Are The Dead Entitled to the Presumption of Innocence? 14th November 2012 at the Old Bank Of England

On Wednesday the 14th of November 2012 the London Legal Salon will host a public debate on the Jimmy Savile allegations.  We will be meeting at the Old Bank of England Public House on Fleet Street at 1930 on the 14th of November 2012.   Recent allegations of sexual abuse levelled against the late TV presenter Jimmy Savile have caused uproar. Bigwigs at the BBC anticipate a full inquiry. With more and more retrospective accusers coming forward, and apparent evidence of cover ups within the BBC, many think the allegations against Saville are symptomatic of a sexual abuse ‘culture’ which has permeated the institution since the 1960s. The papers seem convinced of his guilt. Articles around the case speak of ‘overwhelming evidence’ of ‘appalling abuse’. Charities who have named trusts after him are considering donating all the money held to victims of abuse and abandoning their association with the cigar touting oddball. There can be little doubt that Jimmy Savile’s reputation as a philanthropic British institution lies in tatters. But what does this say about society’s attitude towards the presumption of innocence? Do all the rules cease to apply once an accused has passed away? Should we really be dragging up allegations against a person who cannot defend themselves? Does the manner in which Savile has been discussed betray something deeper about our attitudes to innocence? Email londonlegalsalon@gmail.com to reserve a space in the debate. Speaker: Tim Black, senior writer at Spiked Online

Should gay people be allowed to marry?

At 1930 on the 26th of June 2012 at the Old Bank Of England on Fleet Street,  the London Legal Salon will meet to discuss gay marriage. 

 

Over recent months, everyone seems to be coming out in favour of gay marriage. From George Clooney to David Cameron, Kim Kardashian to Lady Gaga, support for gay marriage has clearly become the progressive cause of the moment. But opinion remains divided. A government consultation on marriage reform launched earlier this year, which would have allowed for gay marriages in restricted circumstances, split the coalition with David Cameron eventually allowing a free vote on the issue.

Some argue that the current ban on gay marriage is fundamentally a question of equality, akin to women having the vote or rights for ethnic minorities. After all, how can it be right in a liberal society for a group of people to be prevented from taking part in an ancient social institution because of their sexuality? However, others have expressed concerns that allowing gay marriage would devalue marriage as a social institution which has traditionally been associated with procreation. The state’s tinkering with these institutions should be open to scrutiny and critique, especially as there seems to be little public appetite to allow gays to marry.

Would allowing gay marriage devalue traditional marriage? If so, is this a problem? Are those who argue against gay marriage simply homophobes and backwards conservatives? What impact should changing attitudes have on our social institutions and how should the law react?

Email lonlegalsalon@gmail.com to reserve your place.

SPEAKER: Brendan O’Neill, editor of Spiked Online.

Thank you

Thanks to all who attended the London Legal Salon discussion on Free Speech at Football.  Those interested in follow up reading may be interested in a new report from Civil Liberties group the Manifesto Club on 'Bubble Matches'.  View the report here:  http://www.manifestoclub.com/bubblematchreport

Details of our next discussion will follow shortly.

8th of May 2012 at 1930: Who is singing anymore? Is the law strangling free speech at football?

On the 8th of May 2012 the London Legal Salon will meet back at the Hoop and Grapes on Farringdon Street to discuss free speech at football.

Up and down the United Kingdom, the law is creeping onto the terraces.  Earlier this month Liam Stacey, a student from South Wales, was jailed for ‘tweeting’ mocking remarks about Bolton Football Club’s Farbrice Muamba whilst he suffered a heart attack during a game.   In Scotland, new criminal offences, contained in the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications Act 2012, mean that Scottish football fans could be arrested for crossing themselves or for singing the wrong song.  In England, high profile prosecutions of players for the use of racist language on the pitch has led David Cameron to pledge in the course of a government Anti Racism summit in February that he would ‘crush’ racism out of football.  His language suggests that upcoming reforms of English laws could follow the Scottish model.

Proponents of the Scottish law and supporters of reform in England argue that racist and sectarian behaviour at football matches creates a climate of acceptability of such behaviour off the pitch. But critics argue that regulation not only threatens to stifle the atmosphere at matches, but also sets a dangerous precedent for the regulation of free speech in wider society.

Should we use the law to crack down on offensive speech at football matches? Or should we let what’s said in the ground stay in the ground? What does the regulation of speech at matches suggest about our approach to free speech in wider society?

Speakers: 

Kevin Rooney,  Free Spech campaigner and teacher at Queen's School
Dan Jones, Journalist at the Evening Standard

Tuesday 31st January: The Stephen Lawrence Verdicts

On Tuesday 31st January at 1930 the London Legal Salon will discuss the verdicts in the Stephen Lawrence case.  The discussion will take place at the Hoop and Grapes at 80 Farringdon Street.(http://www.thehoopandgrapes.co.uk/).  We look forward to seeing you there!

 

On the 3rd of January, David Norris and Gary Dobson were convicted of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. The Crown Prosecution Service called the case the ‘most significant of a generation’.

Many celebrated the verdicts as a victory for justice over prejudice; one which went some way to purging the bungling police investigation into the murder in 1993. But others felt some unease with the way in which these defendants were treated. Dobson became one of few defendants to be retried following the quashing of his acquittal by the Court of Appeal under provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 which abrogated the ancient principle that a defendant should not be tried for the same crime twice. The jury were shown footage of the defendants making racist remarks and acting out violence taken from surveillance cameras secreted in Dobson’s home, evidence which would have been inadmissible before 2003. Further, the pair had suffered such wide spread adverse publicity in the intervening years that many thought a fair trial was impossible.

Whilst few will feel any sympathy for Norris and Dobson, their conviction raises important questions about the principles that underpin our criminal justice system. Should Dobson have faced a trial for an offence he had been acquitted of? How should the criminal justice system accommodate developments in science and technology? Did the men receive a fair trial? What is the legacy of the Lawrence convictions for the criminal justice system and society as a whole?

 

SPEAKERS

Rob Lyons: Writer for Spiked Online (http://www.spiked-online.org.uk/); Author of ‘Panic on a Plate: How Society Developed an Eating Disorder’ (http://www.paniconaplate.com/).

Aneurin Brewer: Barrister at 9 Bedford Row, practising in Criminal Law.

A Conviction At Any Cost?

It is no exaggeration to say that the conviction of David Norris and Gary Dobson for the murder of Stephen Lawrence is symptomatic of a criminal justice system slipping towards totalitarianism.  The alarming disregard that the establishment has shown for the rights of these men should be a catalyst for a serious and principled argument for reversing the gradual erosion of defendant’s rights, which began under New Labour and has continued under the Coalition.  It is time to make a case for rebalancing the scales in favour of defendants and against the incessant bowing of freedom beneath the false god of scientific objectivity.

The mood after the conviction of Norris and Dobson was self-congratulatory and jubilant.  Paul Dacre, who published images of the defendants in 1997 under the headline that simply read ‘Murderers’ whilst he was editor of the Daily Mail, called it a ‘glorious day for British Newspapers proving that the power of journalism, courageous headlines and relentless campaigning can act as a huge force for good in society and make a major difference to countless lives’. The Crown Prosecution Service, who brought the prosecution against the men, congratulated themselves on ‘a lot of hard work’ and called it ‘the most significant case in a generation’.  The quiet and dignified relief of Stephen Lawrence’s parents was almost drowned out by the billowing back slapping of the media and the lawyering class. 

The Crown Prosecution Service may be right to describe the case as highly significant,  but not for the reasons they imagine.  What was truly significant about the reaction to the Stephen Lawrence verdict was the glossing over of the enormous sacrifices that have been made in terms of traditional freedoms in the course of the Lawrence case.  Many have pointed out that the ancient principle of double jeopardy, roughly the idea that a defendant should not be tried for the same crime twice, was abrogated in order to secure the conviction of Gary Dobson.  But this was just one of the rights usually afforded to defendants which the establishment chose to ignore in relation to these men. 

Take, most obviously, the presumption of innocence.  For many Judges and journalists, Dobson and Norris were guilty long before the jury returned its verdict.  In the course of the MacPhereson inquiry into the Metropolitan Police’s bumbling investigation of the murder, Sir William referred to the suspects variously as ‘evil’ and ‘obvious targets for early arrest’.   In a special edition of the Tonight Programme, involving interviews with the suspects in 1999, Martin Bashir cross examined the Aicourts, Norris, Dobson and Knight on their accounts of their movements on the night.  Bashir invited each of them to comment on unsubstantiated allegations and hearsay before claiming that the inconsistencies in their account made it ‘hard for anyone in the public to believe they were innocent’.  The casual disregard for this fundamental assumption of English Law was typified by the ‘courageous’ headline from the Daily Mail in 1997 – but quite what is so ‘courageous’ about publishing slanderous headlines about 3 men who cannot afford to do anything about it remains to be seen.  It is hard to remember that until Tuesday, Dobson and Norris were innocent men.  The Aicourts and Luke Knight remain so.    

Then consider the right to silence.  The defendants were continually chastised by the establishment for failing to give an account of themselves.  Lord Justice Simon Brown, in the course of a ruling which confirmed the obligation on the defendants to give evidence to the MacPhereson Inquiry on pain of prosecution said ‘these defendants twice had the opportunity to protest their innocence and have chosen not to do so’.  Quoting Brown LJ, MacPherson concluded in his report that their silence meant ‘the press and the public cannot be blamed for voicing their suspicions about them which are current and will remain alive’.   Michael Mansfield QC,  the barrister who undertook the private prosecution of the men in 1994 and who has built a career on purporting to champion defendant’s rights, said in an interview with the Guardian Newspaper : ‘The Lawrence suspects had a right not to answer questions that might incriminate them. But to refuse to answer any questions beyond their names was an abuse’.   Throughout the investigation and the inquiry the men were scorned for refusing to bow to Judicial and media pressure to assist the police and for choosing to affirm their fundamental right to remain silent. 

And what of the principle of double jeopardy?  This principle of English Law lasted from the Ancient Greeks until the New Labour government decided to disregard it in the Criminal Justice Act of 2003.  Double Jeopardy is often cited as originating in canon law but its routes are more democratic.   In the Roman republic, the decision of a single Magistrate was only appealable to a Court made up from the citizens of that republic.  Because blame was understood as fundamentally social,  it was thought that society could not be wrong in their decisions as to how they allocated blame.  Double Jeopardy was born from the fundamentally democratic idea that the decisions of the people in deciding whether someone was blameworthy simply could not be wrong. 

But a noble ancestry was not enough for the New Labour government, who in 2003 abolished double jeopardy in the course of a sweeping attack on defendant’s rights. The Act stipulated that the Court of Appeal could quash a jury’s acquittal and order the retrial of a defendant for the same crime in the face of ‘new and compelling evidence’ as to the defendant’s guilt.  It also allowed evidence of ‘bad character’ to be shown to juries.  This was why it was permitted for the jury in the Stephen Lawrence case to be played the ‘racist surveillance’ footage showing the men engaging in racist and violent behaviour in Dobson’s home.  It also placed an obligation on defendants to disclose the nature of their defence to the prosecution months in advance of their trial, including the names and details of all the witnesses that they intend to call.  This removed the long established right of the defence to ‘ambush’ the prosecution at trial. 

All of these reforms were driven by dangerously authoritarian assumption which became a hallmark of New Labour’s approach to criminal justice in response to Lawrence’s death:  that the sole purpose of the Courts is to deliver accurate verdicts efficiently.  Of course, an accurate verdict is a vital goal for any justice system.  But an accurate verdict means nothing if the state and the citizen are not placed on an equal footing in the course of its determination.  This is why the rights accorded to defendants are vital and why any attempt to curb or ignore them should cast a significant shadow over any subsequent verdict.

It goes without saying that society is better off without Norris and Dobson.  But anyone who is dedicated to protecting freedom and ensuring limits on state power should be extremely concerned after their conviction.  Their trial showcased all the authoritarian developments in our justice system since Stephen Lawrence’s tragic death.  It is now vital that we reinvigorate the debate around the rights of defendants and strenuously resist this incessant drive towards efficiency and accuracy.  No conviction is worth the cost.