DIARY
LUDOVIC KENNEDY The nicest Christmas present I had this year came from, of all places, the Bar Council: a decanter with my name inscribed on it in appreciation of my inquiries over the years into miscarriages of criminal justice, which I was given at a charmingly informal ceremony in the Inner Temple. Joshua Rozenberg of BBC Televi- sion and John Carvel of the Guardian were also given awards for the fairness of their legal reporting. How times have changed. When, in the early Sixties, I first mooted in a film the idea that in order to secure con- victions the police sometimes bent the rules, the heavens opened. 'Arrant non- sense,' declared the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. 'No foundations what- ever for such opinions,' thundered Lord Shawcross, QC; while in a letter to the Times the Attorney General, Sir Lional Heald QC, suggested the programme had been faked. To the Bar Council in those days most journalists were anathema. Today we are welcomed as allies in a com- mon cause, as was evidenced by a dinner given by the Council to 15 of us at Lincoln's Inn last year. Recently I found myself sid- ing in a Newsnight debate with Anthony Scrivener, the Council's then chairman, against Lord Hailsham. Thirty years ago it would have been considered a sort of trahi- son des avocats for a QC to show on televi- sion the failings of our criminal justice sys- tem and the reforms needed to correct them. Yet that is what Michael Mansfield did in a recent BBC 2 documentary, and Immensely impressive it was.
Iam told that there is a new spirit abroad in the ranks of the judiciary too, and that judges such as Henry Brooke, Konrad Schiemann, Edward Cazalet and Richard Scott characterise it. Yet a few fossils remain, most prominently Lord Lane, the crassness of whose judgments in the cases of the Birmingham Six and the Tottenham Three ensured that the release of nine innocent men was delayed by several years' further wrongful incarceration. Blandly Ignoring calls from the Times, around a quarter of MPs and others to step down, he shows not the slightest inclination of doing so. What puzzles me is why such a discred- ited figure should want to linger on. Per- haps he does not appreciate just how dis- credited he now is.
There are many reasons why we should exchange our outmoded adversary system of justice for a more inquisitorial one, and none better than the curious confrontation last week between the House of Commons Select Committee on Social Security and the Maxwell brothers (Ronnie and Reggie,
as Ian Hislop wittily described them). The Committee's eagerness to get in on the act was, I thought, unnecessary and unattrac- tive. They must have known that charges against the brothers were likely and that any self-incrimination on their part would gravely prejudice their case in any trial. They should have stayed their hand and waited for the law to take its course. The brothers were justified in keeping silent, and if they are brought to trial they may exercise their legal right to silence there. Yet I have always thought that, in principle, the holy cow of permitting people not to incriminate themselves is dotty; indeed the guiltier a suspect or defendant is, the more we ought to know of it. In an adversary sys- tem this is (rightly) unenforceable, but in inquisitorial jurisdictions an accused is told that a refusal to answer questions will enti- tle the court to draw unfavourable conclu- sions. The sooner we can abandon the idea of trial as conflict, with each side doing its best to vanquish the other and not being too particular how it does it, and substitute instead a system which seeks disclosure of the truth, the better. I trust that Frank Field and his band of brothers would agree. And Lord Runciman and his, please note.
'At least I'm missing all the hype about Desert Island Discs.' Ifind that as time goes by I watch less and less television, and am particularly irked by the trails between programmes which are either snippets of unrelated vio- lence or allegedly funny men being any- thing but. Since, however, I now seldom sleep beyond six, I have developed the habit of watching the BBC's excellent Breakfast News programme while eating my own breakfast, and so boning up on the latest events before embarking on the busi- ness of the day. Its presenters are relaxed and informative, especially Jill Dando, one of the most naturally effective (and pretti- est) in the business. I am less happy about some of the contributors who run through the morning papers. Matthew Parris is always good, but Peter Fiddick is inclined to put on an Anne Robinson act, while the girl from the Telegraph keeps wagging her head from side to side like an Indian taxi- driver who has lost his way. I also like the weatherman Francis Wilson. Not only does he take his time (most weather people gab- ble) but he is the only one I know who never uses his left hand to point to the map, even if this means constantly recross- ing it. Right-handed people using the left hand on the map always look unnatural, but the worst offenders are the women who not only greatly favour the left hand but instead of looking where it is pointing, look instead at the camera. This makes them seem spastic.
In the wake of the horrific murders of the eight building workers in Northern Ireland,
the old cry has gone up again, The IRA shall not prevail. We must continue the fight against them until we win.' Yet every GOC Northern Ireland in the past 20 years has said that by its very nature it is not a war we can win; for with a firm base across the border the IRA can slip in and out as they please. Nor is their resolve likely to weaken, for they see the Six Counties, as the Arabs see Palestine, as an occupied zone. Talks then would appear to be the only alternative. But talks between whom? Peter Brooke seems to think that if only all the political parties in the province can be gathered round a table, some solution will be found. He has failed in this so far, but even had he succeeded, not one of them is in a position to halt the violence or influ- ence events. Instead of muzzling Sinn Fein, has not the time come to ascertain their bottom line for a ceasefire, a common prac- tice between combatants? Is it still the removal of the entire British civil and mili- tary presence? Or something more? Or less? Until we know the answers to those questions, how can we pursue any kind of meaningful long-term policy in Northern Ireland?
Previous page
