“The [ContactPoint] databases are a darkness at the heart of state; a belief that if we could just know everything about everybody, everything would work.”

Jenni Russell - Another invasion of liberty. And only the Tories are alert

“On Friday a BBC journalist announced on breakfast television that “a million children are being abused”.

Where do these figures come from? How do we know? Are we feeding the paranoia that stops a grandfather taking a picture of his nine-year-old grandson playing football? Surely this cannot continue. Someone needs to put things back on an even keel.”

Former Detective Chief Superintendent Chris Stevenson

Earlier in his article for The Times Mr Stevenson, the officer in charge of the Soham murder investigation, remarked,

“As a result of poor intelligence, [Ian] Huntley was appointed a school caretaker in Soham. Did that give him access to children? Yes, hundreds. Did he abuse them? No. In fact he reported to the head teacher that several teenage girls had made inappropriate comments. What Huntley did to Holly and Jessica was as bad as it gets, but did he come into contact with them through being a caretaker? Not exactly — he was caretaker of Soham Village College, a school for the over-11s. The two girls attended St Andrew’s Junior School. Different building, different caretaker. Huntley had contact with them because [his partner Maxine] Carr was employed at St Andrew’s as a classroom assistant. She worked in a class with Holly and Jessica, who both liked her. Holly’s mother sent Carr a box of chocolates on the last day of term to say thank you for helping her daughter.”

He concludes,

“How do we prevent such chance encounters happening? We can’t. No amount of legislation, record keeping or checking could prevent this type of crime completely. Thankfully it is extremely rare. Children are far more likely to be killed by a family member or on the roads.”

 Well now, we cannot have that sort of talk.  Something had to be done. Anything.

“But the incontinent expansion of the State’s reach degrades its grip. It undermines legitimacy, lowers confidence and breeds disregard. Twelve years of new Labour’s flabby-minded growth in the public sector, and the bloating of its claims on individuals’ lives, have begun to rot the whole idea of something the Left ought to believe in, and the Right do: society, and the public good.”

Matthew Parris

“The idea that freedom is merely the ability to act upon one’s whims is surely very thin and hardly begins to capture the complexities of human existence; a man whose appetite is his law strikes us not as liberated but enslaved.  And when such a narrowly conceived freedom is made the touchstone of public policy, a dissolution of society is bound to follow.  No culture that makes publicly sanctioned self-indulgence its highest good can long survive: a radical egotism is bound to ensue, in which any limitations upon personal behaviour are experienced as infringements of basic rights. Distinctions between the important and the trivial, between the freedom to criticize received ideas and the freedom to take LSD, are precisely the standards that keep societies from barbarism.”

Theodore Dalrymple

“One of the characteristics of those most determined on assisted suicides is that they are powerful personalities used to exercising total control — the polar opposite of those who would be the most likely victims of their campaign, were it to succeed. Purdy is quite typical, described in The Guardian as “a self-confessed adrenaline junkie who had revelled in travelling the world diving from planes, conquering mountains, trekking through jungles and exploring the depths of the oceans”.

You can see why such a personality cannot bear to contemplate the complete loss of control that her condition might impose. Debbie Purdy is, in so many ways, an admirable woman. Yet when I saw her declare last Thursday, “I feel like I have my life back”, my stomach heaved. It is a sick society that regards assisted suicide as an affirmation of life.”

Dominic Lawson

“Indulge me in some historical determinism. We, the peasants, are failing to rise up and embrace the need to change. We will not choose to give up modern life, with all its polluting seductions. Our intransigent refusal to choose green will be met by a new militancy from those who believe we must be saved from ourselves...”

Antonia Senior

During a recent dialogue concerning whether the United Kingdom should adopt a pluralistic legal system, Sheikh Faiz Siddiqi, founder of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal said,

“in a jurisdiction where rights are afforded to many mistresses and there is recognition of same-sex marriages, the idea of polygamy should not be so alien or distant.”

He is right, isn’t he?

Challenging debates remain on Islam and English law

“The state needs responsible, educated and above all free individuals to function properly, but that won't happen until the left ditches its reflex respect for the state and stops thinking simply in terms of power, edict and obedience.”

Henry Porter

The concept of bull fighting makes me feel very uncomfortable, but everyone to his own.  Giles Coren’s article in The Times this morning did amuse me however, particularly this passage,

 “You who are so quick to anthropomorphise the bull and weepily to share its pain, try reversing the process. Imagine not that the bull is a man, but that you are the bull. Imagine that you are given the choice between living to, say, 35 years of age, mostly in a shed, in massive single-sex groups, feeding on silage (prison is a fair comparison) and then queuing with your mates to die at the hand of a shaven-headed thug with a bolt gun . . .

 

Or then again, imagine living free in thousands of acres of land, eating whatever you want, shagging who you like, and then, when you are perhaps 70, being asked to fight to the death against a Spaniard in pink tights.”

“British law, which, while it has its flaws, is more developed and grounded in reality and fairness”

Zeinab Huq

I’ll give a religious court (of any persuasion) a miss, if you don’t mind

What a complete and utter disgrace.

“It would appear that the government has an agenda which is driven by the Association of Chief Police Officers. That involves neutralising an independent legal profession whose future role will be to stand by ticking boxes while people are rushed to conviction, whether innocent or not.”

Robin Murray

“We cannot refuse to be killed. With or without 42 days, there will be further attacks on London. But we can refuse to be terrorised. We should be building defences in our minds against terror. Rather than fuelling disproportionate, uninformed fear in pursuit of their police-powers agenda, the Government-should be educating people about the true nature of the threat. They should tell us that it is grave, but not devastating. They should acknowledge, for instance, that most so-called "weapons of mass destruction" are nothing of the sort.”

Andrew Gilligan

Terrorism: The Government has lost all sense of proportion and perspective

Mr Parris as prescient as ever, predicts the new scramble for Africa.

“A key inquiry into the Met's handling of the Stockwell shooting has been shelved for political reasons”

proclaims the Evening Standard  today.

As I understand the situation, the publication of the report has been merely delayed…again, rather than actually “shelved”.  Nevertheless, any suspicion that the Government or one of its agencies might be suppressing a report, even temporarily, must be more damaging than the publication of the report, even if its findings are uncomfortable reading.

From having been able to successfully massage news for so long, Labour’s habit of walking into sucker punches has now become pronounced.

Since earlier this year, the Government's quango, the Legal Services Commission, has been locked in a duel with The Law Society concerning the new contract it was seeking to impose upon solicitors who were still prepared to provide legal aid services to the public.  In essence, this new contract (the "unified contract") was a very flexible affair, in that the Legal Services Commission retained to itself a right to vary material terms of the contract during its currency.  Most reasonable minded people would query the fairness of such a one-sided bargain, but not the Government.  The dispute was heard by the Court of Appeal in mid October of this year.  The judgment of the Court was published this morning.

“The Court of Appeal has given judgment today in the appeals by both the Law Society and the Legal Services Commission against the earlier judgment on the LSC's Unified Contract and its terms relating to how the contract can be amended. We are, of course, giving the judgment careful consideration, but we welcome the clarification it provides. This now enables us to move forward with greater certainty”

says this morning’s Press Release from the Legal Services Commission.  The Law Society’s take on the judgement is slightly different (with my emphasis.)

“The Court of Appeal has this morning wholly upheld the Society's challenge to the LSC's unified contract, also rejecting the LSC's appeal. The commission has now lost the power unilaterally to amend the unified contract in the extreme way it proposed. The judgment, handed down by Lord Justice Lawrence Collins on behalf of the court, is a decision 100 per cent in favour of the Society, and the solicitors it represents. The LSC was refused permission to appeal to the House of Lords and ordered to pay Law Society’s costs.

 

Delivering their judgment, the court repeatedly emphasised that this case was extreme: 'The power to amend is better characterised as a power to rewrite the contract' [para 86 of the judgment]. The court comprised Lord Justice Wall, Lord Justice Lawrence Collins, and the Lord Chief Justice, (Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers.)”

There can be no doubt that the Government will plough on with its ill conceived “reform” of Legal Aid, regardless.  It knows that it is right and it just doesn’t care.  It would be wiser for the Government to take stock and listen to positive, informed criticism of its proposals rather than dismissing outright any opposition as being merely “vested interests”.  Of course, it will do no such thing.

The Government lost no time in responding to criticism by no less than five former Chiefs of Defence Staff concerning its under-resourcing of our Armed Forces.

Defence Minister Derek Twigg is reported to have said that there had been “the longest period of growth in defence spending since the 1980s.” However, the charge as I understood it was that, to quote Admiral Lord Boyce,

“The money that defence was given for its budget is not sufficient to meet the level of activities that the armed forces are currently engaged in.”

The crucial problem for this discredited Labour Government is that when not funding one of its pet projects (when bucket loads of taxpayers’ money is made available) it always expects to receive first class services at cut-down prices.  That the Labour Government should adopt this attitude concerning our Armed Forces who are fighting two wars to which they were committed by the very same Government, as well as peace-keeping elsewhere, is an utter disgrace.

“The job of the security services is to propose to government what they think will make Britain as safe as the grave. The job of politicians is to put such proposals to the test of proportionality, value for money and civil liberty. It is now moot whether Britain’s politicians are up to that job.”

Simon Jenkins

“Meanwhile, terrorists continue to rely not on the bang but on the fear of the bang. Terrorists desperately want politics and the media to notice them. By showing we are so rattled that we will give up our cherished liberties, we are giving those with murderous jihadi dreams a gift. By pandering to the toxic fantasies of suburban wannabe warriors, by dignifying their delusions of global struggle with horrified headlines and constitutional change, we are debasing what we stand for.”

Rachel North

"If services are cut as a result of the legal aid reforms I don't think I'm being unduly cynical in expecting the vast majority of media comment to accuse overpaid lawyers of letting down the public because the Government has stopped the gravy train."

Kit O' Brien

It is worth fighting to save the least loved branch of the welfare state - Jonathan Freedland

It is self evident that in matters appertaining to law and order, the Government has tended to dance (or rather, knee jerk) to the tune of the media.  It is frequently overlooked however, that a more insidious influence upon Government has been exerted by favoured focus and pressure groups.  Using their privileged access to Government, these groups have been able to set agendas and outmanoeuvre opponents. Presented with cogent argument and evidence refuting the efficacy of following a particular course of action, the Government chooses its moment and then ploughs on regardless. The Government’s desire to amend the law so as to ensure rape convictions are more easily secured is a classic example. Today, Clare Dyer, legal editor of The Guardian reports,

“The government is to press ahead with plans to reform the rape laws in an attempt to increase the low conviction rate, despite strong opposition from the judges who will have to put them into effect.”

The new devices that are thought will be effective include,

“a power for expert witnesses to give general evidence, not about the specific case, but about how rape victims generally behave, to dispel “myths” that might affect the jury's reactions and an automatic right to use the alleged victim's videotaped interview with the police in place of her main evidence at the trial.”

It is all going to end in tears.  Judges and advocates will all be painfully aware of their duty to ensure that the defendant has a fair trial.  Accordingly the worst excesses of the reforms will be mitigated.  Juries will suspect (rightly) that the legal system is bending over backwards to ensure a conviction and will react accordingly.  Thus the conviction rate will continue to hover at the current rate (between 5% and 6%) and the whipping boys, the judges and barristers, will again be described as “ignorant” and “devious”, respectively.

What the “reformers” fail to understand, is that action and reaction are equal and opposite.  The more they weight the system against the defendant, the more likely it is that the jury will smell a fit up and throw the case out.  Pressure groups have a skewed view of the world and can be forgiven their myopia, but Government must be more rational and must legislate on principle and compelling evidence alone.

Ministers defy judges on rape law reforms

Lovesick lesbian cried rape to frame an innocent

She cried rape, he must be guilty, right?

Barristers oppose 'dangerous' plans to reform rape law

Professor Jennifer Temkin rides again: devious barristers and ignorant judges

Government to load dice even further against fair trial

More nonsense from this partial New Labour Government

Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor of The Daily Telegraph, reports today of the response to the comments of Miss Barbara Hewson, a barrister, in the Bar Council's magazine Counsel regarding guidance issued to judges earlier this year by the Judicial Studies Board, which accepted the possibility that female judges, magistrates or tribunal members might wear the niqab, or veil, in Court.  Miss Hewson professed concern that the guidelines contemplated veiled judges and were “astonishing and subversive”, adding “the United Kingdom is not a sharia state.”

Responding, Fatim Kurji argued that,

“As for veiled judges and the suggestion that the “United Kingdom is not a sharia state”, this is what I call “the BNP argument”. It implies a woman who wears a niqab comes at the erosion of British values. Such an astonishingly offensive remark undermines the long-enduring libertarian values.”

I have always considered the question of female advocates or judges wearing a veil in Court as a non-issue, largely because so few would avail themselves of the opportunity.  From a practical point of view, the wearing of a veil by one party potentially limits the degree of interaction that would otherwise take place between judge and advocate.  Being able to see someone’s face greatly assists communication.  In Court, the quality of communication is frequently decisive. The wearing of a veil in Court would certainly be a significant departure from previously accepted practise.

Where I take issue with Miss Kurji is that Miss Hewson is perfectly entitled to make the points she has and by doing so has not presented “the BNP argument.”  It is not acceptable that anyone who challenges the orthodoxy of a minority group is accused routinely of prejudice or worse, branded as a bigot.

BNP jibe at lawyer who opposed veiled judges

On 2^nd May 2007 a twenty-nine-year-old married female teacher, Jenine Saville-King, was found not guilty of eight charges involving alleged sex offences against one of her fifteen-year-old male pupils, at the conclusion of her trial at the St Albans Crown Court. Seven of the charges related to alleged sexual activity with a child and one, abuse of trust.

The Crown’s evidence involved not only the “victim’s” evidence, usually the only evidence available in a large number of cases involving sexual offences, but also Mrs Saville-King’s admissions of “having strong feelings for the boy” and of having sent six thousand text messages to him over a six-month period, including one hundred and thirty-one messages in a single day.  The Crown was able to produce records of these text messages as well hundreds of pages of MSN messages between the two.  Mrs Saville-King denied there had been any sexual relationship between her and the boy and claimed there had been only an emotional bond.  In effect, the defence attacked the boy’s character and called him a liar.  The jury duly deliberated upon the evidence and dismissed the charges.  I have no doubt that their decision was right.  Twelve of Mrs Saville-King’s peers weighed the evidence and found it wanting.  Anyone who read the lurid details of the trial published in the national press might raise an eyebrow, but bear in mind that press reports are supposed to entertain and juicy summaries never do justice to what is actually said in the court room. Every day the jury quietly made their notes, digested and balanced the evidence, gave all due consideration to what had been said, used their judgment and did their duty in reaching a just and fair verdict based upon all of the facts. At the end of the day, they preferred the account of Mrs Saville-King over the boy’s.

With good reason, there will not be any cry that justice has not been done, that young boys are being abused by teachers who are getting away with it.  Nor will there be any demand for a change in the law making it easier to convict defendants in cases of this nature.  How very different when the offence is one of rape by a male against a female.

After the trial, Mrs Saville-King described the allegations against her as “boastful fantasies and dishonest, spiteful untruths.”  Judges and juries sitting in Criminal Courts regularly face witnesses who give dishonest and untruthful testimony.  That these witnesses are found out depends upon allowing advocates to vigorously challenge their version of events, including putting to them matters appertaining to their character.  Humans tell lies, sometimes.

A seventeen-year-old teenager who made false allegations of rape against an Asian taxi driver, Aftab Ahmed, told her lies not “out of malice, but naivety and immaturity.”  Mr Ahmed did not suffer the ignominy of charge, remand in custody and the stress of standing trial, but he did lose his home, livelihood, reputation and found his family relationships and marriage under strain in the fourteen months it took for the lies of his accuser to be exposed in Court. The young lady in question received a four-month detention and training order from the Bradford Youth Court after admitting (very belatedly) a charge of perverting the course of justice.

Teacher cleared of having sex with pupil

Girl’s rape lie destroyed taxi driver’s life

The BBC has highlighted a report prepared by Rob Allen on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies that claims that too many children are prosecuted and criminalised.  Previously Mr Allen had been engaged for eight years as a member of the Youth Justice Board and as such it is safe to assume that he is well versed in the realities of child offending.  He considers that there should be greater emphasis on the educational, social and mental health needs of younger offenders. Mr Allen believes that we have become preoccupied with protecting the public from young people and that there is a growing intolerance of teenage misbehaviour of all kinds.

It is easy to dismiss Mr Allen's views as typically air-headed, left-wing liberal and soft on crime, but I happen to agree with him. More children are badly behaved, or allowed to be badly behaved than when I was a child.  Similarly, a growing number of young adults no longer appear to know how to conduct themselves responsibly in public.  The rule and convention abiding public have come to feel besieged and the howls of the tabloid press purporting to speak on their behalf has bullied successive administrations Labour and Conservative into "doing something about it".  The "something" has borne all the hallmarks of being knee-jerk, rather than being calmly and coolly considered whilst in possession of all the material facts.  It was inevitable that once the age of criminal responsibility was lowered, an increasing number of younger children would be sucked into the criminal justice system and most unnecessarily.

There are offences so bad that even a child should know that they are wrong, but nuisance and silly offending should not be the subject of criminal sanction.  "Pecking order fights" in the school playground now result in prosecution.  That should not be so.  Such behaviour represents a phase of male development.  It is ridiculous and wrong-headed to apply the same opprobrium or a criminal sanction to a playground scrap between two thirteen year-old boys as to a bar room brawl involving two men.  Hormones or whatever, it is a phase boys "grown out of" as they mature.  Only males with serious problems still fight by the time they reach their late teens and early twenties.  It is those individuals with whom the State ought to concern itself.

The BBC, in its usual impartial and helpful way, reminds us in its report of the age of various offenders who committed very serious crimes, children such as Jon Venables and Robert Thomson, Danny and Rickie Preddie and Mary Bell. However, these children were the exception to the rule.  It is important to point out that crimes of that  gravity committed by children occur very rarely. The murder committed by Mary Bell took place in 1968.  James Bulger's murder by Venables and Thomson took place twenty-five years later in 1993 and Damilola Taylor's in 2000.

In essence, most child crime is very small beer and is committed largely for reasons other than just plain "badness" or "poor upbringing".  Children can be immature and silly, behave irrationally, empathise with others to a limited degree only or not at all.  They possess all manner of "flaws" caused by their lack of life experiences which can limit their being able to behave well or responsibly in each and every social situation.

The truth is that in most cases "kids" just grow up.  "Special intervention" by the Court system is more likely to do harm than good.  The Nanny State should heed this research and just butt out.  The Shadow Home Affairs minister Edward Garnier should take note.

A Government Man doing the Government’s business

New Labour has set its heart upon imprisoning more motorists

Bending rules to ensure higher conviction rates is fraught with danger

The NHS: It is time to return to basics

Is this the thin end of the wedge?

Valerie Elliott reports in The Times today about the cancellation of a planned chase involving an artificial scent[1] in Central London by members of the  “Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt”.  Threats had been made by animal rights activists against the event such that the Police feared that they would create a public order incident.

Once again angry, resentful fanatics threatening violence have  successfully curtailed a lawful activity.

Whilst the Police seem to be very willing to protect our rights when a lawful pursuit is followed by the majority or a pet minority, when a pursuit by the unfavoured is involved, it is just too much trouble to police.  I can well imagine that the drag hunt organisers were warned darkly that if the event proceeded and any trouble erupted, everyone would be arrested, including the riders, for “public disorder.”

The animal rights activists have shown their true colours.  This was nothing to do with animal welfare.  They don’t like the sort of people comprising the Connaught Square Squirrel Hunt and they are going to stop them doing anything they do, just because. I shall leave the last word to Duncan Macpherson, joint master of the hunt, who is reported to have said:

“These activists are clearly even more absurd than I thought if they were going to protest about huntsmen and dogs chasing a smelly sock.”

"…it is sad that at the very moment free will is becoming a reality for many of us, or at least for those of us living in Western democracies, the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy has become to condemn those who accept the consequences of that freedom."

Robert Crampton[1]

In any liberal democracy, an independent, strong legal profession is allowed to defend fearlessly and robustly those who the State charges with criminal offences.  No matter how heinous the offence or how unpopular with public opinion the defendants’ cause, as a matter of course their legal representatives are expected to vigorously test  the prosecution case and unflinchingly put their clients’ case.

Arani & Co is a firm of solicitors that represents very unpopular clients.  By all accounts, they represent them very well, or at least well enough to make the Police and other elements comprising the State to take umbrage.  Now we are told that some of our representatives in the House of Commons have demanded that the Law Society investigate this firm, to establish whether they have acted throughout with the necessary degree of compliance with amongst other things, professional ethics.  Of course, it is very important that any profession is policed to ensure that it maintains the very highest standards, but my concern is this. Government, particularly this Labour Government, does not like lawyers (save those who represent its interests, almost invariably against Joe Public.)

It would be a simple matter to make an example of one firm which is unpopular with the public, a signal of intent that the HM Government is not going to have any truck with any other law firm that defends causes that it considers unpopular.  Defend who we consider to be indefensible and you will be investigated.  The message is all too clear.

This article in The Times today by Nigel Hawkes says all that need be said.

As the Home Office research conducted by the usual suspects has now begun to appear in the liberal legal press with the expected wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth, it was fortuitous that this article appeared in the press.  True to my promise, I shall continue to highlight the dangers of weighting the trial process against the presumption of innocence or by well-meaning but misguided procedural devices, rigging the evidence against the defendant.

Elvira Fairhurst, a teacher who was aged forty-nine years, had a four-month affair with a fourteen year old pupil in her charge.  The boy suffered from learning difficulties.  The affair came to light when a crane driver witnessed her having sexual intercourse with the boy in her car, in a car park.  She was jailed for four years after pleading guilty to eleven counts of sexual activity with a child.

By all accounts, until her frolics with the boy, Mrs Fairhurst was a regular churchgoer who had led a constructive and exemplary life.  The point of this article is not to dwell on her criminality.  The poor woman will be punished enough for her four months’ of madness.  It was perhaps a small mercy that she was a woman.  Had a male teacher so ravished a fourteen year old girl, we know that public reaction would have been wholly different; hysterical and disproportionate, in fact.  The point is this: when first interviewed by the Police, Mrs Fairhurst claimed initially that the boy had sexually assaulted or raped her.  On this occasion, the male had an independent witness who could testify to the contrary.

Let me state my position very carefully.  I believe that an effective Criminal Justice System should convict and punish[1] the guilty.  It follows that such a system must acquit the innocent. Any system that convicts the innocent cannot be described as a Criminal Justice System at all.

Alan Travis of The Guardian reported today that Home Office sponsored research indicates that barristers and judges are undermining rape reform.  According to Mr Travis,

“The research, published yesterday, says that rules introduced in 2000 to ban defence barristers from depicting rape victims as promiscuous have been “evaded, circumvented and resisted” with the result that the reform has failed to have any impact. The finding will be a further blow to Home Office ministers and the law officers, who have tried for years to find ways of boosting the low 5.6% conviction rate in rape cases (my emphasis.) The study of the case files of more than 400 rape trials says that defence barristers used “devious tactics” to ensure that evidence of the sexual history of the victim was raised in two-thirds of the trials that were observed.”

Also,

“the difficulty is compounded by the fact that almost half the judges interviewed by the researchers were unaware of the crown court rules setting out how the ban should work: "Some judges had only a vague knowledge of section 41 [of the 1999 legislation which contains the ban] and few non-legal practitioners and no complainants understood the new law.”

Worse still,

“Findings from case files, trial observations and interviews raise the possibility that both prosecution and defence share stereotypical assumptions about ‘appropriate’ female behaviour and that these continue to play a part when issues of credibility are addressed in rape cases”

and,

“defence lawyers still used evidence and “rhetorical devices” to impugn the character of rape victims and make their testimony less credible, and were often unchallenged by the prosecution or the judge.”

The authors of this Home Office sponsored report were Liz Kelly, Jennifer Temkin and Sue Griffiths.  Professor Temkin features in one of my posts late last year.  Since 1982 she has spent a considerable amount of time researching and writing about the crime of rape.  I suspect that she has a thing about the subject.  Certainly a Channel 4 Dispatches programme to which she contributed in March 2002 unquestionably made some people angry because of its perceived bias.

As a result of this research the Solicitor General Mike O'Brien has written to the criminal law procedures committee asking it to tighten the rules. Apparently the Bar Council has been put upon also to set up a training course for barristers involved in rape cases to ensure they deal with the issues involved with “greater sensitivity”.

I shall not revisit my thoughts about the issue of he purportedly low 5.6% conviction rate in rape cases.  Neither shall I make great play of the fact that since 1997 and the gradual politicisation of the Civil Service; research sponsored by Government departments seems to have been sought in the main from trusted sources known to be sympathetic to the view of the New Labour Administration.

Professor Temkin might be very learned and well researched in her chosen specialist subject but I detect the myopia of single issue-ism.  The findings of Ms Temkins’ research reported by Mr Travis’ are hard to believe.  We are told that “…almost half the judges interviewed by the researchers were unaware of the crown court rules setting out how the ban should work.”  It took me just seconds to access the relevant sections and narrative on my electronic version of Archbold, the Crown Court bible, the tome that each and every judge who sits in a criminal Court possesses at his fingertips.  If I can check the rules so easily and grasp their import, it is a fair bet that learned counsel and judges do routinely, too. Whilst I accept that applying the rules and ensuring that a defendant had a fair trial might prove a little fraught, particularly as ensuring a fair trial is the judge’s foremost duty, it is utterly implausible to suggest that almost half the judges were unaware of the Crown Court rules.

The weakness of nearly all academic lawyers is that not having had the opportunity to spend years at the “coal face” they never develop any significant insight into the human condition or any deep or meaningful understanding of what a real live trial involves.  It is not sufficient to attend a handful of specially selected trials here or there, making copious notes, poring over the transcripts and exhibits and picking holes in the advocates’ cross examination, submissions, speeches or the judge’s decisions or closing summary. It helps if you were present in the Police Station when the defendant was detained, interviewed and charged.  You might have to attend numerous preliminary Court appearances or make a succession of unsuccessful applications for bail. Proofing witnesses including the defendant, attending identification parades, examining and cross-referencing prosecution witness statements, appointing forensic experts on behalf of the defence, all provide an opportunity to gain that insight that allows you to make sense of the system and why it works the way it does.  It is whilst performing these functions that you might develop a sense of unease about the prosecution case.  On paper the defendant might look as if he is bang to rights but you might have a sense of there being something that isn’t quite right. That sense of unease may arise because having become acquainted with the defendant over a course of months (and probably having met his family, friends and girlfriend) it becomes incongruous that this defendant behaved in the manner alleged by the victim.  To the defence lawyers, the defendant is a human being whose life, career and future become worth defending. Thus whilst it is easy for some academic lawyers to form a view that the low rape conviction rate is irrefutable evidence that heinous monsters responsible for routinely raping thousands of  women each year are “let off” by the Courts, those involved in the process, including jurors, know different.

In a rape prosecution, it is almost invariably the case that the defendant must claim that the complainant is a liar.  For that reason, the cross examination is very robust and must be robust.  The judge understands this as does counsel for the Crown. The “character assassination” the feminists complain of arises from this process.   The complainant’s credit is being challenged, so when the defence cannot be conducted without being hamstrung by being barred from raising the sexual history of the victim (as will very often be the case) that evidence has to be heard.  It is insulting to the intellect of the jurors to suggest that a defendant can effectively destroy a prosecution case by falsely besmirching a truthful complainant’s character.  If the Crown’s case is strong, any character assassination will rebound upon the defendant.  Suggesting horrible things about the complainant has no effect unless there is something else about the evidence (the Crown’s evidence, not the defendant’s - he would say he didn’t do it, wouldn’t he?) which makes the jury think twice.

This discredited Government will no doubt continue to tinker with the rules in a vain attempt to increase conviction rates for rape and indeed all other offences.  The judges and barristers (both for the defence and Crown) will continue to use or allow evidence and “rhetorical devices” to impugn the character of rape victims and make their testimony less credible in an endeavour to ensure a fair trial.  Harry will become even angrier and just to prove our point people like me will increasingly flag and highlight cases where women are convicted of making false allegations of rape.

Towards the end of May 2006, animal rights activists discovered the secret location of the accommodation in the Cotswolds village used by builders working on the construction of Oxford University’s new £20 million laboratory in South Parks Road.  Speak, the group responsible for the Oxford University anti-vivisection protests, posted the address on the internet. The group had intended to demonstrate outside the men's quarters today. The demonstrations were already restricted at the building site by an injunction granted to the University. Furthermore, to prevent the activists from harassing the workers at their living quarters, the injunction had forbade anyone from following vehicles ferrying contractors to the site.  Now a High Court Judge has extended the injunction to cover the workers' living quarters. Although Speak says it uses only legal means[1] to protest against vivisection, there are concerns that high profile sympathisers such as Morrissey will encourage hard line activists to go beyond peaceful protest. However, Thames Valley Police seem unimpressed by such an argument.  They are reported to have said that they were not investigating the singer's comments because there was,

 "no reasonable prospect of getting anything out of it in terms of a conviction".

This limp response from the Police is unimpressive, not only because it is of dubious validity and will be seen as carte blanche by the protesters but also because as is so often the case, the Police forget that their brief is to not only to detect crime, but to deter it.  They can make their presence felt and show that they are not putting up with any harassment or intimidation against the workers by these “protesters”.