Letter: Independent minds at the Bar
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: In Polly Toynbee's account (10 April) of the decision of the Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee that independent lawyers (barristers or solicitors) should alone be permitted to present cases in the higher courts, she includes a false slur on the integrity and independence of mind of prosecuting barristers.
In commenting on my stated belief that in the more serious cases an independent mind is needed as a safeguard against abuse, she adds a sly innuendo that barristers were responsible for recent miscarriages of justice.
The truth is that in countless cases every year, barristers are exercising their independent judgement whether the evidence is sufficient for a case to proceed, whether a plea to a lesser charge should be accepted, or whether potentially helpful evidence should be disclosed to the defence.
But of course it is not on the basis of evidence provided by barristers that cases proceed, they have to work on the material provided to them.
So, for example, in the Guildford Four trial, the decision of the Court of Appeal to quash the convictions of the Four was based solely on the alleged fabrication by Surrey police of their confessions (as Sir John May concluded in his painstaking inquiry into the case). As for Matrix Churchill, which she also cites, lead defendant Trevor Abraham's Counsel, Gilbert Gray QC, has made clear that the true cause of the wrongful prosecution was Alan Clark's failure, until cross-examination, to tell the truth about his own role in encouraging manufacturers not to give truthful descriptions in export documents. It was this economy with "the actualite" that led to the collapse of the prosecution.
Surely the fact that such miscarriages of justice can occur when police or government ministers make mistakes or worse make it more, not less, important that a second and independent mind should be brought to bear to give a greater chance that the truth alone will be presented in court?
Peter Goldsmith QC
The General Council
of the Bar
London WC1
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments