Justice on trial

Is there something systemically wrong with our system of investigation and prosecution? This week the case against four men accused of raping a woman at a college ball at the Royal Agricultural University collapsed on the day their trial had been due to open. No evidence was offered against them. Their trial had already been delayed by issues surrounding the late disclosure of evidence to the defence by the prosecution.

Meanwhile, the BBC reported how allegations of child abuse against a father were dropped at the door of the court. These things happen, but the anguish that the defendants endure for months, or even years, awaiting trial is not assuaged by their acquittal. And there seem to be more lengthy investigations leading nowhere, as seen recently with the Operation Midland inquiry into an alleged VIP murder plot. One common complaint raised by the accused people is that the charges have hung over them for far too long. One lawyer in the rape case described it as “one long exercise in confirmation bias”. The old adage “justice delayed is justice denied” applies as much to the suspect as the victim.

The police now work hand-in-glove with prosecutors, who seek to ensure that a case is strong enough to go to trial. But the closeness of this relationship risks lending itself to a lengthy hunt for evidence that is not there. Moreover, the presumptions made in sex and child abuse cases are inimical to the principle that an accused person is innocent until proved guilty. Once, committal proceedings acted as a bar to be cleared before subjecting the accused to the time, expense, and stress of a jury trial. They were abolished in 2012. Perhaps they should be reinstated.