Justice: Tarnished by Targets and Poisoned by Politics
- Colin Ward
- Jun 22, 2016
- 7 min read
Bravo to the ITV, to Loose Women and to Gloria Hunniford. The only fitting opening I can think of having just watched the interview with Sir Cliff Richard. Yes, I am sure some will be quick to say that clearly she only did it because it was her friend - I doubt that, but even if it was true, so what? She put him at ease. She allowed him to speak freely.
And he deserves to feel he has a voice.
Until you or a loved one has been through such an ordeal it is almost impossible to understand what it does to your mental health. Even the sturdiest public figures, entertainers with decades of experience and millions of fans (he's a national treasure, our Sir Cliff) feel that grip around the throat, tightening of the stomach, and gasping breathlessness of terror.
Sir Cliff gave an honest and frank interview with just the odd pangs of anger slipping through, and a flavour of rightful revenge. He is totally right to demand anonymity until charge - but we have been hearing that for a very, very long time. But he was so much more right about the conduct of the Police in the way they chose to pursue evidence that could have wrongly convicted him and ignored anything that would have aided him in his defence. There is no excuse for this. I have written before on how people in the public services of the Police and CPS are able to wantonly destroy someone and their life, knowing that there could be evidence to end a false case not after 2 years of mental torture for the victim of the false allegations and yet choosing not to check it.
The Police have given an apology. Okay, fine. But that is not enough. We need to see a change - but not a change in the law. A change in how it is practised. No, we do NOT need to sack the head of police, it needs to go right down to specific, named officers and detectives. The Officer in Charge (OIC) who was presented with potential witnesses to interview and chose not to interview them for no reason other than to sway the case towards a wrongful trial is the one who should face consequences.
A Police officer commits an act of collusion with a liar who makes a false allegation when they make overtly selective decisions not to pursue ALL evidence from both sides. They do this contrary to the basic premise of UK law, and they do it contrary the CPS Guidelines for the performance of a thorough investigation. If a citizen hid a murder weapon, gave a false alibi, in any way helped a murderer they could face charges of aiding and abetting or at least perverting the course of justice. Being an Officer of the Police imbues a person with a duty above and beyond that of a citizen to ensure that all evidence for a case be collected, declared, and investigated, regardless of whether it strengthens or weakens a case against a suspect. The Police have the same duty as every citizen to obey and uphold the law and we should be able to trust them to do that with honesty and integrity.
"It is the duty of our Police to uphold the law, as the law is supposed to facilitate Justice: and justice can only be based on the truth."
What hope is there for justice when even our Police don't care about the truth? The Police don't challenge inconsistencies in claimant statements - even though the laws and CPS guidelines require them to do so. The Police fail or refuse to pursue lines of enquiry that could exonerate the accused - even though the laws and CPS guidelines require them to do so. The Police do not declare all the evidence they have in a timely fashion to allow the defence to answer them - even though the laws and CPS guidelines require them to do so. It is the duty of our Police to uphold the law, as the law is supposed to facilitate Justice: and justice can only be based on the truth.
But the reality is that British Justice is the Bitch of British Politics. It's easy to work out. Party politics is all about blaming crime number increases on previous governments and claiming decreases as successes. And to help those numbers, you need more successful convictions. How do you get them? By setting the CPS targets, and the Police targets, and blaming them when they don't achieve them. But at the same time, you also make massive cuts to the CPS and Police, so their only option is to cut corners and not investigate fully - you know, just make the mud stick enough to get it into court, and get the media to colour the public and jury's opinion and secure more convictions.
Then, if you do get more convictions you can tell police chiefs to stop moaning about the cuts, because clearly they are working. You can tell the public that your government is making the streets safer. And if as part of that you have to sully the name of a celeb or two who you couldn't quite make a case stick, worry not - because you passed some nice legislation to cover your financial backs on that score in 2012, prevented victims of false allegations from claiming their defence costs. Oh...and you never have to challenge the witness because you're told to "believe all claimants, no matter what" (it appeases women's and children's charities, and the public will like that). So, you just claim that there wasn't enough to convict, but you don't have to say the accused was "innocent". Winning package all round, really, isn't it?
Just a little collateral damage, that's all. And who needs to worry themselves about truth or justice? As long as targets are met and politicians are happy? (This might sound distinctly familiar to anyone in the medical or educational professions...).
So what is the point in petitions and demands and cries for new laws or legislation? We should not need to legislate to prevent police revealing the name of people alleged to have committed abuse because in the name of proper, legal and safe prosecution (e.g. by not unfairly influencing potential jurors by releasing case information long before jurors would be called).
Take a moment to think about Sir Cliff's case and the way the media was used, and compare it to other kinds of cases. Now, the Police has given a damp squib of an apology for telling the BBC - but I don't think Sir Cliff should accept it. They did it on purpose, and they will do it again, because they do not care about collateral damage. So long as the media gets to play the "catch the paedo" vigilante game with a all the venom of Mark Williams-Thomas mentality, and to hell with possible mistakes (which the Police knew damn well would happen), then what is the point in apologising? And as for BBC - you publicity-raped Sir Cliff. Harsh words indeed. But what do we call it now when a man has sexual intercourse with a woman and does not first check he has consent to do so? Right. So...if you publicise a Police raid which is based on no evidence that you have seen, so you have no way of substantiating or fact-checking the story - ergo, you have no consent - you publicity-raped him. And we know they cannot have fact-checked the story...because not even the Police had the evidence needed to provide any facts that made the search "in the public interest."
And then left him to sweat it out for nearly two years. If that is not an act of cruelty, what is?
The Police invaded his home with no evidence. Who even gave the warrant? Which Judge found what grounds for a warrant to search the property even without having spoken to Sir Cliff? Was Sir Cliff potentially holding children captive, ready to molest them when he got home? Did he have huge networks of abuse media stored that had to be retrieved so urgently? Were there secret codes hidden in a private note from Lady Diana (seriously, which part of the PACE guidelines warranted to seizure of that as evidence?).
The whole investigation has been an embarrassing was of public money that has achieved only three things:
A mentally and physically distressing abuse of an innocent man even though there has never been any evidence presented to substantiate the need for such an investigation;
Further damage to true justice since the false accuser has never been challenged, only serving to show people that lying is a consequence-free act and collateral damage to the innocent is acceptable;
The erosion of trust: of the system, the Police, the media (to act in the public interest)
This is where I feel I should stop writing. Not because I have nothing more to say, but because I have too much to say in one place. And I am writing in anger as my thoughts cast to another innocent person who found themselves falsely accused at the same time that Sir Cliff Richard's house was searched, two years ago. They are not wealthy, and whereas I cannot and will not bemoan Sir Cliff's use of his wealth to defend himself , it makes me sick that this person could not afford that defence.
And they were wrongfully convicted.
They never shared the public humiliation and invasion, but they did (and still do) experience all the pain and torment that Sir Cliff described in his interview. But they are at the very other end of their life to Sir Cliff, so even though they would not feel the cost to their fame, it will impact their entire life. If they cannot succeed in any appeal, their whole life will be potentially profoundly affected. And what was it that caught them out? The same dishonesty, corruption, collusion and lack of integrity in the investigation of the claims of a liar.
So if you ever face a false allegation for abuse or rape or other sexual crimes, all we can really hope for is pure luck because we know that unless you happen to fluke getting good, honest, decent officers...you are in a lot of trouble. Don't for one minute make them mistake that the truth matters: only targets & politics.
Comentarios