Instant Justice

As with the recent “Respect” nonsense from the right dishonourable Tony Blair, the latest populist twaddle is being criticised in the blogsphere. Instant justice sounds fine and dandy until you stop just for a nanosecond to consider the implications of such a concept. It doesn’t take more than that for a reasonable person to get it. Apart from the odd exception...

On the News at six o’clock yesterday evening a magistrate talked of concerns about due process and her role in these matters – it will be removed. Now, just pause and consider… A petty crime (whatever that may be) is investigated by the police. Under the present arrangements they take their case to the Crown Prosecution Service who will then decide whether they have sufficient evidence to prosecute. If so, they place that evidence before the scrutiny of the court. The court has no interest in such matters as clear-up rates or statistics. The court is concerned only with the evidence placed before it. The defendant is judged accordingly; by an independent body with no other consideration than the guilt or innocence of the defendant based upon examination of that evidence. The court then decides upon the appropriate penalty in the event of a guilty verdict or the defendant pleading guilty. And that is how it should be. If the guilty go free, it is because the CPS and police failed to furnish sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

Now Blair wishes to undermine this principle. Lawyers are concerned:

PLANS for “instant justice” under which thousands of petty offences will be diverted from the courts will put innocent people under pressure to plead guilty, lawyers said yesterday.

The plans, which have the backing of Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, would involve thousands of offenders being punished by prosecutors, in consultation with police, instead of going before magistrates.

I’m not surprised. After all, it will be in the interests of the CPS and police to persuade defendants to plead guilty and accept the summary justice metered out. It saves time, saves cost and won’t it do wonders for their clear-up rates?

While I understand that low level cases may well clog up the system and that a more streamlined one may be appropriate, the idea of turning the police and CPS into judge, jury and executioner is fatally flawed. I understand what Lord Goldsmith is driving at; these people will have admitted guilt, so therefore it is only the penalty that the CPS lawyers and police will be deciding. Unfortunately, that is just too utopian. In the real world things will pan out somewhat differently. Doesn’t the prime minister understand the concept of conflict of interest?

Rhetorical question….