Stop squabbling over the law

'We live in dangerous times. The authoritarian spirit is about, and the commonsense string-'em-up man loves it'

Internal links

Don't turn your back, says boss of mobile phone firm

Leading article: Off his hook

I wish they would stop this squabbling, the police, politicians and lawyers, I mean, all of who in recent weeks seem to have forgotten that our democracy and society, based as it is on the rule of law, is vastly more precious than the rights, wrongs and powers of the police, politicians and lawyers. How does it help anyone, victims of crime especially, to watch these volleys thrown at each other by men in high places on whom we all depend for our security and safety?

The latest episodes had Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police (an impressive, thoughtful man usually, and a vast improvement on Sir Paul Condon, who was much mistrusted) delivering some pretty savage criticisms of the entire criminal justice system which, he claimed, treated victims with "utter contempt" and was a "game" mastered by cunning lawyers who knew how to win over gullible juries with the result that horrible criminals were laughing their way to the next set of crimes.

Two bursts followed from distinguished lawyers – David Bean QC, the chairman of the Bar Council, and Anthony Scrivener QC, its former chairman, both chaps who didn't get where they are by shrinking back from testy opponents. They slammed Sir John and the police forces in general for low crime detection rates and, more seriously, for attempting to undermine the basic principles of justice in this country and the lawyers, judges and magistrates who work hard to maintain these.

Enter David Blunkett this weekend, who throws in his lot with the police in that wholesome paper the News of the World: "I agree with the London police chief, Sir John Stevens – for decades the public has seen the whole system as being on the side of the lawbreakers and not the victims," he said.

Is this the same David Blunkett who on Valentine's day warned the Met and other forces that he would take over operational matters unless they started to deliver the kind of service he wanted? And is this new gesture of touching loyalty going to soothe the Police Federation, which is currently very cross with the Home Secretary for suggesting radical reforms? For now, it seems, it is the Government and police against base and voracious legal eagles. And even though some may suspect the rapid shifts we are witnessing, most punters will be delighted, I am sure, that victims are being prioritised and that criminals and their criminal lawyers are getting a good kicking.

Meanwhile, top lawyers have warned that if these relentless assault on legal constraints and requirements continues, we could end up a police state or at least with a force which operates with protected immorality. Suddenly we, the citizens, are having to decide whether we are on the side of the police, the Home Secretary, or the professionals in the criminal justice system. This alone should make us very worried, for it is only by having honesty and efficiency across all three that we can protect the system we have built up so slowly over the centuries. I am also perturbed that the police have chosen this moment to make such an unhelpful fuss.

Never has the Met had so many unexpected friends, me included. On the whole, I respect Sir John and his deputy, Ian Blair. Radicals such as Lee Jasper, the race advisor to Ken Livingstone, and black newspapers that once loathed the police (as I did, and with good reason after the way most officers behaved towards black and Asian people) are today much more sensitive to the incredibly hard business of policing big and diverse cities where certain kinds of crime are taking on indisputable racial or ethnic profiles.

Since 11 September, Muslims have felt safer than they expected to because, generally, the police forces have protected them with commitment against racial and religious crimes, and many of them (although there are considerable misgivings about the anti-terrorism measures) are happy to co-operate with investigations.

Be warned. This garland has some carefully placed thorns. I do not think that corruption and racism within the force have been dealt with adequately. Gurpal Virdi, the Ealing officer who was wrongly accused of sending racist emails, has won large sums of money and an even bigger apology from the Met as he returns to work this month. But he got this after draining years when he had to fight on his own against the powerful organisation. A number of high ranking non-white police officers and women are similarly victimised without anybody paying the kind of price the police are so keen to impose on criminals. We continue to see examples of dodgy evidence presented to courts, where it is rightly questioned and thrown out.

But on the whole, the police are doing well – overall crime is dropping, though street crime is shooting up. This is not the time to lay into those who are there to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done, or to collude with politicians who have been on their own ignoble project to weaken the rights of accused individuals and to diminish the work done by defence lawyers. So, yes, I am saying that however greedy some lawyers are, or however out of touch and loony some judges reveal themselves to be, they are our only defence against the abuse of power by politicians and the police, who, as we all know, do great wrong if allowed.

This does not mean I don't care for victims. I am more likely to be a victim of crime than a perpetrator, and I too react with anger when potentially guilty people are allowed to go free – as they were in the Stephen Lawrence case – or when, just this week, Jason Jones, who was accused of attempted murder, walked grinning triumphantly out of a court because witnesses were too frightened to give evidence against him.

But in the end, the difficult questions to decide on are these: Is it better for us as society to have a system (albeit always imperfect) which tries to be scrupulous by adhering to original principles? Which is preferable, to keep to these even though this may lead to some guilty people going unpunished, or to compromise creatively, change the rules, so that we get more scalps – even though some of these will belong to innocent people who end up in the net?

These are not just the ramblings of a known bleeding heart. We are living in dangerous times. Asylum-seekers who have never been tried are incarcerated in this democracy. The new anti-terrorism laws can be used in unacceptable ways, and the British prisoners in Camp X-Ray are an example. Lawyers who promote the Human Rights Act – some of the best and most conscientious lawyers we are lucky enough to have – are finding themselves under merciless attack sometimes from politicians, even New Labour ones, who brought in the Act in the first place.

The authoritarian spirit is about, and the string-them-up commonsense man loves it. Under such conditions, it should be obvious that we must not allow the scales of justice to become unbalanced, a real danger if the police and the Home Secretary carry on their assault on the criminal justice system.

y.alibhai-brown@independent.co.uk