And they want to do it by letting Persistent criminals escape punishment even when there is overwhelming evidence against them under new plans allowing prosecutors to overlook minor offences, senior lawyers have warned.
Hundreds of offenders may escape charges because court action would not be deemed “proportionate” to their crimes, under guidelines that set out the most significant changes to prosecution principles in 90 years.
The proposals are intended to encourage “common sense” to be used in the justice system – for example, forgiving a householder accused of assault when making a citizen’s arrest on a burglar. However senior lawyers said that they could prevent justice being done.
Under current rules, in operation since the 1920s, the Crown Prosecution Service can only consider whether enough evidence has been gathered against an offender and whether court action is in the public interest. However plans contained in an updated code for prosecutors drawn up by Director of Public Prosecutions, Keir Starmer, introduce a new proportionality test.
The proposals, which could apply to crimes ranging from fraud to theft, shoplifting, minor assault and criminal damage, are designed to balance for the first time the cost and time involved in bringing a prosecution with the seriousness of a crime and the harm it has caused.
The changes, which are scheduled to come into force next year, would also allow the CPS to escape criticism for bringing cases against otherwise impeachable characters accused of minor misdemeanours. However, complex fraud trials, which can be extremely long and expensive to pursue could also fall under its scope.
Sources indicated that it was also aimed at cases where a previous offender who had been given a conditional discharge, later stole a small item from a shop. That sort of minor breach would normally trigger an immediate jury trial, costing tens of thousands of pounds. However under the new guidelines, the CPS would be free not to prosecute.
David Davies, the Tory MP who is a member of the Home Affairs selection committee, said the new guidelines in the Crown Prosecution Service consultation paper, were “disgraceful” and amounted to a “criminals’ charter”.
“This is another blow for those who believe that criminals should be punished,” he said.
"In certain very limited situations, it is right to take into account whether a prosecution is a proportionate response to the specific offending when deciding the most appropriate course of action," the new guidelines state.
Dan Hyde, a criminal lawyer at Cubism Law, said the introduction of the proportionality clause presents an opportunity to avoid wasting resources on spurious trials.
"One would hope it might avoid prosecutions which are patently unwarranted and which undermine public confidence in the police and CPS.
"They are trying to add a bit of commonsense to the decision making process. There is a ‘touchy-feely’ attitude to the whole thing.
“If applied correctly, it could see a situation where you stand back and take a look at it as a particular course of action.
"If a lawyer can see there might be public outrage if someone is prosecuted because they have committed a trivial offence, it allows them to say ‘hold on – it is disproportionate to prosecute that person’.”
Recent cases that might never have gone to trial under the new system include that of Renate Bowling, a disabled 71-year-old pensioner who was hauled before the courts and charged with assault after she prodded a teenager in the chest with her finger when stones were thrown at her home.
Another is the example of £20,000 of taxpayers’ money being wasted taking a man to court for taking a banana worth 25p during a drunken night out with his friends in Birmingham.
The CPS is now seeking views of lawyers and the public on the new code, which also contains eight new factors on when it will not be in the public interest to bring charges. These include cases where the offender will use a court appearance to repeat views which will cause distress to another section of society, and cases in which prosecutors or police have previously promised an offender that a prosecution would not be brought.
There are two new public interest factors that would make a prosecution more likely. Under one of these, charges will be more likely if the offence has led to complaints from a community, who either live in the same geographical area or share common "characteristics" or interests.
This is an attempt to ensure that prosecutors respond effectively to problems such as anti-social behaviour which is disturbing local residents.
OK, what we have is an untenable policy by the CPS, the thin end of the wedge if you like; it really is about time that the “law” in this country changed its stance and looked toward the victims of crimes instead of pussy footing around trying to make their own life easier, theft is theft. Whether it is a 25p banana or a £1000 TV taken during a burglary.
Is it ‘proportionate’ to prosecute a drunken driver who has killed someone but not ‘proportionate’ to prosecute them if they haven’t?
That surely is the whole concept of “Law”, if you offend you are punished for the good of the majority, if this “idea” is accepted the phrase “the law is an ass” will finally be true.
(Telegraph)
Angus
Angus Dei on all and sundry
AnglishLit
Angus Dei-NHS-THE OTHER SIDE
No comments:
Post a Comment