Letters roundup: 29 September

Police must not skip disclosure duties

Some weeks ago, Sir Mark Rowley, the Metropolitan Police commissioner, appeared on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme and referred to the Met as ‘prosecuting more cases’. He apparently failed to appreciate the role of the police as investigators, following the transfer of the power to prosecute offences to the Crown Prosecution Service as long ago as 1985.

The police investigate crime, follow up on all reasonable lines of inquiry and, where appropriate, refer matters to the CPS for charging decisions. The ‘P’ in CPS, of course, gives the clue that it is they that ‘prosecute’ and not the police.

In what could be considered a further faux pas, during a recent address to the Policy Exchange thinktank, Rowley called for an overhaul of the criminal justice system to end bureaucracy for his officers, saying: ‘The complex legal duties of disclosure and redaction have been pushed to the front end of the system, slowing down justice and creating nugatory work for officers.’

Those who have been the subject of miscarriages of justice would not view compliance with disclosure duties as being ‘nugatory’ work for the police. In fact, one does not have to look too far in the past to find an example of a case where police disclosure failings resulted in a man being wrongly convicted and imprisoned for 17 years before being released and exonerated. The police’s handling of that case is now the subject of an IOPC investigation.

The Attorney General’s Guidelines on Disclosure for investigators, prosecutors and defence practitioners makes clear that ‘proper disclosure of unused material remains a crucial part of a fair trial and is essential to avoiding miscarriages of justice. Disclosure remains one of the most important and complex issues in the criminal justice system, and it is a priority for this government to encourage improvements in disclosure practice in order to ensure the disclosure regime operates effectively, fairly and justly’.

Investigators – which the police undoubtedly are – should ensure that all reasonable lines of inquiry are investigated, whether they point towards or away from a suspect, and that the outcomes of such inquiries are fully documented and disclosed.

The criminal justice system relies on the integrity of investigators to get this process right – without it there can be no fair trial.

Edward Grange

Partner, Corker Binning, London EC1

TV justice will expose dangerous rhetoric

I was interested to read the letter of Samuel Pitchford regarding ‘Televised justice?’ in the Gazette of 15 September.

The question of trust in our lawmakers is perhaps an interesting point to draw on, because, of course, our lawmakers are those in parliament. There are any number of factors which contribute to a steady decline in the population’s trust in politicians, beyond a creaking legal system which struggles on despite huge backlogs and increased cuts.

Permitting cameras to be present will not solve all of those issues, but at its heart it improves transparency in the process (if not faith in the individuals involved).

Transparency and understanding start, in my view, from seeing. We work in a profession which knows it has a long way to go to improve diversity and social mobility, and access to the profession begins in improving understanding and showing people that justice is public and open to everyone. Legal education as a whole in the UK needs to improve, and recorded/televised justice is a small step that can help improve understanding in the profession and open it up to those interested in joining it in future.

Recording hearings, whether for sentencing or judicial review or other factors entirely, allows people to watch and form their own opinions. There will always be a risk of those seeking to take simple comments out of context and push their own rhetoric, as Mr Pitchford rightly identifies. But that risk of selectively representing a hearing’s findings is greater where the process is closed off and the hearing cannot be viewed in its own right.

More readily televised justice will allow more people to form their own conclusions and see dangerous rhetoric for what it is.

Sam Harkness

Solicitor, Taunton

Portal pains

There are several reasons why delays are so long for claimants using the Official Injury Claim portal (‘MPs demand answers on delays and backlogs in whiplash portal’, 20 September).

There is currently no penalty for bad behaviour, such as denying liability in the face of clear evidence to the contrary, or failing to respond in a reasonable timeframe during negotiations. Prior to the reforms, cost sanctions could be imposed and should be reintroduced.

Another perceived reason is represented claimants holding on to medical reports. However, as shown by the Supreme Court involvement, these claims are not straightforward and they often involve complex injuries or losses.   

More needs to be done to raise awareness of the portal. However, I believe the majority of claimants will still not be confident pursuing matters themselves.

Current delays are unacceptable, and what is clear is that the industry must work together to create a system that better benefits injured motorists. Behaviours must be scrutinised or these problems will persist.

Andrew Wild

Head of legal, First4InjuryClaims, Huddersfield

Time to get a grip

Sir Bob Neill [chair of the justice committee] rightly upbraids the government for having failed to get a grip on prison overcrowding, or indeed to have one single constructive thought over sentencing policy.

Overcrowding in the adult male prison estate at 23%; imprisonment for public protection prisoners mouldering away for want of a bold stroke of the pen or two. (I exaggerate a tad for effect).

Sir Bob calls for an evidence-based review of the mess we are in as a result of a non-policy of ‘out of sight, out of mind’.  

That will be the day with this government.

Malcolm Fowler

Solicitor and higher court advocate (retired), Kings Heath, Birmingham