spain or even Scotland, has never been a “search for the truth”. Unlike the juge d’instruction in France, judges or magistrates in England play virtually no active role in the trial process. They are umpires or referees who hold the ring. The prosecution’s role is to prove the guilt of the defendant to the jury using all the admissible evidence available to them. The defence must simply raise a reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind. They do not have to prove the accused innocent. The judge has no role deciding what evidence either side calls. His role in this area is restricted simply to deciding what evidence should go before the jury. Is the evidence admissible? Is the evidence reliable?
In France, the juge d’instruction controls the evidence from the arrest of the accused. He decides which witnesses the police arrest, and he and his assistants question those witnesses. It is a search for the truth. Members of the House of Lords Joint Human Rights Committee discuss with Lord Carlile of Berriew the possible role of a juge d’instruction under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 in terrorist cases.
If it is indeed Blunkett’s desire to convert the English criminal trial into a search for the truth the present architecture is simply inappropriate.
Cheers
t
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/n_story.asp?item_id=1113
Blunkett is referring to the Order laid before Parliament 25th October 2004, which would “help make a defendant’s previous convictions admissible evidence in criminal trials, if the defendant has a previous conviction that falls within the same category as the offence with which he is charged.”
He adds "These reforms put victims at the heart of the justice system"
Blunkett’s idea that he can only put victims at the “heart of the justice system” by removing rights from defendants is preposterous. What victims need first is a fighting chance that those who commit crimes are arrested. The clear-up rates of most offences that cause more aggravation are frighteningly low. And that is so even though the Treasury seem to have an inexhaustible cash pile to pay for anything marked “getting them locked up” Secondly, if they are victims of violence, they are entitled to proper compensation for their injuries. There used to be a generous system operated by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.
Before 2001,The Board were instructed to value a claim as if the injuries had been caused in an industrial accident. In the latest 2001 Scheme it’s simply a question of looking at a table, running your finger along the box and reading off the compensation. Most lawyers involved in assisting clients in these claims consider the scheme designed to put off claimants. Should an applicant manage to get their claim considered the compensation awarded is miserly.
And finally, should a victim have to give evidence at court, he or she must have maximum assistance. Most Victims’ Support Groups are funded almost entirely by voluntary donations.
Then Blunkett continues:
"Trials should be a search for the truth and juries should be trusted with all the relevant evidence available to help them to reach proper and fair decisions."
The English criminal trial, unlike that in say France or Spain or even Scotland, has never been a “search for the truth”. Unlike the juge d’instruction in France, judges or magistrates in England play virtually no active role in the trial process. They are umpires or referees who hold the ring. The prosecution’s role is to prove the guilt of the defendant to the jury using all the admissible evidence available to them. The defence must simply raise a reasonable doubt in the jury’s mind. They do not have to prove the accused innocent. The judge has no role deciding what evidence either side calls. His role in this area is restricted simply to deciding what evidence should go before the jury. Is the evidence admissible? Is the evidence reliable?
In France, the juge d’instruction controls the evidence from the arrest of the accused. He decides which witnesses the police arrest, and he and his assistants question those witnesses. It is a search for the truth. Members of the House of Lords Joint Human Rights Committee discuss with Lord Carlile of Berriew the possible role of a juge d’instruction under the provisions of the Anti-Terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 in terrorist cases.
If it is indeed Blunkett’s desire to convert the English criminal trial into a search for the truth the present architecture is simply inappropriate.
Cheers
t
Comments