Yesterday as you all read Steven Lawrence finally achieved some measure of justice with the conviction for murder of two of his killers. From what I have seen of the evidence and the trial it seems that the beyond reasonable doubt the right people have been jailed for this crime and two violent, racist thugs have been put behind bars where they belong.
But I'm not entirely happy.
In order to put these two on trial an ancient principle of natural justice was torn up by the former Home Secretary David Blunkett, that of double jeopardy, the principle that you cannot be tried twice for the same offense. This is a right that has been part of English common law for centuries and it even enshrined in article 50 of the European Convention on Human Rights (although conveniently a part of the convention our craven politicians didn't sign us up to whilst signing us up to all the other bullshit parts).
Double jeopardy defences are fundamentally important in protecting the individual against the machinery of the state; they stop the state bringing prosecution after prosecution until they get the "right" result - kind of like those EU referendums. Their removal by the previous Labour government weakens the individual and was wrong and its generally accepted that it was done primarily with the Lawrence case in mind.
Yes in the Lawrence case the police and CPS made a series of huge cock ups and maybe even were willfully negligent leading to the acquittal of the defendants. Many things went wrong and under double jeopardy they would have literally got away with murder; but hard cases make bad laws and unpalatable though it may be to have the likes of Norris wandering around as a free man* I would rather that than yet another erosion of the fundamental rights of the citizen by a politician trying to look "tough" and trying to patch up the cock ups of the police and Crown Prosecution Service.
* although I believe he was already in the nick on another offence
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The evidence against them was microscopic, I am very surprised they found it. This shows that they wanted a conviction regardless of cost. I feel the very same as you about double jeopardy and this case leaves a bad taste in the mouth for future defendants. It is simply not fair play. To fail to reach a guilty verdict is generally because of lack of evidence to convict.
I'm fully expecting an appeal. Although I'm no lawyer I can't see with the media publicity over the years allowed a fair trial. The length of time and associated opportunities for contamination must surely shed reasonable doubt on the evidence as well.
The relaxation of the double jeopardy rule was recommended by the Law Commission, which is independent of the Government.
Post a Comment