I very much agree with your esteemed earlier contributors, Joshua.
As to unlawful homicides I have long believed and maintained, sometimes to the outrage of friends and wider groupings, that sentences for ALL such offences should be AT LARGE, by way quite likely of the Law Commission’s detailed recommendations, with our finally, finally waving “goodbye” to the SO OFTEN largely artificial distinctions drawn between murder and manslaughter according to the perceived inappropriateness of a mandatory life sentence in all the extenuating circumstances . There would surely then be a way clear to afford clear and measured scope to assisted suicide cases, where there has - surely?- existed the temptation to stretch a point and arrive tenuously at a diminished responsibility part- defence when common mercy and justice had demanded it.
As to the Chief Inspector’s claim that there has been - on the most charitable interpretation- careless overuse of the word “consultation” I am with him. I do strongly believe that building up victims’ (illegitimate and exaggerated) expectations of their role has been too often a political - and indeed a party political - calculation by those who ought to have known better. Give - or allow- victims to assume that they are entitled to a conclusive “say” on sentence and they and their family and supporters will all the more complain of the system concentrating upon fairness for the offender at the expense of the victim. The US model is deeply disturbing and we must all surely resist its siren voice.
I am shocked, Joshua, that the BBC as still professedly THE public service broadcaster should have failed to recommission Law in Action. Its inherent public interest value remains when one hears and reads of Parliamentarians’ genuine misunderstandings of even the most basic concepts and purpose of our justice system. Little wonder with also the so often malign and illiberal media coverage that the public showered with so many misconceptions become yet worse informed or even more misinformed. From very early days I firmly contend that a factual and well grounded knowledge of it should feature in our education system. In all immodesty, I have been trying better to inform my own constituency MP who in fairness was and remains receptive. Joshua over that programme, over “A lawyer writes” and in so many respects these many years we owe you a great deal. I am sure that will continue to be the case for a long time yet. Thank you!
Far from Law in Action being jettisoned by the BBC, they would be well advised to seek a wider audience for its content by finding a suitable format for it to be televised. With all the fake news permeating modern life, there has surely never been a greater need for factual programmes that explore and explain how our institutions work, or sometimes fail to work, for our society and its citizens. My thanks, Joshua, to you and your colleagues on the programme for all you have done down the years to shed light on the workings of the justice system.
Excellent article as ever. You cannot but help feel for the families of those killed by Calocane but your point is spot on. Politicians, obviously with one eye on America, have tried to suggest that victims have a role that they do not, and have never, occupied. Prosecutions are in the name of the King for a reason. Ironically, given the way that US DA's hug the victims during a press conference saying they will bring hell and brimstone down, one of the best explanations of this I heard was from a US attorney. He pointed out prosecutions were by "The People" not "the person". That the state needs to take half a step back. It is challenging for victims to know that, but political narratives that victims are "at the heart of the criminal justice system" does not help because they can't be.
I can't believe that the Law Commission report will be implemented. There will not be legislative time this Parliament, and Labour will have other priorities when they (it would appear) are returned. Parliament hasn't done anything on this for 18 years.
I know you are a journalist, and obviously are excluded from this next bit, but a lot of the media have not helped matters either. There has been a sense in some papers that diminished responsibility is somehow novel (and not existed for nearly 70 years in England and well nearly 200 in Scotland). There is the sense that manslaughter somehow means that a person "gets off", which simply isn't true. I think the problem is that there are very few legally-trained journalists who are allowed to occupy a 'justice brief' in the way that you have done so successfully over the years.
We await the s.36 ruling but it is difficult to believe the CACD will interfere unless they decide to shift on s.45A (either-way, it will be useful to have the application of s.45A clarified).
I very much agree with your esteemed earlier contributors, Joshua.
As to unlawful homicides I have long believed and maintained, sometimes to the outrage of friends and wider groupings, that sentences for ALL such offences should be AT LARGE, by way quite likely of the Law Commission’s detailed recommendations, with our finally, finally waving “goodbye” to the SO OFTEN largely artificial distinctions drawn between murder and manslaughter according to the perceived inappropriateness of a mandatory life sentence in all the extenuating circumstances . There would surely then be a way clear to afford clear and measured scope to assisted suicide cases, where there has - surely?- existed the temptation to stretch a point and arrive tenuously at a diminished responsibility part- defence when common mercy and justice had demanded it.
As to the Chief Inspector’s claim that there has been - on the most charitable interpretation- careless overuse of the word “consultation” I am with him. I do strongly believe that building up victims’ (illegitimate and exaggerated) expectations of their role has been too often a political - and indeed a party political - calculation by those who ought to have known better. Give - or allow- victims to assume that they are entitled to a conclusive “say” on sentence and they and their family and supporters will all the more complain of the system concentrating upon fairness for the offender at the expense of the victim. The US model is deeply disturbing and we must all surely resist its siren voice.
I am shocked, Joshua, that the BBC as still professedly THE public service broadcaster should have failed to recommission Law in Action. Its inherent public interest value remains when one hears and reads of Parliamentarians’ genuine misunderstandings of even the most basic concepts and purpose of our justice system. Little wonder with also the so often malign and illiberal media coverage that the public showered with so many misconceptions become yet worse informed or even more misinformed. From very early days I firmly contend that a factual and well grounded knowledge of it should feature in our education system. In all immodesty, I have been trying better to inform my own constituency MP who in fairness was and remains receptive. Joshua over that programme, over “A lawyer writes” and in so many respects these many years we owe you a great deal. I am sure that will continue to be the case for a long time yet. Thank you!
Far from Law in Action being jettisoned by the BBC, they would be well advised to seek a wider audience for its content by finding a suitable format for it to be televised. With all the fake news permeating modern life, there has surely never been a greater need for factual programmes that explore and explain how our institutions work, or sometimes fail to work, for our society and its citizens. My thanks, Joshua, to you and your colleagues on the programme for all you have done down the years to shed light on the workings of the justice system.
Excellent article as ever. You cannot but help feel for the families of those killed by Calocane but your point is spot on. Politicians, obviously with one eye on America, have tried to suggest that victims have a role that they do not, and have never, occupied. Prosecutions are in the name of the King for a reason. Ironically, given the way that US DA's hug the victims during a press conference saying they will bring hell and brimstone down, one of the best explanations of this I heard was from a US attorney. He pointed out prosecutions were by "The People" not "the person". That the state needs to take half a step back. It is challenging for victims to know that, but political narratives that victims are "at the heart of the criminal justice system" does not help because they can't be.
I can't believe that the Law Commission report will be implemented. There will not be legislative time this Parliament, and Labour will have other priorities when they (it would appear) are returned. Parliament hasn't done anything on this for 18 years.
I know you are a journalist, and obviously are excluded from this next bit, but a lot of the media have not helped matters either. There has been a sense in some papers that diminished responsibility is somehow novel (and not existed for nearly 70 years in England and well nearly 200 in Scotland). There is the sense that manslaughter somehow means that a person "gets off", which simply isn't true. I think the problem is that there are very few legally-trained journalists who are allowed to occupy a 'justice brief' in the way that you have done so successfully over the years.
We await the s.36 ruling but it is difficult to believe the CACD will interfere unless they decide to shift on s.45A (either-way, it will be useful to have the application of s.45A clarified).