header-logo header-logo

19 February 2020 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7875 / Categories: Features
printer mail-detail

Putting the record straight

16238
Michael Zander’s response on recent criminal justice royal commissions

It is rare that I have reason to cavil at what Jon Robins writes, but I take issue with much of what he wrote on criminal justice royal commissions (‘Royal rumblings in Downing Street’, NLJ, 7 February 2020, p7). Since he has many critical comments and says nothing positive, it seems that that he is doubtful about the value of royal commissions in general and of the most recent royal commission in particular.

First, I was surprised by a couple of disconcerting trivial errors. The Philips Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure was set up in 1978 and reported in 1981. It therefore was not ‘the 1984 Philips Royal Commission’. The Runciman Royal Commission on Criminal Justice (of which I was a member) was set up in 1991 and reported in 1993 and was therefore not ‘the 1996 Royal Commission’.

What is not trivial is Robins’s statement that Runciman ‘completely failed to tackle the Court of Appeal and its reluctance

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll