Where’s the justice?
Date: 03 June 2011
Authors: Roger Smith
Issue: Vol 161, Issue 7468
Categories: Opinion
New administrations tend to take the view that history began when they took office. Thus, all the departmental websites changed after the election. The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) was no exception. All existing content was promptly archived. The website (www.justice.gov.uk) and attendant digital publications were given a new “look and feel”. The result looks more modern but raises some problems.
Aesthetically, you either like the new design or not. The photo style favours pictures with a consciously distinct approach. An early example was Ken Clarke gazing over his shoulder into the middle distance—it was not immediately clear why. Clearly, the constraints of government irked the designer who felt unduly restrained by the requirement to indicate that the site related to the MoJ. Accordingly, the branding is reduced to “justice” in lower case letters at the top left corner. It is true that no one else would be terribly interested in promoting the MoJ’s business plan, an item flagged on the site since mid-May.
The picture style is common over all government sites but the restriction of description appears to be unique to the MoJ. The Home Office is not “home”; the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is not “foreign” and other ministries feel constrained to give their full title. The “justice” branding flows through other publications and you can now get a regular release named “justice latest news” whereas it used to be a summary of releases from the MoJ.
There are potentially three problems with this. First, it is somewhat of a sleight of hand to equate the inevitably mundane reality of the MoJ with the ideal concept of justice. Second, it is just not very clear. Third, there is the likelihood of confusion with the organisation Justice which had its name for more than 50 years before the lord chancellor’s department began its process of convergence. For the moment, the MoJ gets its comeuppance on Google where the human rights organisation beats it in the list of organisations of the same name.
Innocence & guilt
The Supreme Court turned in Adams v Secretary of State for Justice [2011] UKSC 18, [2011] All ER (D) 87 (May) to the issue of what constitutes a miscarriage of justice. If you think about it, there could be a number of meanings to the phrase. These range from a case which involves the conviction of a now clearly innocent person. The opposite extreme would be someone who might be guilty but where something has gone seriously wrong in the investigation or trial of the offence.
The court, by a majority, took a middle way. We now know that a miscarriage of justice is, in law, a case where no reasonable jury would have convicted the defendant if it had seen fresh evidence now available.
The controversy arises because this formulation might cover some defendants over whose innocence there is some suspicion. That annoyed the group of judges around Lord Simon Brown who opposed such a broad formulation. The majority, led by Lord Phillips, thought that it would just be too onerous to require someone actually to prove their innocence. As Lady Hale said: “Innocence as such is not a concept known to our criminal justice system. We distinguish between the guilty and the not guilty.”
The case was about money. The government wants to restrict the statutory payments compensation that it pays where there has been a miscarriage of justice overturned by fresh evidence. The main appellant, Mr Adams, unfortunately gained nothing from the decision because it was agreed that his conviction had been overturned on the grounds of poor representation.
Justice and Barry George, wrongly convicted of the murder of Jill Dando, both intervened in favour of a wide interpretation of the term. Justice got recognition of the core of what it argued. George will have to wait and see if he wins the £1.4m that he is seeking.
To kill a mockingbird
Mariella Frostrup and Miriam Gonzales Durantez, a partner at DLA Piper and wife of Nick Clegg, joined Baroness Kennedy for a post-screening discussion of the film of To Kill a Mockingbird at a Justice fundraiser.
Gregory Peck wowed an audience largely composed of sophisticated lawyers, just as he had ordinary people in cinemas around the world when the film was released 50 years ago. The appeal of the character of Atticus Finch to lawyers is clear. He proffers a view of the lawyer as representative of simple morality and high ethics. Though the discussants did not mention it, the film (and the book) is actually quite cynical about justice. The trial of Tom Robinson for a rape that he did not commit does not deliver it. The extra-judicial killing of his tormentor, Bob Ewell, does.
As ever, Baroness Kennedy had the best anecdote of the night. She received one of her honorary degrees in the company of Peck and he revealed to her that he thought that the film, for which he received an Oscar, was the best that he had done. Those wishing to emulate the Peck-Finch look may be interested to know that the actor’s son gave the iconic glasses that he wore in the film to a manufacturer of fashion glasses. Copies in one of four colours are available on the net for $315.
Roger Smith is director of Justice. Website: www.justice.org.uk
Share this page
