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
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=77dbbdb7_1)
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=b3bea7f_1)
