I was listening to the debate on this on FiveLive this evening. Some junior minister defending the reason they took this decision with the Local Elections on the horizon ("We did NOT take this decision with that in mind. Yes, we admit this was suggested nearly FIVE YEARS AGO but we felt now was the right time, after consultation, to instigate it").
What strikes me about this is theyre capping the payments on victims of miscarriage of justice to increase the payments to victims of things such as violent crime.
Other little titbits that said to me "This is a very bad idea"
- If youve been convicted of a crime previously, your payout will be reduced.
- If youre a victim of a miscarriage of justice, youre still a victim of crime. Why should you get less money for spending 10 years in a prison cell because of errors made by the crown in prosecuting, be they technical or deliberate witholding, than someone who gets their arm broken in a mugging?
- Why are they seeking to change the categorisation of some aspects of a miscarriage of justice? Is this a cheap vote winning ploy to lessen the liability of the crown when it makes fundamental mistakes?
The one thing which did worry me very seriously though is the mooted introduction of the "Not Proven" verdict into English Law. Its the one single aspect of Scottish Law which is a very bad idea. I personally refer to it as "That Bastard Law" as I always bring to mind the Francis Auld case (go Googling, he got off a murder rap on "Not Proven") as the worst example of it.
The one thing the law has to be is Decisive, because if its not, you lose faith in it. Youre either guilty , or not guilty. Not proven is a horrific muddle of a verdict and if its introduced, will make a mockery of the law courts in England.