Move to boost criminals' rights draws Fleet Street ire

You could practically smell the outrage on Fleet Street this week, as the Law Commission's provisional recommendation that criminals should be allowed to sue their victims went down like a lead balloon.Among the righteous trumpetings of indignation, the Daily Express claimed in true tabloid headline style that 'law paves way for thugs to sue victims' (30 June).Calling on rent-a-quote favourite Ann Widdecombe, who was predictably 'outraged' at the proposal, the Express admitted that 'the Law Commission concedes that its ideas to make it easier for the criminal to take his attacker to court may not be popular'.Indeed they were not, at least in certain sections of the media, such as the Sunday Times, which singled out the Law Commission as this week's 'Enemy of the People' (1 July).The paper said 'public opinion is starting to think that there's never been a better time to go into the burgling business, especially now that the police have decided to concentrate on speeding motorists instead'.

However, it did concede sarcastically that 'on reflection, perhaps the Law Commission is right.

After all, it's lucrative but not easy being a burglar: the unsocial hours, the uncertainty of beginning a job never knowing what the rewards may be, and there is always the danger of disgruntled homeowners who might be lurking in their houses threatening to get in your way'.The Daily Telegraph was equally cross, and called on Ted Newbury - an 89-year-old allotment holder from Ilkeston in Derbyshire - for his opinion (29 June).

In true Widdecombe style, Mr Newbury said that 'the law is an ass and has been for a long time', and claimed that this 'would be just another slap in the face for decent people'.

Decent people who presumably spend their spare time sleeping with a shotgun in their allotment shed, as Mr Newbury did in 1988, injuring a teenage would-be burglar to whom he was made to pay 4,000 compensation.

However, he justified his actions with the assertion that 'a man's home' - and, presumably, his allotment shed - 'is his castle and anyone who invades it should be prepared to take the consequences'.

To other outdated attitudes, and the old 'to wig or not to wig' chestnut reared its hairy head again this week with the Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine's assertion that the use of wigs in civil courts was 'outdated' and 'had no place in the modern civil legal system' (The Independent, 30 June).Predictably, this did not go down terribly well with the Bar, which 'gave Irvine a wigging' over the suggestions, and said that it 'remained committed to the retention of wigs for all cases' (Daily Telegraph, 30 June).It really was another vintage week for Lord Irvine, with the revelation that his much heralded 319 million scheme for computerising the criminal court system has been delayed 'amid technical problems and mounting chaos' (The Times, 28 June).The delay is 'the latest in a series of privately financed information technology disasters to hit the government', such as the failure of a 100 million caseworking system for the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and problems with the 230 million system for issuing passports.

Estimates for future completion were not looking positive, as contracts between the Lord Chancellor's Department and ICL, which is managing the project, 'have been extended from four years to 12 years'.Finally, Marcel Berlins in The Guardian (26 June) told of a Web site set up by two enterprising schoolboys in the US.

Containing 'intimate information' on 30 girls at their school, such as their sexual histories and preferences, eating habits and parents' marital problems, it got the two entrepreneurs arrested and charged with 'aggravated harassment', punishable by a year's imprisonment.The potentially comedy-rich legal battle - the boys were bringing a civil liberties and freedom of speech defence - was sadly spoilt when the district attorney withdrew the prosecution.Victoria MacCallum