A suspect system

James Morton tears into the proposed Criminal Justice Bill and questions whether changes to the jury and sentencing process will curb crime.

What is more, he worries that the system will become too draconian

The Criminal Justice Bill outlined in the Queen's Speech had been pretty well trailed in the days before HM spoke.

The campaign against the jury waged by successive governments is to continue.

Juries are not convicting sufficient people.

It does not matter that this is because of a lack of evidence or an unhealthy distrust of the police or incompetent prosecutions - it isn't good enough.

So, complex fraud trials and those cases involving organised crime where the police say the jury is likely to be got at will go to a judge alone.

What evidence will be required from the police is another matter.

And what, for that matter, is organised crime? Criminologists have ruined forests trying to label organised crime, and now it seems that the lawyers are going to be given a go.

An international drug smuggling conspiracy? Certainly.

A car-stealing ring? Possibly.

A group of 17-year-olds who set out to terrorise local shopkeepers? Why not?

If the result of taking some cases away from juries is more convictions, and if juries do not learn their lesson and bring in a few more guilty verdicts, complex money-laundering cases, complex - that is, multi-handed - affrays, murder cases, and in the best of all possible worlds simple theft cases, may follow.

Working from the bottom upwards, magistrates are to get increased powers of sentencing.

They at least know where their civic duty lies and on which side their bread is buttered - and are to be rewarded accordingly.

We might well keep an eye on the US system and the ensuing Operation Greylord where a high percentage of judges in a Chicago court was found to be taking bribes.

It will not happen here is the cry.

Not this year, not next, but it will, it will, as Oscar Wilde said to Frank Harris in slightly different circumstances.

Lawyers who faff about and don't do what the courts want will find their already nugatory fees further reduced and, if that does not work, they will be fined.

Will this apply to the Crown Prosecution Service? If so, at the present rate that organisation may soon be bankrupted.

There is to be yet more tinkering with the sentencing procedure.

Two ideas are on offer.

The first is extended custody post-sentence completion for violent and sex offenders who are thought still to pose a risk.

If they do not get proper treatment in jail then it is highly likely there will be even more overcrowding.

Secondly, there is to be weekend jail and short jail terms to be followed by supervision.

I thought the latter was in place already.

No one has grasped the fact that no single form of punishment in the Western civilisation - lengthy imprisonment, short term sentences, probation, Borstal, fines and so on - prevents recidivism any better than another.

Nor does it dawn on politicians what any experienced criminal lawyer or probation officer would tell them - that the only thing criminals regard as a conviction let alone punishment is an immediate jail sentence.

Which leads nicely on to the idea that a sub-species of policemen should stand up to the current yob culture and, ticket pad in hand, interpose their persons, if that is the right word, on a Saturday night between a wall and a pack of urinating or paint-spraying young hooligans.

Assuming they do manage to stuff the ticket into the hands of the unwilling vandals, will these fines ever be paid? The idea is for magistrates to have power to confiscate the goods of the yobs if they don't pay.

Anyone who has ever dealt with the county court bailiffs will know that will be a lost cause.

The best things have been saved to the last.

If it were not for the inherent long-term dangers I could just about go along with the post-Lawrence idea of tearing up the principle of autrefois acquit.

There is something inherently obscene in the concept of a person accused of rape or murder walking about freely when new technology could have secured the conviction.

Of course, the idea is being trumpeted with the highest motives.

But will they always remain that high? Will the new legislation not be used as harassment in the future?

Finally, there is the suggestion of the introduction into evidence of previous convictions of the accused.

Round up the usual suspects.

It will be interesting to see how many previous convictions a defendant must have before his previous are allowed in.

Will they all have to be for the same offence or just a spread? Why not go the whole hog and allow in evidence of previous acquittals, or even arrests? It would save so much time and money.

Suggestions of a Fascist state may seem to be exaggerated and highly emotive, indeed far-fetched and not to say hysterical at present, but it is a road down which we could travel if we are not careful.

James Morton is a former criminal law specialist solicitor and now a freelance journalist