Not Proven Verdict in England & Wales??, Did anyone read about this in the Times?

[WendyF]

Hi everyone,
I know you're all busy, but I was just wondering what peoples thoughts were on Charles ClarkEs proposal to introduce a third verdict (not proven) to the English Legal System, similar to the one in Scotland

Here's my tuppence worth anyway - The idea behind the not proven verdict is that it should prevent miscarriages of justice, and thereby, reduce compensation claims when new evidence should come to light (which I believe is what Charles Clarke is really concerned about).

However, in my opinion the not proven verdict is not justice. There is no appeal for the defendent (since they have not been found guilty) and it is not justice for the families of the victims (since no one is 'paying' for the crime). I also believe that once the not proven verdict is given on a crime, another person can not be brought to trial, so therefore the guilty party walks free regardless.(I'm not 100% sure about the appeals and re-trials after a not-proven verdict. Things may have changed since I moved south of the border)

I know that the NP verdict has come under fire in the media in Scotland and there have been calls to have it abolished.

Well, anyway, I just wanted to know what other people thought of it.

Here is an attachment to the article:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2142431.html

[dagon]

Hi Wendy.

I agree on the point of stopping miscarriages of justice on technicalities.

The quantity of trials you hear about that collapse purely because someone somewhere may have incorrectly signed something or incorrectly entered vital evidence is outrageous.

There are too many cases that collapse for reasons outside the material facts of the case.

Imagine if the yorkshire ripper or the moors murderers trials collapsed because an official accidentally signed his or her name in the wrong place?

I think it may be better, if there were some system in place that would allow for an enquiry into a procedural error that would usually lead to the not proven verdict, but without damaging the case itself. If the facts and evidence against the defendant are strong enough, then the court should be able to use discretion to overlook technical mistakes (providing those mistakes are not ones that have infringed the rights of the defendant) and allow the trial to continue.

My opinion on compensation claims is that they should be based on a damages system, and that the amount paid to a wrongly convicted person should reflect losses in earnings, expenses etc etc that they could reasonably have been expected to have earned or not paid during the period of incarceration, therefore if it could be calculated that they would have earned more than mr Clarkes suggested capped limit, then the state would be bound to compensate them to that value.

I also think however, that Charles Clarke is an inveterate fool who should step aside along with the rest of his faceless labour minions and allow a new government to lead the way. Never in my life have I witnessed a cabinet populated by such boring, grey and entirely unrepresentative of the people power mongers. How dare Blair criticise the electorate for criticising his inept government ministers. But of course, we dont know what is good for us do we? We need to be coddled and mothered and smothered in a great nanny state, because only daddy Blair knows what is best.

Has anyone heard about the so called 'dictatorship' bill that Labour is trying to force through parliament, an interesting piece of propossed legislation that is seemingly designed to give the government powers to force through or reform existing legislation without compliance from the rest of parliament?

This bill was also reported in the times, you can read about that here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2133349,00.html

Apparently it has been knocked back, but knowing Blair etc, they will present it again, and again, and again, and again ad infinitum, along with another bill allowing a state fund for cheries bad hair days!

And as for Gordon Brown, and the 'Gentlemans agreement' between him and Blair about the passing of office, what does the rest of the country get to say about this?

Nothing. As usual.

Get lost Labour!

My god, this has turned into a rant. My apologies, but this has been building for days now.

Best wishes,

Mike.

[WendyF]

Mike,
All I can say is, today is the day for getting it all out of your system!

Wendy