So, the two Thai fishermen responsible for the rape and murder of Katherine Horton on New Year’s Day 2006 have been sentenced to death.

It has been customary in those jurisdictions were the death penalty remains, for the ultimate sentence to be reduced to one of a life sentence were the crime is admitted and a guilty plea entered at Court.  In fact, the principle of a routine reduction of sentence upon admissions being made and/or guilty plea being entered is common to many jurisdictions for many crimes, both serious and minor.  A spokeswoman for Amnesty International, Sarah Green was reported to be “disturbed” that the death sentence had been passed upon the two men, Bualoi Posit and Wichai Somkhaoyai.

It is very disturbing.  Leaving aside the indecent haste with which the whole trial process proceeded, it is very likely that the defendants were persuaded to enter guilty pleas for the sole purpose of avoiding the death sentence in the event their “not guilty plea” failed at trial.  The intervention of the Prime Minister of Thailand, Mr Thaksin Shinawatra could not have been helpful[1].

No one can be criticised for drawing the conclusion that the death sentence was imposed for the sole purpose of protecting the tourist industry and had nothing to do with the perceived seriousness of the crimes committed.  This is a case of Justice clearly not being seen to be done.[2] 

I have been deeply disturbed by the case of Paul Reeve, the teacher whose appointment was authorised by a Minister, notwithstanding having been cautioned for an alleged offence relating to viewing pornographic sites containing unlawful pictures of under age children. 

Let me state at the outset that I endorse many of the comments of  Matthew Parris  in The Times (14.01.06) and Simon Jenkins in The Sunday Times (15.01.06). 

The problem I have is this. Given the nature of Mr Reeve’s “offending” I do not see anything wrong with his appointment having been approved after careful vetting by a Minister of the Crown.  I understand how the public furore came to be and why the Government has found itself in hot water over the issue.  However, save for the inadvisable act of allegedly viewing child pornography, following his caution being administered by the Police, Mr Reeve’s behaviour has been, to all accounts, blameless. 

The exact details of Mr Reeve’s offending are not known; save that following his credit card details being associated with a child porn web site (as a result of Operation Ore) he accepted a caution from the Police. 

The Police have strict guidelines as regards whether a suspect should be offered a caution rather than being prosecuted.  Factors taken into account include the offender’s previous good character but more importantly the seriousness of the offence involved.  A caution is not given where the offence might merit a term of imprisonment.  This leads me to the irresistible conclusion that the “child porn” that Mr Reeve admitted to viewing was very tame.[1] 

The caution system is very useful in enabling the Police to dispose quickly of cases where the miscreant is “banged to rights” and has admitted the offence.  Having said that, it is my experience that unfortunately people sometimes accept a caution in circumstances where they have a triable defence but wish to avoid publicity and the embarrassment of a trial.[2]  In Mr Reeve’s case it is easy to understand how he might have accepted a caution “just to get the matter over with”. 

As Mr Reeve is now a “sex offender”, he is deemed to be a risk to children.  On the known facts the risk that he poses must be so tiny or theoretical that in fairness he should not be barred from teaching children. Thus it was right that his case was carefully vetted and that he was cleared to continue teaching children. The decision of the then junior education minister Kim Howells was unimpeachable.[3] 

Much is made of the myth peddled by the Child Protection Industry that all sex offenders work their way up from viewing porn to actually abusing children.  This is such dangerous nonsense.  In the present climate, all cases must be considered upon their own facts, otherwise injustice results.