1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Tom Sargant and JUSTICE are synonymous. He was the
founding secretary from 1955 until he retired in 1982, late
in his 70s. One of the most remarkable features of his
life is that he only began to work for JUSTICE after his
50th birthday. Until then he had had a very varied and
interesting life, but little to do with the law. From the
time that he became the founding secretary, JUSTICE became
his life' s work. Above all, he is remembered for his
integrity and tenacity in the field of miscarriages of
justice. He took up cases where the lawyers and the judges
all agreed that there was no reason to doubt the
correctness of the conviction. He seldom accepted a "no"
from any of the authorities, pressing on in the face of
what appeared to be overwhelming odds. When everyone else
had given up, Tom Sargant persevered. For him there was no
such thing as a hopeless case. Many of these cases in due
course became known as miscarriages of justice. For 25
years, save for his personal modesty, he could fairly have
claimed to be the only permanent office which was the court
of last resort.
1.2 Tom Sargant played a crucial part in establishing JUSTICE’S
renowned casework role. JUSTICE'S constitution has as one
of its principal aims "... to assist in the maintenance of
the highest Standards of administration of justice and in
the preservation of the fundamental liberties of the
individual." No one upheld those aims better than Tom
Sargant. He took on cases even when an important point of
principle was not involved. As he said, "It seemed
senseless to try to formulate reforms without identifying
the causes of wrong convictions." No one can disagree with
that proposition.
1.3 Tom Sargant inspired others to follow his lead. It is
appropriate this year to remember the work of Sir David
Napley. Amongst the many spheres in which David influenced
the criminal justice system, this evening I want to
highlight just one. He was instrumental in setting up this
lecture series, and I would like to pay tribute, not only
to Tom Sargant and his life and work, but also to Sir David
Napley for his contribution to the criminal justice debate.
1.4 JUSTICE has contributed in so many ways to the criminal
justice system, although perhaps it is best known for
pursuing individual cases those cases which, for one
reason or another, have failed to be dealt with properly by
the criminal justice system. But JUSTICE is not merely
concerned with pursuing individual cases. It has published
a long list of influential documents. These have often
changed the way in which the criminal justice system
operates. You will forgive me if I select from all their
publications two in particular. The first is their report,
as long ago as 1970 - "The Prosecution Process in England
and Wales" . This recommended the creation of an
independent prosecution department. It took a Royal
Commission, the Philips Commission which sat from 1978 to
1981 and the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, to create
that independent prosecution department the Crown
Prosecution Service. It is not without interest that it
took 16 years from the time when JUSTICE first made this
recommendation until it was implemented. Their recent
report published in September 1994 called "Remedying
Miscarriages of Justice" makes recommendations for the
detailed operation of a new body - JUSTICE referred to it
as a Criminal Cases Review Authority. Once more, JUSTICE
has been making these sort of recommendations for
approximately 30 years.
1.5 If it seems from this summary that JUSTICE has always been
making recommendations which take a long time to come into
effect, it is probably because so much development has been
needed in the criminal justice system. It is a dynamic
process which constantly calls for updating and change.
There have been no fewer than nine important Acts, ranging
from the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 through to
the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 in the last
10 years. Why have all these changes been necessary? They
have all been intended to try to improve the system
creating the proper balance between the rights of the
individual and the responsibilities of the State.
1.6 For my part, as Head of the Crown Prosecution Service and
Director of Public Prosecutions, I, together with all
members of the Service, am committed to the same goal
getting the system right. And getting the system right
impacts upon the role of JUSTICE. We want to see the
miscarriage casework role of JUSTICE diminish. This can
only be done by getting each step in the system carried out
properly, effectively and thoroughly. Then and only then
can we be certain that we have reduced the number of
miscarriages of justice.
2. THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM UNDER PRESSURE
2.1 There can be no doubt that the criminal justice system is
under pressure. Lord Runciman's Royal Commission made no
fewer than 352 recommendations for change. There have been
a number of cases in the Court of Appeal recently where
convictions have been overturned, and the judges have apologised to the respondents for these miscarriages of justice.
2.2 Miscarriages of justice have so many devastating
consequences. The obvious one is that an innocent person
has been convicted. The converse of that is that a guilty
person has gone free. Justice has been denied to everyone
involved in the case:- the victim is left unfulfilled;
there has been social and economic dislocation for the
family of the convicted defendant; and there are often
questions over the integrity of the police and other
witnesses who have given evidence. The final and most deep
seated problem is that public confidence in the system is
tarnished.
2.3 Not surprisingly, the system is under fire from academics,
members of the legal profession, the media and the public.
There is pressure in both directions:- on the one hand,
there is the need to convict the guilty; on the other hand,
it is essential that the innocent are not charged, or if
charged are acquitted. None of us can, however, ignore the
discipline of public funds. The Royal Commission on
Criminal Justice's terms of reference included the phrase,
"having regard to the efficient use of resources". We,
therefore, have to find a balance because justice is denied
to everyone if that balance is wrong. The balance which
the criminal justice system is designed to achieve is the
twin aims of conviction in the right case, and acquittal in
the right case.
2.4 Protecting the innocent is in practice a combination of
three objectives:-
i that a person should not be tried for a crime they did
not commit;
ii if tried, there should not be a conviction and,
iii if convicted, any such conviction should be quashed on
appeal.
3. THE INNOCENT SHOULD NOT BE TRIED
3.1 The primary aim must be that people who are innocent should
not be tried. There have to be safeguards built in to the
process to try to ensure that no innocent person is charged
and brought before the court, There is no magic formula,
but there are three stages at which safeguards have been
built into the criminal justice system to prevent an
innocent person being tried. The first is - the
investigation process; the second is the legal filter,
carried out by the Crown Prosecution Service; and the third
is the procedural safeguards within the criminal justice
system. Let me deal first with the investigation process.
Investigation Process
3.2 This is an area where it is essential that the balance is
right. Investigation may interfere with individual
liberty. On the other hand, it is essential to discover if
the person being investigated is responsible for committing
the crime. While the crime is being investigated, the
suspect needs to have proper safeguards at all stages. In
1984, the Police and Criminal Evidence Act was passed to
codify the vast majority of police powers. The Act came
into force in stages during 1985 and 1986, so we have now
had over eight years of experience of it. It sets out a
clear regime for the treatment of people who are arrested
and detained by the police, together with Codes of Practice
which set out the rights of individuals, and the duties of
police officers.
3.3 There is little point in having a clear regime with Codes
of Practice unless suspects are aware of them. Codes have
to be available for suspects at the police stations to see.
Similarly, there is no point in having a Code, if breaches
of the Code do not have important consequences. Breaches
of the Codes are disciplinary offences and may lead to
evidence being excluded at the trial. It is essential that
on the one hand, there is legislation in place which
permits the police to fight crime effectively, but the
converse is that it is equally essential that individual
officers apply the Codes.
3.4 The length of detention of a suspect is a matter of great
importance to that individual's civil liberty. The Police
and Criminal Evidence Act, therefore, gave statutory limits
to the length of detention. This is valuable in preventing
oppressive questioning. Moreover, if oppression is used in
questioning, any admission obtained as a result must be
excluded . There are specific provisions to deal with
vulnerable suspects, such as the young, the mentally
disordered, or the handicapped. A new role, the custody
officer, separate from and independent of the investigating
officers, was also introduced to help to safeguard' the
rights which the Act conferred on the individual.
3.5 The Police and Criminal Evidence Act not only dealt with
the safeguards for the individual, but set out the powers
of police officers to obtain evidence to arrest and
search, to question and detain. Is that balance right? Do
the police require more powers? Are the rights of the
suspect being trampled on? Much of the evidence given to
the Royal Commission dealt with the balance between the
rights of the individual suspect, and the powers of the
police. The Commission's conclusion was that on the whole
the Police and Criminal Evidence Act and its Codes of
Practice are generally being complied with and that the
overall objectives have acquired general acceptance.
DNA
3.6 Modern technology also has an important role in providing
safeguards during the investigation. The criminal justice
system should not lag substantially behind scientific
developments. Where would we be without the use of
fingerprinting and blood grouping? DNA has been the most
recent and dramatic development in this field. It is an
important diagnostic tool for helping ascertain the truth.
It is both a safeguard for excluding suspects, and a weapon
for including, to a very fine tolerance, those who may have
committed · the offence. DNA samples can be built into a
databank which will prove an invaluable investigative tool
for the police. The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act
enables the police to make further use of this new science
whilst protecting the rights of the suspect. No suspect
can be forced to give an intimate sample although, if the
suspect consents, the police can take intimate samples, not
merely in cases of serious arrestable offences, but also in
the much wider range of recordable offences. The Act
permits samples to be checked against other recorded
samples without the consent of the donor. But if a person
is acquitted or not prosecuted, although the samples are
kept, they cannot be used in evidence in any criminal
proceedings. Thus the Act seeks to strike in this new and
important field the essential balance which should help to
prevent miscarriages of justice.
The Crown Prosecution Service
3.7 Let me now turn to the role of the Crown Prosecution
Service. We are a vital filter in the process to try to
ensure that, if a person is wrongly charged, the case does
not proceed beyond us to court. We are frequently thought
of as "the prosecutors". This ignores our first and
primary function which is to review every single criminal
case which is sent to us. We also advise the police when
they ask for legal advice on matters which relate to
criminal offences.
3.8 In carrying out our review function, we are guided by the
Code for Crown Prosecutors, which is a public declaration
of the principles upon which the Crown Prosecution Service
exercises its functions. The Code, which was reissued in
June 1994, promotes efficient and consistent decision-
making throughout the Service. Each case is, of course,
considered individually against the Code test. They are
two main Code tests, the first is the evidential test, and
that is always considered first, It does not matter how
important or serious the case may be, if it cannot pass the
first evidential test, it will not be prosecuted.
The Evidential Test
3.9 We have to be satisfied on the material supplied to us that
there is enough evidence to provide 'a realistic prospect
of conviction'. This means in practical terms that: "A
jury or bench of magistrates, properly directed in
accordance with the law, is more likely than not to convict
the defendant of the charge alleged." This is an objective
test. It does not take account of perceived local views of
the bench or juries . If such views were allowed to
influence the decision to prosecute, the goal of nationally
consistent decision-making would be lost.
3.10 We do not simply accept pieces of evidence at their face
value, but consider their likely admissibility and
reliability. Doubt over the admissibility or reliability
of a piece of evidence, however, does not lead the
prosecutor automatically to reject it. Where there pas
been, for example, a breach of a PACE Code of Practice, and
case law already indicates that the courts are likely to
reject evidence obtained in consequence of such a breach,
prosecutors should disregard that piece of evidence. But
often, admissibility will not be clear cut. In many cases,
it may be right to go before the court with that evidence
and seek a ruling about its admissibility or reliability.
3.11 In some cases, however, we find that vital evidence is
missing. When this happens we will go back to the police
to see if they can supply it. If they cannot, and the case
does not pass the evidential test without it, we will stop
the case.
The Public Interest Test
3.12 The second test is the public interest test. In 1951 Lord
Shawcross, as Attorney General, made the classic statement
on public interest; "It has never been the rule in this
country - I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal
offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution"
3.13 In cases of any seriousness, a prosecution will usually
take place unless the public interest factors tending
against prosecution clearly outweigh those tending in
favour.
3.14 The more serious the offence, the more likely it is that a
prosecution will be needed in the public interest. ' A
prosecution is more likely to be needed if the offence:
involved violence or a weapon; or
is likely to be repeated; or
was clearly motivated by some form of discrimination
against the victim; or
was committed against a person serving the public.
If the victim was vulnerable, suffered personal attack or
was significantly affected by the offence then that too is
a strong public interest factor in favour of prosecution.
3.15 By the same token, the Code identifies a number of public
interest factors against prosecution, including:
if the defendant is very young, very old or suffering
from significant mental or physical ill health;
the 'staleness' of the offence;
if the defendant has put right the loss or harm that
was caused; and
if the offence was committed as a result of a genuine
mistake or misunderstanding.
3.16 Deciding on the public interest is not simply a matter of
adding up the number of factors for and against
prosecution. It is quite possible that one single factor
may outweigh all the factors tending in the opposite
direction. Crown Prosecutors have to make an overall
assessment of the combined weight of all the factors in
each case.
3.17 This brief outline of the CPS's tests shows how testing it
can sometimes be to reach the right decision. It
demonstrates how vital it is to the proper functioning of
the criminal justice system that we carry out effective
review, otherwise weak cases will proceed to court,
resulting ultimately in termination of the case or
acquittal . This is an inappropriate way in which to
present prosecutions to the court, We are therefore an
essential and important filter in preventing miscarriages
of justice. Although we do our best, this is essentially
a discretionary area and cases can often change as the
weeks progress. Our duty, therefore, is to keep all cases
under continual review. This proceeds throughout the
history of a case, whether it be dealt with in the
magistrates' courts or the Crown Court. It is also an
important safeguard to ensure that cases are not tried when
there has been a significant change during the history of
the case which fatally weakens it. Changes may occur
because witnesses disappear, or alter their evidence, or
because the defendant has important material to put before
us, which revises the strength of the case.
10
Safeguards in the System
3.18 For more serious cases, committal proceedings are an extra
safeguard in preventing the innocent being brought to
trial. However, the introduction of "independent review"
by the Crown Prosecution Service has made committal
proceedings a less crucial safeguard. In 1993/94, the
Crown Prosecution Service discontinued nearly 73,000 cases
because there was insufficient evidence to provide a
realistic prospect of conviction; by comparison less than
1,800 committals were discharged.
3.19 The Runciman Royal Commission recommended that committal
hearings be abolished, and the Criminal Justice and Public
Order Act has provided for their replacement with a
transfer procedure.
3.20 The transfer procedure still provides a safeguard. The
defence will be able to apply for dismissal if they feel
there is insufficient evidence to put the accused on trial.
The magistrates will consider written argument from both
sides, and may in complex cases permit oral representations
to be made. Any defendant who does not have legal
representation will have the right to make oral
representations for dismissal. If the court decides there
is no case to answer, it will dismiss the charges.
3.21 The most significant change is that witnesses can no longer
be called at this stage in the proceedings. This means
that they will be spared the ordeal of giving their
evidence twice. It also means that defendants may no
longer seek so-called "old-style" committal proceedings
simply to see if the key witnesses will actually turn up-to
give evidence.
3.22 The introduction of transfers will make the trial process
more efficient, A speedier trial process is generally
11
accepted as improving the quality and accuracy of justice.
In this way, the criminal justice system maintains a
healthier balance than perhaps it did before between the
interests of victims and witnesses and the need for
safeguards for the defendant.
4. THE INNOCENT SHOULD NOT BE CONVICTED
4.1 Despite the best endeavours of the police, the Crown
Prosecution Service and the system to weed out weak cases,
some of the people brought before the court as defendants
are found not guilty. The filter which we apply is the
test that a defendant is more likely than not to be
convicted. It is not our role to determine guilt. That is
for the magistrates and the judges and juries to decide
beyond reasonable doubt. This is a higher and more
demanding test, applied having heard all the evidence
both prosecution and defence. For this reason, it is
inevitable that some defendants will be acquitted.
4.2 Judges have a clear, distinct and essential role to ensure,
as best can be achieved, that the innocent are not
convicted. There are three areas in which they can and
should act as watchdogs to make sure that injustice does
not occur. In these areas, their control over the conduct
of the trial is crucial to ensuring that the innocent are
not convicted. The judges' primary function is to
determine the admissibility of evidence. Secondly, they
are there to ensure fairness to everyone. And thirdly, if
they conclude that a case is not sufficiently strong at the
end of the prosecution's case to leave to a jury, it is
their responsibility to stop the case at that stage.
The Admissibility of Evidence
4.3 The Crown Prosecution Service has the role of "gatekeeper"
to the courts, weeding out weak cases so that they do not
even reach .the courts . However, it is not the Crown
12
Prosecution Service role to be both judge and jury. We
submit all cases to the rigorous tests which I have already
described, but inevitably some cases take a different turn
during the trial. Although we look for breaches of PACE,
these are not normally readily visible. Often it is only
when the defence start to cross-examine, that they tend to
emerge. It is most important that courts have the
flexibility to react to the different ways in which
evidence can emerge. They are there to interpret the
general principles in PACE, and to ensure that those
principles and the Codes have been followed. Judges are
increasingly being called upon to make decisions regarding
admissibility , and rightly so. It is one of the most
important functions which judges exercise. Their judgements
are an essential guide on admissibility and an equally
essential safeguard for the rights of individuals who are
being prosecuted.
4.4 Because judges have this important role, it is equally
vital that they exercise it in a judicial and judicious
way. They may well seek to explain why they have ruled
certain evidence to be inadmissible in a trial. It is a
great help to the police and the legal profession to be
given measured and logical rulings. Criminal cases can be
emotional and emotive and for that reason, we welcome well
thought out and careful judgements about admissibility. The
boundaries of admissible evidence are often being explored
by the prosecution and the defence. There is no method of
approaching the Court of Appeal directly to -see if new
types of evidence will be approved by them. Everything has
to be done through the medium of a trial. Perhaps one day
we might see legal rulings being sought in their own right,
without subjecting the defendant to the trial process
simply to establish the precise parameters of an offence or
procedure.
4.5 It is essential that a trial should be conducted fairly.
It is one part, but an essential part, of the judge' s
13
function to ensure fairness to everyone. Section 78 of the
Police and Criminal Evidence Act has implications for all
criminal trials. Evidence should not be "admitted" which
would have such an adverse effect on the fairness of the
proceedings that the court ought not to admit it. This is
a very broad provision which gives judges an overall
control of the trial which is to be welcomed.
4.6 But, fairness is due to everyone in a trial. As Benjamin
Cardozo said: "Justice is due not only to the accused, but
also the accuser". Regrettably, from time to time counsel
overstep the mark of courteous firm cross-examination.
There are many witnesses who are extremely vulnerable. For
them it is particularly intimidating to be in court and
painful to recall the experience into which the court is
inquiring. Children in particular have real difficulties
with court procedure. We have done the best we can with
the use of television links and pre-recorded videos to try
to minimise this stress. Judges have a very important role
in ensuring that vulnerable victims are not overwhelmed by
the system, or the people who operate within that system.
I am not suggesting special treatment, but merely
recognition that many witnesses have undergone an extremely
traumatic experience, and that the formality and rigidity
of the court system is intimidating and frightening. All
witnesses need to be treated as sympathetically as possible,
because it is upon their evidence, and their credibility
that the case is likely to be determined. We should not
permit a system where decisions about guilt or innocence
are based not on the truth of the allegations being made
but on the witnesses' fortitude when giving the evidence.
4.7 The ultimate safeguard, which judges alone can exercise, is
to direct an acquittal. There is no doubt that cases can
change their appearance markedly at court. Sometimes, the
cases get stronger but, particularly with the delays in the
trials at Crown Court, there is always a real problem that
14
witnesses can no longer be traced. In addition, witnesses
in giving evidence may change their story in an important
respect. It is for judges to determine whether at the end
of the prosecution's case, there is a sufficient case for
the jury to consider. This power is a crucial power, so
that the defendant who is being tried does not run the risk
of being wrongly convicted.
5. A WRONGFUL CONVICTION SHOULD BE QUASHED ON APPEAL
5.1 Despite all the efforts to eliminate unsafe convictions,
there can be no doubt that some people are convicted who
should not be convicted. All trial systems are fallible
for a number reasons. Witnesses may change their evidence;
new material can come to light after the trial; there may
be errors during the course of the trial; and even
occasionally, perverse verdicts. I am, myself, a great
supporter of the jury system, and in my view, the verdicts
which almost all juries return are honestly and carefully
considered and represent a fair decision. There are,
however, for the reasons I have just mentioned, some cases
where a defendant has been convicted who should not have
been convicted.
5.2 It follows from this that there has to be an appellate
system which will safeguard the trial structure. The
system should also give guidance about the interpretation
of legislation and case law, so there is consistency in
their application, It is essential that any system which
is necessarily discretionary, and therefore fallible, can
rectify errors quickly and effectively. The appellate
court provides safeguards for the individual who is wrongly
convicted. Although I have been dealing with the question
of wrongful convictions extensively, it is perhaps
opportune to remind ourselves that, in 1993, of the just
over 11,000 cases contested in the Crown Court where
convictions resulted, the percentage of appeals involving
an appeal against conviction was only just over 8,0% and of
15
successful appeals just over 3.0%. This gives an
indication of the comparative rarity of a person contesting
his conviction. It also gives us reassurance that in the
vast majority of cases the right result has been achieved.
6. DISCLOSURE
6.1 It is not possible in the course this speech to deal with
all the current problems in the criminal justice system,
but there is one issue which concerns everyone who is
involved with trials. This is the issue of disclosure.
6.2 Over the last few years, the law of disclosure has extended
at a rapid and almost uncontrollable pace. No one for one
moment would dispute the necessity of disclosure to
safeguard the defendant's right to a fair trial.
Disclosure touches on all three issues which I am
discussing; that the innocent should not be tried, that if
tried they should not be convicted and an unsafe conviction
should be quashed on appeal. It also touches on whether
cases can or should be brought to trial. To protect an
innocent person being wrongfully accused, it is essential
that he or should have access to material which can cast
doubt on the prosecution case, or even go so far as to
establish innocence. At the same time, it is necessary
that the duties on the prosecution are clear, certain and
capable of being fulfilled. If the balance' is wrong,
meritorious prosecutions collapse under voluminous
paperwork, or relentless requests for material which may be
of no real value to the defence, In some extreme cases,
such requests lead to important criminal trials being
abandoned to protect an informant's personal safety. It is
essential that decisions to order disclosure, whether they
be of identity, sensitive material or enormous bulk
material, should be properly determined. At present, in
the majority of cases, there is no obligation upon the
16
defence to identify the issues in dispute at the trial.
Without this, it is difficult to make full, but material
and relevant disclosure.
6.3 The Crown Prosecution Service agrees with the Royal
Commission which, recognising the massive expansion in this
field entirely due to case law over the last few years,
came to the conclusion that the rights and obligations of
the prosecution and the defence need to be clearly defined
in legislation. To avoid miscarriages of justice, which
are caused by the acquittal of the guilty as well as by the
conviction of the innocent, I am certain that it is
necessary for such legislation, and I hope that it can be
brought forward in the not too distant future.
7 INDEPENDENT REVIEW BODY
7.1 We all know that there have been cases, many of them now
household names, where years after the events a miscarriage
of justice has been discovered.
7.2 Again, as everyone knows, it was as a result of a
particular miscarriage of justice, the Birmingham Six case,
that the Royal Commission was set up. One of its important
recommendations was that a new independent body should be
set up to consider alleged miscarriages of justice, and to
supervise any necessary investigation. The Royal
Commission thought that the purpose of such a body should
be to consider allegations put to it, where the initial
appeal process had been completed. It further thought that
it should have the power to investigate cases where
necessary. It would then be able to refer them to the
Court of Appeal, where there were reasons for supposing
that miscarriages might have occurred. Where there were no
grounds for such a reference to the Court of Appeal, the
body should itself give the decision with reasons to the
applicant.
17
7.3 Any reference to the Court of Appeal would be accompanied
by a statement of reasons, for the court to consider. The
body would supply the court with such supporting material
as it believed appropriate.
7.4 An applicant to the body would not be prevented from
reapplying where an earlier application had been turned
down.
7.5 One of the major changes would be that the body would be
staffed by both lawyers and lay persons, supported by
administrators and Lawyers. They also would have access to
specialist advisors.
7.6 It is immediately apparent that the body is a revolutionary
suggestion. This would have appealed to Tom Sargant who
once wrote about justice "we must have a revolt in
Britain". The body would be outside the normal structure
of the appellate courts; its status would be akin to that
of the Police Complaints Authority. The Royal Commission
itself was reluctant to set specific criteria by which the
body should choose cases for investigation, but it
recognised that in practice the test would be that there
was some material in the case which would justify
consideration of a referral to the Court of Appeal.
7.7 A discussion paper has been published seeking the views
about the work of the new body. There will be many people
who have much to contribute to ensure that is effective.
As Lord Runciman, the Chairman of the Royal Commission
recently said in the House of Lords, "These are important
changes. It is important to consult. It is important to
get the details right." It is indeed important to get the
details right, and to ensure that when the body is set up,
it is effective and well regarded. JUSTICE has itself made
a major contribution to the proposals in its paper,
"Remedying Miscarriages of Justice"
18
7.8 On 16 November immediately after the Queen's speech, the
Government announced that a Bill will be introduced during
this parliamentary session to set up an independent review
body. The principles behind the new body have been widely
agreed, and I, along with many others, look forward to
seeing the details of the Bill. The Crown Prosecution
Service recognises the potential benefits to everyone of
the establishment of an independent review body, It will
further help to redress miscarriages of justice. We will
do all that we can to assist in the setting up of the new
body and to assist it in its work.
8. CONCLUSION
8.1 There is a Chinese curse May you live in interesting times!
There can be no doubt that we are living in interesting
times in the criminal justice system - some may call them
testing times. Is this a curse or is this a blessing?
There has been a period of dramatic change to the criminal
justice system, and I anticipate that there will be more in
the future. Change is both inevitable and healthy in a
system, but during the course of change, we must not lose
sight of the balance between the basic principles of
convicting the guilty and acquitting the innocent, or
preferably, not even trying them at all.
8.2 Provided that the changes do not lose sight of these
principles and keep them properly in balance, we are all
contributing to JUSTICE'S objective of: "Maintenance of the
highest standards of administration of justice and the
preservation of the fundamental liberties of the
individual."
8.3 I cannot improve on Martin Luther King's words which should
echo through everyone's legal system:
"An injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".
8.4 The safeguards which I have spoken about tonight should
19
help to make sure that our system of justice produces the
right results. But there is always a need for vigilance.
The Crown Prosecution Service has a crucial role to play in
maintaining those safeguards. We have a goal which, I am
sure JUSTICE would endorse: "To eliminate miscarriages of
justice".
BARBARA HILLS QC 23 November 1994
20
