I note that Robert Jenrick is expanding his attack on the Attorney General Richard Hermer alleging he has acted on matters on which he has a conflict of interest.
There is, as matters stand, not a shred of evidence that this has happened.
As a barrister Hermer was under a duty to accept instructions in any matter within his competence. The fact that he may have acted in matters on which Jenrick or anyone,disapproves of the outcome is irrelevant. Jenrick, as a lawyer, ought to know that the rule of law depends on lawyers taking on cases, even for clients who may be unpopular or reviled.
Jenrick then seeks to link Hermer's work to advice he might have given the Government since becoming Attorney General on matters that might be related to the individuals he represented before he became AG. But I know from my time as Attorney General that there are robust systems in place to ensure this does not happen. If there is a potential conflict of interest, the matter can and will be transferred to another law officer and external advice can also be obtained if required.
Jenrick then demands to know if this has happened. In doing this he knows very well as a lawyer and past minister that the Attorney General would be in breach of his professional duty if he identified matters on which he or his office has advised. But that does not stop Jenrick from then alleging that the truth is being wrongly concealed and should be revealed, a position he never adopted when he was a minister.
It would be sensible for the Attorney General's office to explain the systems in place without compromising any individual advice that may have been given.
But what I find much more troubling about all this is what it tells us about Jenrick. As a Conservative I would expect him to be respectful of the role of the Law Officers in ensuring the Government gets professional and impartial legal advice. But he is quite happy to trash the system when he thinks it might score a cheap hit.
It is also linked to a narrative that the law and legal obligations on government should be ignored when inconvenient, an idea that would have appeared outrageous to previous generations in Conservatives such as Margaret Thatcher.
Jenrick is certainly making his mark in his promotion of a dystopian future for the Conservative Party.
.
Just another day at Southwark CC every single toilet from 1st to 5th Floor apparently blocked??? @HMCTSgovuk how is this acceptable??? How can cases proceed when all concerned have no bathroom facilities! @kirkkorner@juroberts_julia@CourtNewsUK
“A study from Cheryl Thomas, professor at University College London – conducted at the joint request of @MoJGovUK and @JudiciaryUK – analysed jury verdicts in all Crown courts in England and Wales from June 2016 to June 2023. It found that there were 10% fewer convictions in trials employing the special measures, with conviction rates 20% lower in rape trials.”
@lawsocgazette@legalhackette
“Thomas suggests that the use of pre-recorded evidence should not be extended until further evidence has been gathered to explain the disparity. For some complainants, she accepts that pre-recording their evidence is the only way. But in other cases, she argues that complainants should be told about the difference in conviction rates so that they can decide how they wish to give evidence.
The experience of barristers who prosecute and defend in cases of rape and serious sexual offences echoes Thomas’s findings, according to CBA vice-chair Mary Prior.
Colleagues, she says, relate that routine use of pre-recorded cross-examination in cases where it is not necessary ‘often causes jurors to disengage or lose interest’, suggesting that it becomes like watching television.
‘Some witnesses feel dehumanised by their evidence only being presented in a pre-recorded form, and there is a real sense that juries are less impacted by such evidence,’ she adds.
The CBA has called for a ‘pause’ and ‘urgent review’ of the routine use of pre-recorded evidence, suggesting that it should be ‘the exception rather than the rule’ for adults and those over 13, unless they have additional vulnerabilities.
An unexpected consequence of section 28, says Prior, is that the trials are delayed because courts must prioritise those with live witnesses who have yet to be questioned.
In autumn 2023, Prior continues, courts began booking these cases into 2026 and some are now scheduled for autumn 2026. ‘Within a few months courts are likely to be booking rape and other serious sexual offences into 2027,’ she predicts.
CBA analysis of the ministry’s data suggests that in the 15 months since the roll-out of section 28 – from 30 September 2022 to 31 December 2023 – the backlog of sexual offence cases rose by 28% from 7,945 to 10,141. Ths accounted for nearly half of the cases added to the backlog in that time, and four times the rate of growth of the overall backlog.
Over the same period, the figures show that the adult rape case backlog component rose 4%, from 1,879 to 2,786 – seven times the rate of growth of the overall backlog.”
https://t.co/ePcy0l5D8v
75%
That’s the “rate of conviction” for all rape charges brought before a jury
For allegations involving complainant:
Female child under 13
84%
Female under 16
80%
Female under 16 (historic)
78%
Female 16 years or over
67%
Male 16 years or over
63%
Female 16 or over (historic)
65%
Data set all charges, pleas and verdicts over 16 years (2007-2023)
The only quantitative, independent, research and analysis of jury trials of allegations of rape offences charged and brought to the Crown Court in England and Wales
Juries, Rape and Sexual Offences
Professor Cheryl Thomas, University College London
With thanks
#fairtrials
#FundRASSO
New record: Backlog of prosecutions stacked up in Crown Courts (Eng & Wales) hit 61,212 cases as of Aug 2022. It will almost certainly be higher still when September’s stats are published, due to the impact of the barristers’ strike over the summer.
As the lone piper plays the final lament for Her Majesty and departs St George's Chapel, Windsor Castle. I think we can all agree that His Majesty's Armed Forces did an astonishingly brilliant job today.
Well done all.
Huge respect.
NEW: income inequality in US & UK is so wide that while the richest are very well off, the poorest have a worse standard of living than the poorest in countries like Slovenia https://t.co/gtHvhNsnuT
Essentially, US & UK are poor societies with some very rich people.
A thread:
BMA council members share a message of solidarity to members of @TheCriminalBar on indefinite industrial action. “Like us, criminal barristers have faced huge real term pay cuts and are fighting for pay restoration”
Good morning to paragraph 1.38 of the independent Bellamy Report that not only made it clear extra funding for the criminal justice system was urgent - it also clearly stated it was *needed* to ‘reduce the backlog’.
I underlined it in pink and *everything*