A Spectator's Notebook
THE murder of the three policemen shot down in cold blood in a London street is a shock- ing thing. But without in any way wishing to minimise the deaths of these brave men, would we not be equally shocked at the murder of, say, three bank cashiers or night-watchmen? Are we not outraged more by the enormity of the num- bers killed than by the fact that they were police- men?
There have been the inevitable calls for a re- turn of capital punishment, and this week every abolitionist with a conscience must be testing the validity of his beliefs. But let Mr Sandys and others who want to resurrect the gallows be clear in their minds why. Is it because of a hot-blooded desire for revenge on ruthless killers, an emotion shared by many abolitionists, but which should be of little concern to the cool administration of justice? Is it in order to prevent the killers, once apprehended, from doing the same thing again? If so, a long term of imprisonment, provided it is a long term, would be equally effective. Or is it because of a genuine belief that fear of the rope is the most effective deterrent for others? If this last, will they please produce some evi- dence, as opposed to opinions, that this is in,fact so. I am ready to be persuaded to almost any point of view, but all the evidence I have seen so far points to the contrary.
There are, in my view, more solid grounds for arming, or partially arming, the police. The argu- ment against this has always been that once the police are armed, the gangsters will start arming themselves too, But now that the gangsters have got in first, surely that argument is no longer valid?
Conscience Money The huge sum of money already collected for the dependants of police officers killed or maimed on duty is very gratifying. But it is largely, I suggest, conscience-money, an expiation of the guilt so many of us feel at our apathetic attitude towards the crime-wave and the losing battle of the police against it. The signing of a cheque does not require much effort, and having signed it, we can turn to other things. What is really needed is for the public to have some sense of involvement in the war against crime, not merely to pay lip-service to the idea that the police- man's ba,ttle is our battle, but in some way to act on it. Frankly, I do not know how you do this, though clearly, from the results so far achieved, the experiments of the Chicago police are a step in the right direction.
Another thing we could do is to give the police (as well as the courts) greater powers, particularly In regard to questioning, search and arrest. I think it is now clear that in the balance we try to keep between safeguards to the individual and the safety of society, the pendulum has swung too far towards the individual. One result has been that the police, undermanned as they are and fighting ruthless men, have increasingly felt obliged to take the law into their own hands. This has ranged from the omission of the caution, through bluff and threats, to outright perjury and planting of evidence. The public have not been unaware of this with the result that (a) juries have been increasingly unwilling to convict on uncor- roborated police evidence, and guilty men have got off and (b) less often, they have accepted police evidence and innocent men have been convicted. There are obvious risks to the individual in giv- ing the police greater powers, and there must be safeguards wherever possible. But is not the risk to society, in not doing so, greater?
Hung Jury The more I think about the new 10-2 majority verdict for juries, the more disturbed I am. It seems to me a typically British compromise be- tween the former unanimous verdict and the Scottish system of a jury of fifteen and a simple majority. The unanimous verdict had the advan- tage of persuading all but the most stubborn (or corrupt) to take the majority view. The Scottish system has the advantage of allowing each juror to reach a verdict without any pressure from his colleagues and solely according to his conscience. But the danger of the 10-2 majority is that it may tempt many jurors who beforehand might have been persuaded to the majority view, to a belief that if some of them are to be allowed to disagree, why should it not be they? If I am right, then we can expect fewer acquittals but more juries unable to reach a verdict. Will this be the lesser of two evils?
Great Swig There are other ways in which Scottish criminal law has the edge over English. We do not have magistrates' court proceedings as they do in Eng- land, thus avoiding prejudicing the trial at the higher court Nor do we think it necessary for counsel to make opening speeches. In English law counsel for the prosecution is permitted to make against the accused the most damaging allegations (as Mr Griffith-Jones did in the Ward case) many of which subsequently never come to proof. It is all very well saying that the jury can judge the proof for themselves, but the danger, as one Scottish lawyer has pointed out, is that at the end of a long day the jury may find it hard to distinguish between what counsel said would be proved and what in fact was proved.
Another nice distinction is that the judge in Scotland swears each witness personally. The other day, at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, I watched the Lord Justice Clerk, resplendent in crimson robes embroidered with golden crosses, like some latter-day Crusader, rise to his full seven feet and face a man in the witness-box. Now say after me,' he said, grasping the Book with one hand and raising the other, 'I swear by Almighty God, and as 1 shall answer to God at the Great Day of Judgment, that the evidence I shall give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.' The English oath, as administered by the court usher, has become a meaningless ritual. I know if I was in the wit- ness-box and uncertain whether I was going to lie or tell the truth, which of the two systems would be morely likely to sway me. And that bit about the Great Day of Judgment would clinch it.
TV MPs The televising of Parliament is now on its way, as in the nature of things it had to be, and Mr Driberg and his committee are to be congratu- lated on pushing it along. Some MPs have put forward arguments about the dangers of mem- bers playing to the gallery (other MPs, that is, not themselves), but nobody could seriously advance this line of thought who had addressed a televised meeting. I have spoken at three tele- vised Liberal Party Assemblies, and neither in the preparation of any of my speeches nor in their delivery have I ever been conscious of any other audience but the one in the hall. Once on one's feet. one is quite unaware that there are cameras there. On this sort of question it is im- possible to serve two masters. It will be the same with Parliament.
An edited version at the day's end is obviously right, and the problems of what to put in or leave out are ones that with good will and sense will gradually sort themselves out. Some sort of com- mentary will be essential if sessions like Question Time (which ought really to be called Answer Time) are not to be totally incomprehensible. And there is a real chance that once the public sees for itself some of the time-wasting frolics and antique mumbo-jumbo that now disfigure Parliament, it may succeed where Parliament itself has failed, in forcing it to bring itself up to date.
LUDOVIC KENNEDY
Previous page
