“Sentence First, Verdict Afterwards…”

Just when it seemed as though public attitudes might just be changing towards sexual allegations, following the supposed abandoning of the ludicrous ‘you will be believed’ dogma, along comes another example of unthinking ideologically-inspired nonsense peddled by a senior public official. This time it’s the so-called ‘Victims’ Commissioner’, Baroness Helen Newlove.

Baroness Newlove, Victims' Commissioner

On her official Twitter account, the Baroness – or possibly one of her flunkies – has recently posted the following politically-correct twaddle, masquerading as concern for the amorphous mass known collectively as ‘victims’:

I strongly disagree with judges who demand that rape victims are referred to as complainants. A victim is a victim from the moment the crime is committed. They deserve to be treated with respect, sensitivity & feel that their pain is acknowledged. To do otherwise is a backward step. 

The Baroness obviously takes the view that everyone who claims to have been raped (or otherwise sexually assaulted) is telling the truth. She doesn’t seem to believe that any sane person is capable of lying about having been abused, which strikes me as naivety in the extreme.

As we have seen in a series of recent scandals over disclosure (in other words ignoring or withholding of evidence by police), the key issue is often whether any ‘crime’ has even been committed in the first place, or whether it merely exists in the imagination of a chancer or fantasist; the tall tale made up in a bid for revenge, or is solely a disgraceful lie emanating from the mouth of a compensation-hungry fraudster. Has it not occurred to Helen Newlove that liars, fantasists and fraudsters exist?

I put it to her in the strongest possible terms that they do and, wherever these people rear their ugly heads, it is the accused and his or her family who are the victims. Is she really advocating that we lurch back to the ‘you will be believed’ school of nonsense?

I find it extremely concerning that this very poor example of a palpably fallacious argument is being advanced by a well-paid public official, who also has a seat in Parliament: since 2010 she has been a member of the House of Lords.

Of course, no-one is suggesting that people who complain that they have been a victim of a serious crime should be treated with anything other than professionalism, kindness and respect by the police, prosecutors and court officials. However, prejudging the outcome of a contested trial by confirming ahead of a jury’s deliberations that a crime has indeed been committed is, in my view, a very backward step indeed, and one that is grossly unfair and totally unjust to any defendant.

What is the next step along this particular road to judicial hell? Judges and prosecution barristers referring to the ‘as yet unconvicted rapist in the dock’ rather than ‘the defendant’? Then, any pretence of a presumption of innocence in sexual trials would really be dead and buried.

It seems that the whole institution of the ‘Victims’ Commissioner’ is another of those ludicrous and expensive quangos established by the last Labour government and indulged by successive administrations. It seems that Baroness Newlove has no particular qualifications, nor expertise in criminal justice, beyond having been herself a victim of a particularly horrific crime when her husband, Garry, was murdered by drunken thugs in 2007. While having every sympathy for her loss, it does seem a strange criterion upon which to justify making a senior public appointment. And this is where the problem seems to lie: we are expecting someone with no legal background nor qualifications to act as a public watchdog and advocate.

The baroness’s ridiculous tweet reminds me of the famous court scene in Alice in Wonderland:

'No, no!', said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'
'Stuff and nonsense!', said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'
'Hold your tongue!', said the Queen, turning purple.
'I won't!', said Alice.
Off with her head!', the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.

And yet, here in Baroness Newlove, we have the modern equivalent of the purple-faced Queen of Hearts, advocating that we should turn our justice system on its head solely to recognise the pain felt by ‘victims’… Baroness, some of your so-called ‘victims’ will be liars, fraudsters or fantasists, of this you can be sure.

Fortunately, despite her very grand sounding title and generous salary, Helen Newlove has no actual power over the courts. It can only be hoped that judges and sensible politicians will continue to ignore her dangerous, misguided, unqualified opinions.

In theory, at least, the office of the Victims’ Commissioner is supposed to offer:

Inclusivity representing all victims and witnesses, including the most vulnerable members of our community.

Yet, when it comes to the actual definition of what constitutes a ‘victim’, things become much more hazy. It appears that only certain victims actually qualify for such support and representation. For example, I have yet to hear the taxpayer-funded Victims’ Commissioner say one single word about victims of miscarriages of justice or those whose lives and families have been, and continue to be, destroyed by malicious, false accusations, propounded by the plethora of greedy, selfish, heartless liars. Employing a victims’ champion who only represents certain types of victim, while ignoring others, seems to me to be a very poor way of spending public money. What kind of message is this sending?

Are those who have had their life utterly destroyed by these malignant liars and fraudsters, Baroness, the wrong sort of victims?

The Disclosure Scandal and Wrongful Convictions

Present day miscarriages of justice are in the spotlight. But what about all those of yesteryear?

Alison Saunders’ car crash appearance before Parliament’s Justice Committee earlier this week was excruciating to watch. All her self-justifying bluster of previous media performances was missing. The Director of Public Prosecutions was on the ropes over the disclosure scandal and she knew it. 

DDP Alison Saunders

Both the embattled Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and some police forces, especially the Metropolitan Police, are currently in damage-limitation mode. Ms Saunders recently attempted to maintain the ludicrous fiction that no-one is locked up at Her Majesty’s Pleasure because of disclosure failures. Now we know for certain that this assertion is simply untrue.

The latest CPS report reveals that, during January and February alone, a total of 47 prosecutions for rape and other sexual offences were discontinued following a review of what had been disclosed to the defendants’ legal teams. Of the men affected by this (and all but one of those who had been charged were men), 14 had been held on remand in prison. All of these victims of our so-called ‘justice’ system have now been released, almost certainly to ruined lives, including lost jobs, homes and reputations. 

In fact, hundreds of ‘live’ prosecutions have been abandoned, or charges have been dropped, since the scandal began to attract national publicity back in December, when the case of student Liam Allen imploded after electronic messages from his female accuser were very belatedly handed to Mr. Allen’s barrister. Subsequently, many other collapsed prosecutions, and the heart-breaking stories of those whose lives have been utterly devastated, have also been hitting the headlines. Overwhelmingly, these have involved sexual allegations, although a corruption case also crashed in flames last month, but only after the innocent businessman involved had spent nearly eight months in prison on remand. 

In addition to the cases above, reviews have revealed there are serious disclosure issues in prosecutions which are still to go ahead. Once these issues have been attended to, at least the defendants will have a more level playing field before their trials.

I am still worried. Despite seeing Ms Saunders being given a very public verbal drubbing by MPs, I feel that we are no closer to gaining any clarity regarding the vexed question of all the miscarriages of justice which must have occurred over a number of years due to the withholding of evidence by the police and CPS staff. It is an important aspect of this scandal that the national media is only now realising this could prove to be one of the worst legal outrages for decades. Both the Daily Telegraph and Metro have published features this week raising questions about the prospect of thousands of wrongful convictions over the past few decades.

Yet the alarm bells were already ringing back in July 2017 when HMCPS Inspectorate issued a report on disclosure entitled ‘Making It Fair’. This document warned that it was ‘rare’ for police officers to tell prosecutors about evidence that could undermine the prosecution case or assist the defendant with their defence. The CPS Inspectorate has specifically highlighted the consequences of these legal failures, describing them as ‘a steady stream’ of wrongful convictions.

Despite this bleak assessment, nearly a year on, there seems to be a very marked reluctance on the part of our country’s legal establishment to accept the fact that, when police officers and/or CPS staff withhold evidence, innocent people are likely to be convicted, with many of them – especially in sexual offences cases – sent to prison for long periods, in some cases for decades or even being handed life sentences. 

It seems that withholding vital evidence from the defence has become so commonplace (especially in sexual allegation prosecutions) that it has now become a normalised practice. Juries have been deceived for years and, given such practices, miscarriages of justice are inevitable. How many potentially innocent victims have been wrongly convicted and jailed? No-one seems to know and very few who are in positions of authority appear to be in any hurry to find out.

I believe that when it comes to cases involving sexual accusations, relevant evidence is usually suppressed (including potential witnesses ignored if what they might say is perceived to be helpful to the defendant); any such material is rarely, if ever, handed over to the defence. This is nothing to do with ‘administrative errors’, short-staffing or lack of financial resources. It’s part of a deliberate strategy within the police and the CPS to ensure the conviction of anybody they have decided from the outset is guilty.

It’s time we all started calling a spade a spade: ‘disclosure failures’ is merely a polite euphemism for evidence being illegally withheld or even concealed by police officers and/or CPS prosecutors in order to increase the likelihood of conviction. The time for politeness is over: this is the worst legal scandal in my lifetime. 

When I was put on trial in 2014, due to the blatant lies of a couple of compensation-hunting fraudsters, (blatant to everyone, it seems, apart from to the Suffolk police), why was no correspondence between my two adult accusers (close friends) prior to my arrest disclosed to the defence? They both claimed they had never discussed their ‘independent allegations’ against me, which is akin to asking any reasonably intelligent person to enter a grotesque ‘Alice in Wonderland’ world. 

    

Source: CPS VAWG Report 2016-2017

In October the CPS was boasting in its annual report that 13,490 people had been prosecuted for sexual offences in 2016-2017 (of whom 79.5% were convicted). It also trumpeted its success in achieving ‘huge increases in convictions for rape (48%) and other sexual offences (79%)’ since 2007-2008. My question is: how many of those convictions should now be considered unsafe due to the illegal withholding of evidence? 

We MUST NOT allow the scandal of police and CPS withholding evidence, especially in sexual allegation cases, to be limited to current prosecutions in progress. This unlawful practice has been going on for years and there is likely to be a multitude of victims of miscarriages of justice. Many may still be rotting in our dangerous, filthy prisons; others may have been released but face years, or even a lifetime, on licence or subject to the humiliating sex offender registration, unable even to start rebuilding their shattered lives or reuniting their families.

Given that the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has repeatedly come under fire for being ‘unfit for purpose’, chronically underfunded and far too timid in referring cases back to the Court of Appeal, the prospect of hundreds - or thousands - of fresh dossiers hitting staff desks must be unnerving for civil servants and politicians alike. Who wants to be the Secretary of State for Justice when the music stops in this appalling game of pass-the-parcel (of blame)? Yet justice demands that convictions are reviewed independently, all evidence which is relevant is disclosed and urgent action is taken to refer meritorious appeals back to court. 

Any legal system that is solely designed to serve the purpose of conviction for ideological reasons (i.e. conviction targets set), regardless of evidence, is not a court of justice but rather a kangaroo court. We rightly condemn such pantomimes in other countries, yet we seem to have turned a blind eye to what has been going on for years in our own backyard.

Charlotte & Stefan Kiszko

Let’s recall the scandalous framing of Stefan Kiszko for a sexually-motivated murder in 1975. This case, which involved the police withholding conclusive forensic evidence of his innocence, has been described as ‘the worst miscarriage of justice’ in UK legal history. Now we may have hundreds, or possibly even thousands, of similar cases due to the disclosure scandal. 

It took Mr Kiszko’s elderly mother, Charlotte, 16 years of often lone campaigning to clear her son’s name and get his wrongful conviction quashed. Tragically, both died within months of his release. How many years of struggle will it take to get justice for the wrongly convicted of today?

It seems the CPS is playing a long game over the outrageous disclosure scandal. The powers that be are obviously hoping interest in miscarriages of justice will wane, eventually be forgotten about, before they are compelled to do anything. 

Waiting for justice will be like waiting for Godot - unless we step up popular pressure. Now.

Address to the FACT Conference

Address delivered at the FACT Spring Conference held in Birmingham on 12 May 2018

Photo courtesy of Allan Shipham

The past six months have been an eventful period for those of us who are concerned about false allegations and their impact upon innocent men and women, especially those of who work, or who have worked, in the caring professions. We carers and teachers are the most vulnerable groups in modern Britain, which is still reeling from the 'Savile Effect'. Despite the fact society depends on us, it is nevertheless quick to cast us asunder as soon as one of the myriad opportunists/cranks/liars accuses us of either a recent or historical sex allegation.

Historical allegations are generally favoured by the liars because they are harder to disprove. These reprobates are tempted to tell their lies because they are all too aware it is immensely lucrative and there isn't a chance of them facing any sanctions if they are exposed as lying: all to gain and nothing to lose.

If someone complains that another person has threatened him or her with a knife and the complainant is subsequently proved to be telling lies, he or she will be punished, at the very least with wasting police time. Make a false SEXUAL allegation and the authorities will do nothing: no one will care a fig, or will lack the courage to care a fig.

Despite repeated claims that false allegations of rape and sexual assault are 'very rare', recent - almost daily - reporting of just such crimes in the national, and on social, media is revealing to the world the sheer scale of the crisis within our palpably dysfunctional justice system. All of us here who have been involved for a number of years in FACT's work have been bleating about this crisis for some time and it is a relief to know that, at last, the wider public is getting the message: false allegations are not rare and they destroy innocent people's lives, even when the lies are exposed.

We, as members of FACT, must strike while the iron is hot: it would be a dereliction of duty to sit back and allow these vile opportunists to continue to behave so recklessly, some might say diabolically. We have a duty to speak up for all those suffering - whether they are waiting for a CPS charging decision or waiting for an appearance in court or if they are spending time behind bars.

What have been the recent key events?

Firstly, I mention 'the failure by the police to disclose evidence' scandals. Those of us who have already been through the criminal justice system, or who have a family member who has experience of it, or who represent individuals who have been falsely accused or wrongly convicted, are all to aware of the serious impact of failure to disclose evidence that could assist the defence.

With the collapse of the Liam Allen case late last year, we have been beset with a steady flow of 'abuse in procedure' cases, proving once and for all that the statement uttered last year by our DPP, Alison Saunders, 'I do not believe there are any innocent people in prison' is as infantile as it is alarming.

The CPS Inspectorate's recent report on disclosure found: 'There has been a culture of disclosure failures among police and prosecutors and this has inevitably led to a steady stream of miscarriages of justice'.

Photo courtesy of Allan Shipham

We here at FACT are part of a campaigning organisation and we need to ensure that this serious issue of wrongful convictions arising from withheld or concealed evidence is discussed widely among politicians/legal practitioners and investigative journalists and, as FACT's media spokesperson, I make daily efforts to spread our concerns. FACT's publicity and outreach continue to bring specific cases to the wider public attention.

The role of social media is key to engaging with the public: some of my own tweets concerning the whole tawdry world of false allegations and their impact on innocent people's lives are regularly seen by more than 6,000 readers. I would request that FACT members who use social media re-tweet and circulate FACT's official tweets to as wide an audience as possible. Any ideas for media initiatives, please don't hesitate to contact me.

The on-going case in the Supreme Court about compensation for those who have been wrongfully convicted and jailed for years - including Victor Nealon, whose solicitor Mark Newby is a long-standing pillar of FACT - also has the potential to raise public awareness of the awful injustices being perpetrated within the once highly respected British justice system.

Another recent development has been the publication of new books, which highlight the ubiquitousness of false allegations and wrongful convictions. Gurpal Virdi has recently had his book, 'Behind the Blue Line', published by Biteback Publishing, a house owned by LBC presenter Iain Dale. 'Biteback' is leading the way in the publication of these accounts - my own book, 'Presumed Guilty', was published last year and hot off the press this week is Jon Robins' 'Guilty Until Proven Innocent'.

FACT continues to fulfil its role as a support and information hub for those who have faced, or are facing, false allegations. We now have an opportunity to step up pressure on the police and CPS by sharing our stories, working with sympathetic journalists, lobbying politicians, telling the world the devastation that being wrongly accused can have on an individual's life.

Please support FACT in any way you can.

Unaccountable, Unjust and Untutored

The current civil action being pursued by singer Sir Cliff Richard against the BBC in the High Court, for the violation of his privacy by broadcasting footage of the infamous police raid on his Berkshire home in 2014, is a stark reminder of the enormous power of the traditional media to damage irreparably the lives of individuals. In that one fell swoop, Sir Cliff's name and reputation were trashed throughout the globe, while the BBC was congratulating itself on a massive scoop.

Sir Cliff Richard

To hell with the man who had spent his adult life viewed as one of our national heroes. Here was a person with all the trappings of great success and yet (and I have met him) so grounded and so kind; some might argue an almost saintly character. Indeed, because he was so famous and was viewed so highly by us all, the BBC thought they had the biggest story ever and they wanted to squeeze every last drop out of it.

But did they for a moment stop to think it was only an allegation which had been laid at his door? Did it not occur to them that the allegation may not be true, in which case they'd be destroying the man's highly respected name there and then, for evermore? Of course not. He'd been accused of sexual abuse, so he - like anyone else in this situation - was fair game.

It isn't just the BBC who are quick to ruin the reputation of someone accused of a sex abuse crime; it's a mindset which permeates the entire media. And not just the traditional media: nowadays anyone accused of a crime has to contend with the baying, untutored mob, those social justice warriors who trawl the net to find targets for their unfettered bile. No proof is required to start a storm, just an accusation.

Social media platforms, particularly Twitter and Facebook, are awash with vile smears and oft-repeated fantasies. I know this because it happened to me as soon as I was arrested and interviewed in 2012 as a result of some filthy lies which emanated from the mouth of some greedy, opportunistic lowlife. Did the mob pause to allow justice to take its course? Of course not.

One pleasant individual stated a few days after my arrest in December 2012, that if I killed myself, 'It'd be the best Christmas prezzie ever.' How charming. After the jury in my eventual trial, 672 days later, returned immediately with a 'not guilty' verdict, another delightful man, who knew nothing of the case, apart from titbits of ill-informed internet gossip (and someone who had never met me), stated: 'Fuck that verdict, he's fucking guilty.'

Although it can be argued that the vast reach of social media can be empowering, as well as invaluable as a campaigning and marketing tool, it is also evident that terrible harm can be caused by the misuse of current communications technology. None more so than the spreading of malicious falsehoods served up as proven facts by the agenda driven, often ignorant, mob.

Only the super-rich truly have the means to go into battle to protect their reputations in the civil courts, where costs can spiral into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds. Pretty much everyone else who becomes the victim of vile allegations online seems to have to ignore the character assassination as best they can. Sadly, some targets of the internet bullies and conspiracy theorists find the pressure – and its devastating consequences in daily life – simply unendurable and take their own lives.

While it is true that local communities have always been prone to the malignant mischief caused by neighbourhood gossips and fantasy peddlers, the internet has provided these poisonous, malicious types with a means of disseminating their bile and smears to a global audience, (sometimes with the bonus of maintaining their own anonymity). A blatant lie or untrue rumour which is posted online in, say, Sheffield can be relayed and rebroadcast from Stuttgart to Shanghai, via San Francisco and Seattle, within a matter of minutes.

Moreover, the Web also enables ‘birds of a feather to flock together’: conspiracy theorists and other lunatic fringe obsessives are now able to find each other with ease and to reinforce both falsehoods and shared delusions. Bizarre fantasies involving such old favourites as Satanism, evil secret societies or vast rings of wealthy paedophiles involved in the state-sponsored sexual abuse of children, can be quickly and effectively propagated on a worldwide stage, as can targeted attacks aimed at specific individuals, usually celebrities whose names offer instant household recognition.

In this age of unbridled egos, in which every cruel fantasy can be peddled or attributed falsely to celebrities online, who is safe from the smears and poisonous lies of the malicious and unprincipled, who demand the absolute ‘right’ wilfully to destroy the lives and well-being of others (the vast majority of whom they have never even met), under the banner of ‘freedom of speech’?

In common with many unhinged obsessives, most conspiracy theorists are evangelical in their aim of converting others to their warped views, especially the weak-minded, the young and the vulnerable. In this, some online clusters share similar characteristics with terrorist groups: brainwashing potential adherents, enforcing conformity of belief, presenting distorted opinions and fantasies as fact, and attacking anyone who dares to challenge their toxic narratives. It is not an exaggeration to liken the risk to society posed by some of these circles to that posed by the most dangerous of cults.

At a time of ‘fake news’, the most outrageous falsehoods can suddenly be circulated as truth. For many disseminators of lies, the ultimate goal is to win the prize of a ‘retweet’ or a ‘like’ from a social media celebrity or politician, who can then be cited as a ‘believer’ in whichever fantasy or untruth is being peddled. And all of this can be achieved without the involvement of the traditional media, although it often appears that where the wilder reaches of the internet leads, the rest of the news agenda tends to follow.

We are increasingly witnessing the corrosive impact of unfettered, unregulated social media upon our justice system:  as just one example, in recent days it has been revealed that a high profile rape trial in Belfast came close to collapse owing to injudicious comments made online by a politician, prior to the unanimous acquittal of all the defendants by the jury. This case is far from unique as posters and tweeters, who have little or no knowledge of our legal system, regularly circulate highly defamatory material, much of which is probably contempt of court under the sub judice rules which exist (in theory at least), to ensure the right of us all to a fair trial.

As I have noted in previous blog posts, even those defendants who are acquitted by a jury now seem to be considered ‘fair game’ for a campaign of social media vilification, which can even spill over onto the streets. Some of these protests seem to have a lot in common with the mob raging at the foot of the guillotine during the worst excesses of the French Revolution. Justice no longer seems to matter as long as the enraged crowd outside the court gets the verdict it demands. And where the baying mob goes, the politicians tend to follow. After all, popularity for them is the chief driving force.

And long after the trials are over and the judges and jurors have gone home, the fate of the acquitted is still being decided via the internet and the media: online posts and media coverage now seem to have a permanence that ensures spite, bile and lies will be accessible to all who care to type onto their keyboard a person’s name. This means that no matter how innocent a wrongly accused person has been proven to be in court, they are, in effect, permanently on trial online. The lies of perjurers and fantasists are linked to their names in perpetuity. I am indelibly tied to the vile lies of the chancer who made an allegation against me.

Often a decision not to prosecute or an acquittal by a jury is just a seemingly unimportant precursor to being hounded by the arrogance of some injustice collectors behaving like medieval despots. This is one of the reasons why the recent privacy case involving Google and the so-called ‘right to be forgotten’ is so significant: surely a person who has never even been charged with a criminal offence, or who has been acquitted by a jury in a court of law, should not have to face a ‘kangaroo court’ of online social justice warriors, along with negative media coverage?

Would it surprise you to learn that although when I was charged with the lies laid at my door in 2013, a certain national newspaper covered nearly a half a page informing its readers of my plight, yet, when I was acquitted a year subsequently, there was no mention at all of the verdict. (How many pages in that newspaper would have been filled had I been found guilty?)

We need urgent legislation to restore anonymity to people who have not been charged with any offence. In addition, there is a very legitimate argument to be made for extending anonymity to those alleged to have committed certain crimes, particularly involving highly emotive sex abuse cases, until the point of conviction. Once an accused has been convicted, then the public will be made fully aware of the proven facts.

There used to be a saying among journalists: 'Today's news is tomorrow's fish and chip wrapping paper.' This is no longer the case as the internet now provides everyone with a permanent reminder of anyone who is even accused of a crime, even if never charged. Two hundred years ago criminals were branded on their foreheads; nowadays the search engines do the same job, only you just need to be accused to be marked for life. Ask Sir Cliff!

When Police Just Can't Be Bothered

While watching a programme this week called 'Unsolved', on BBC 1, about Omar Benguit, who is in prison for ostensibly a murder he didn't commit, I learned that the person who, it is claimed, framed him had accused someone else, previously, of paedophilia. In the documentary a retired murder detective, Brian Murphy, who during his career covered hundreds of investigations, made the following comment: 'A paedophilia allegation is one of the worst allegations you can make.'

Omar Benguit: wrongly convicted?

Can it be explained, therefore, why the two friends, A and B, who made totally false statements to the police, and subsequently on oath in a court of law, that I had inappropriately touched them both when they were 11 years of age, have not been called to account? Why has the Suffolk police, so eager to have me prosecuted, allowed them to carry on with their lives with impunity?

I repeat what the experienced, respected detective, Mr. Murphy, stated: 'A paedophilia allegation is one of the worst allegations you can make.'

Police: too busy for certain crimes?

But, hey, not to worry; don't anyone be put off lying through your teeth to get your greedy hands on compensation money from the taxpayer, because the police and the CPS couldn't care a fig if you do lie.  It seems, if you're rumbled, you'll walk away scot-free. All to gain and nothing to lose. Telling malicious lies which could potentially wreck someone else's life isn't a crime the State recognises particularly. Perhaps because it doesn't curry much public favour.

In my case, A and B lied and lied again and anyone with an IQ above the day's temperature, who listened to the repugnant lies they spouted in court, was left in no doubt they were lying.
Yet nothing has been done to punish them.

But Mr. Murphy claims those who falsely allege child abuse have committed a serious crime.
Over to you, Suffolk police. I repeat:  'A and B were lying throughout'. Shouldn't they be called to account or aren't you bothered?

Two Cheers as Alison Saunders Steps Down

This is the full text of my reaction to the news that Alison Saunders is to step down as DPP in October. Excerpts have appeared in The Express - link).

The news that Alison Saunders is to stand down as the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), at the end of her five-year contract, might bring an end to the grotesque ‘target driven justice’, which is synonymous with her time at the top. By common consent, Ms Saunders has not exactly covered herself – or the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) she leads – with glory. Too many things have gone disastrously wrong, too many times, and public confidence in our justice system is now at an all time low. Such is the damage, it will take much more than Ms Saunders’ departure to repair what has been broken.

DPP Alison Saunders

Although some will argue that swingeing cuts, amounting to around a quarter of its budget and a reduction in a third of its staff since 2010, have impacted on the CPS’ ability to provide a high quality service, it is difficult not to conclude that the malaise goes far deeper than insufficient personnel. To my mind, the real provenance of the problem has been the blatant politicisation of the organisation, a process which started before Ms Saunders took the top job in 2013 - a job, incidentally, which pays around £205,000 per annum (plus generous benefits and a £1.8 million pension pot).

The new ‘approach’ to delivering so-called justice was instituted by her predecessor as DPP, Keir Starmer (now Sir Keir Starmer MP, a Labour front bencher), who was appointed in 2008. He oversaw the transformation of the CPS from a taxpayer-funded body, tasked with making decisions about prosecutions based on evidence, to an increasingly politicised machine which sought to champion trendy causes which very vocal campaigners believed should be driving our justice system. Thus began an unhealthy obsession with DPP sound-bites, ‘initiatives’ and grandstanding for the media. Keir Starmer compromised the integrity of the CPS and Alison Saunders proceeded to exacerbate matters.

Sir Keir Starmer QC MP

Perhaps Sir Keir’s most regrettable legacy within the CPS was the importation of the ludicrous mantra, informing anyone making allegations of a sexual nature that “you will be believed”, no matter how bizarre, unlikely or outlandish the claims being made. This approach came as a direct result of political pressure amidst the ‘Savile effect’, that collective insanity which gripped this nation after the death of the platinum haired DJ in 2011.

Once this ideological dogma had taken root within the CPS  - the 2014 report by Her Majesty’s Inspector of Constabulary said: “The presumption that a victim should always be believed should be institutionalised”, - traditional approaches, such as defendants being innocent until proven guilty, the police at least making an effort to pursue open minded investigations, were promptly ditched. When Ms Saunders took up her role as DPP in 2013, she was an enthusiastic adopter and advocate and a bad situation became inevitably worse.

Back in 2014, Ms Saunders, who had spent her entire professional life working at the CPS, told one interviewer that “Nobody knew who we [the CPS] were, what we did – so I think it’s good that we have a profile.” Unfortunately, years of back office work in the CPS bureaucracy had ill prepared her for the DPP role and many of her key interviews became highly defensive, as public criticism of controversial CPS failures mounted.

Too often it seemed that specific prosecutions – whether of investigative journalists, or of those accused of female genital mutilation or of media personalities accused of historical sexual offences – were more about getting a politically-correct result, rather than achieving justice. When these high profile cases started collapsing, the consequent damage to the CPS’ reputation was inevitable; Ms Saunders’ standing was similarly affected.

One of the most serious areas of concern during Ms Saunders tenure has been ‘target-driven’ practices, where CPS staff members are under constant pressure to achieve ‘results’ – that is, convictions in court. Common sense dictates that any legal system which operates on the basis of hitting specific, pre-set targets for the number of convictions in court, is at risk of multiplying miscarriages of justice, as well as encouraging prosecutors to charge potential defendants in cases where there is little or no actual evidence. This seems to have become the norm in sexual allegation cases, both modern and historical. No one can regard this as a proper, fair, sensible approach to administering justice in a country which gave the world the Magna Carta.

Another key concern was the apparent collusion between some CPS staff and police investigators over the vexed issue of disclosure of evidence – again, especially in sexual offence cases – to the defence. As evidence mounted that critical material, such as text messages and social media exchanges, were not being disclosed to defendants’ legal teams, trials started to collapse. It is of no surprise that judges have become much more critical of police and CPS failures and omissions.

Of course, we should not be concerned only about innocent people who have been dragged through the courts, their reputations indelibly tarnished, and about the victims of wrongful convictions, who are suffering as a result of the current chaos within the CPS; genuine victims of serious crimes are also being let down by a system which seems to be on the brink of collapse. Will jurors be prepared to convict a defendant they feel is guilty beyond reasonable doubt if confidence in British justice is continually being eroded by failed prosecutions and repeated scandals over a lack of disclosure of evidence? Jury members will inevitably worry, perhaps, that they've not heard all the evidence and acquit.

In recent months, Ms Saunders has not helped her cause by publicly declaring that she does not believe that there are any innocent people in prison as a consequence of failures to disclose relevant evidence to the defence. What a preposterous, immature, arrogant stance to take. Just last week, a devastating report by the HMCPS Inspectorate revealed that there had been a ‘steady stream of miscarriages of justice’ due to poor disclosure practices. Who knows how many innocent, but wrongly convicted, men and women are currently rotting in our dangerous, over crowded, dysfunctional prisons? Does the evidence point to Ms. Saunders being naive or supremely deluded?

I don’t think it is an understatement to say that there is mounting concern that the CPS and our wider justice system have come under the influence of ideologically-driven, political decision making. Collapsing trials and the unedifying prospect of innocent victims of false allegations languishing for months, or even years, on police bail, their homes ransacked, their lived trashed, have all damaged public confidence in a system which is now so underfunded that day to day life in our magistrates' courts are akin to ‘judicial A & E departments’; in short, the administering of justice on the cheap.

While Ms Saunders’ personally very lucrative departure from her post is to be welcomed by all concerned about the route our justice m.o. has taken over the last decade, it will not be enough to restore faith in a system which was once the envy of the world. Fundamental reform will surely require the ditching by prosecutors of the current wholly inappropriate target-driven approach, as well as a move away from ideological fashions and fads, which have done so much damage.

Is it too much to hope that the new DPP makes every effort to restore some faith in our justice system’s ability to protect the innocent and, by searching for and uncovering the truth, safely to convict the guilty? Time will tell.

Perjurers and the Pug

It often seems that we live in an increasingly topsy-turvy world in which crimes – real or imagined – are treated in very different ways. Liars, compensation fraudsters and fantasists who make false allegations against innocent people routinely escape any form of censure or prosecution, while others who are accused of far less harmful offences will be dragged through the courts by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS).

I was reminded once  again of this sad state of affairs by the recent tale of the online ‘comedian’ who taught his girlfriend’s pet pug to raise its paw in imitation of a Nazi salute. Not a very laudable or tasteful thing to waste his time on, but hardly a criminal act worthy of police attention. Yet the man responsible has been prosecuted and convicted. He now awaits sentence. Perhaps actor John Cleese – in his celebrated role as hapless hotelier Basil Fawlty – will be the CPS’ next victim, prosecuted for goose-stepping around a table of German guests with his arm raised. If so, it would be a slam-dunk for a ‘historical offence’ conviction. Tens of millions will have seen the video evidence: ‘Mr. Cleese, you are guilty.’

What emerges is a pattern of highly selective prosecutions that appear to be politically-motivated. I use the term ‘political’ in its widest meaning, because all recent British governments have been guilty of creating a wide range of criminal offences that never hitherto existed in English (or Scottish) law. Some of these so-called offences are more about assuaging public outcries by tiny groups of campaigners or soothing those who are easily offended (which busybodies, for example, complained about the performing pug, I wonder).

We have also seen a pair of failed prosecutions for alleged female genital mutilation (FGM). Since this law was enacted by a Conservative government in 1985 (and beefed-up by the last Labour government in 2003), there have been precisely two prosecutions brought in England and Wales (with a third case pending). The first defendant – an NHS gynaecologist – was acquitted by a jury in less than 30 minutes back in 2015.

The second defendant (a solicitor) saw the prosecution against him collapse earlier this month when the judge agreed with defence counsel that there was no case to answer. So why were these very obviously weak prosecutions brought in the first place?

DPP Alison Saunders: under pressure

The answer is put eloquently in an article which appeared in The Guardian newspaper in February 2015, following the acquittal of Dr Dhanuson Dharmasena:

“The case against Dharmasena was announced in March 2014, in a high-profile statement by the director of public prosecutions, Alison Saunders, following political and media pressure on the police and Crown Prosecution Service at the failure to prosecute anyone for the offence since FGM was outlawed in the UK in 1985.”

And there we have it in a nutshell: the police and CPS bowing to pressure from politicians, the media (and no doubt a few vocal activists) to launch a prosecution and obtain a conviction at almost any cost. The CPS succumbed to the ‘something must be done’ philosophy and blundered ahead. Even The Telegraph described the 2015 case as ‘a show trial’. And, to their credit, jurors saw right through this ridiculous charade and acquitted Dr Dharmasena.

In making these comments, it is necessary to make it clear that I do not endorse the vile practice of genitally mutilating girls, which is palpably an abhorrent act. But this is not a valid reason for launching ‘show trial’ prosecutions in cases where there is little or no evidence that it has even happened. Evidently jurors in one case and a judge in the other agreed.

Yet we are told that 144,000 girls in the UK are ‘at risk’ from FGM (according to an academic report published in July 2015 by London’s City University). If this statistic is accurate, it seems very strange that not one successful prosecution has been brought to date.

Turning now to another area where the police and CPS are clearly in dereliction of duty: the prosecution of those who knowingly make false and malicious allegations against innocent people. It is difficult to assess the appalling human cost of such wicked, selfish acts.

As I have stated in previous blog posts, targets of this vile crime often lose their jobs, homes, savings, pensions – and even their families and friends; some poor souls are driven by misery and despair to end their own lives. I know of a number of such cases. Yet prosecutions of the liars and perjurers responsible are extraordinarily unusual.

In one very recent case – noteworthy precisely because these prosecutions are so rare – a 23-year old student named Lottie Harris (now known as Lucien) admitted six counts of perverting the course of justice between 2016 and 2017. The victim was a gay man for whom Harris had a misplaced attraction – a work colleague. Frustrated, Harris accused him of a total of 23 totally false allegations, including rape and threats made with a knife. The entire story was a series of barefaced lies, made up by a repugnant attention-seeker.

Guilty liar: Lottie (Lucien) Harris

As the victim of these false allegations observed in his statement to the court: “I feel scarred for life. I was arrested in full view of customers and colleagues… It has proved to be very embarrassing and shameful. I have lost the respect of people I work with as they saw me arrested… I don’t think I will ever get back to how it was before or recover from what Harris has done to me.”

And the sentence for all the shame, harm and terror this false accuser inflicted on the victim? A two-year suspended prison sentence, 300 hours of unpaid work and compensation of a measly £2,500 for the man whose life has possibly been ruined. In contrast, had the victim of these false allegations been convicted because of these vile lies, he would have received a sentence of over 10 years’ imprisonment, perhaps much longer, and a lifetime on the Sex Offenders’ Register.

It needs to be stressed that this has been one of the very few cases involving false allegations of rape or sexual assault that the police has bothered to investigate and the CPS has then deigned to prosecute. It often appears that convictions in these cases are only obtained when, on the very rare occasion, the false accuser confesses and pleads guilty, as in this instance.

There seems to be no appetite among either police detectives or CPS caseworkers to investigate or bring charges against the vast majority of liars, fraudsters and fantasists who inflict endless misery and ruin on their innocent victims, regardless of whether the motive is revenge, compensation, attention-seeking or a bogus claim to victimhood. There are even cases I know about where criminals have managed to extricate themselves from their own pending prosecution by spinning a vivid imaginary tale of an historical experience of having themselves been sexually abused.

Perjury in a court of law should be a serious criminal offence (the maximum penalty is supposedly seven years’ imprisonment), as should be any attempt to pervert the course of justice by making false allegations. These are crimes which undermine confidence in the justice system, as well as leading to wholly innocent victims being sent to prison for years or even decades, utterly ruining them and devastating their families.

In practice, how are these offences treated by our agents of the state?  I know from first-hand experience, other than in exceptional cases, as outlined above, the authorities completely ignore them. The two liars who dragged me through the courts in 2013-14 for their own selfish, insidious ends, have not been called to account. Yet, their crime is substantially more serious than the one they accused me of, even if they had been telling the truth. I had my life turned upside down, while these two liars and perjurers have carried on with their own lives as if nothing had happened. I was told just to get on with things and stop complaining. Can someone tell me how all this can possibly be right? I despair, as every right-minded person should.

Far from being a so-called ‘victimless’ crime, makers of false accusations know exactly what harm their lies and vile fantasies will almost certainly unleash: it is ‘pushing the nuclear button’ on another person’s life. Such premeditated offences – with ‘malice aforethought’ as the old legal phrase put it – demand appropriate application of the law by the police and the CPS. Anything less is an utter betrayal of the victims. And we victims of malicious allegations continue to be betrayed.

Our criminal justice system is currently in a sorry state (as laid out painfully bare in the excellent book written by the blogger and author known only as The Secret Barrister, Stories of the Law and How It’s Broken, which I’m in the midst of reading). We need an urgent return to the rule of law and proper policing, not the ridiculous political mob-pleasing gestures for which the police and the CPS have now become infamous. There needs to be a clear focus on real criminals, with professional prosecutions based on genuine evidence, rather than squandering resources on dragging trainers of ‘Nazi pugs’ into the dock, to the deserved derision of the nation.