A fair trial?

In the aftermath of the decision to prosecute Rebekah Brooks, her co-defendant and husband, Charles Brooks, has called the proceedings a witch-hunt and questioned his wife’s ability to receive a fair trial. Mrs Brooks has herself challenged the decision to prosecute, and raised issues about impartiality.

First and foremost, perception is a key part of our justice system and even when decisions have been scrupulously and fairly taken behind closed doors by eminent and distinguished lawyers, it does matter if the legitimacy of those decisions is undermined in the eyes of the public. If there is sufficient evidence for a realistic prospect of conviction and it is in the public interest to prosecute, then any question hanging over the legitimacy of the decision needs to be dealt with. The DPP, Keir Starmer QC, has addressed this by pointing out: “Five years ago the News of the World wrote three sentences about Alison Levitt’s private life, repeating what had been reported elsewhere and which had been, in any event, common knowledge for a year. She is a distinguished and highly respected QC.”

This glancing blow by Brooks and her legal team does commence what will likely be a long and drawn-out battle to maintain a fair trial process. How do we protect the fairness of Mrs Brooks’s trial? Undoubtedly there are a number of strands of press coverage which would need to be considered by any trial judge.: personal coverage about Brooks; possible preconceptions about her character and honesty; coverage of the charges themselves and the evidence which may be called to substantiate them; and most significantly, the coverage of the phone hacking scandals and the impact that may have on any trial on these charges. Does this coverage irrevocably affect our perception of Mrs Brooks’s honesty and truthfulness?...”

To continue reading go to: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk