Unfortunately, I'm starting on a rather disconsolate note. Sorry about that. Truth is I sometimes despair, I really do. I despair at Legal Aid budgets that have been slashed and are reducing access to justice and I despair at some of the decisions that courts make practically every day of the week - even though I like to think they get it right most of the time. We must have a little faith, right?
Most of all I've always despaired at the costs involved in the State pursuing cases that have little or no merit and that are driven by some unseen agenda. Local authorities criminally prosecuting law-abiding folk for not recycling correctly is one disgraceful example in my locality. Don't get me started.
The CPS of course have their 'guidelines' and have to consider inter alia the strength of the evidence, the likelihood of obtaining a conviction, and the public interest in proceeding. Since the Blair era, prosecution decisions have been heavily weighted towards victims. All very laudable you may think, but often victims are hardly the most objective source and virtually all are not legally trained. As a former prosecutor I've lost count of the times I've been effectively 'forced' into proceeding by a victim after a plea has reasonably been offered to a lesser charge by the defence, only to horribly crash and burn at trial with justice not anywhere near being done. But I digress.
Now I know this case goes back some way to 2010 but it caught my eye recently as a rehearing has been ordered and it refreshed my memory. Silly me - I thought the case had long since been filed under 'B'. Back in 2010 Paul Chambers, a young, respectable financial manager and trainee accountant, was on his way from Nottingham to Belfast but was concerned about getting grounded by heavy snowfalls (was that really two years ago?). He Tweeted to a friend:
Now this is where it got all 'Hollywood'. Police raided his home, confiscated computers and took mobile telephones. He lost his job following his subsequent prosecution for sending a 'malicious communication' under the provisions of the Communications Act 2003 and was convicted in the Magistrates Court, the offence not being triable on indictment. He lost his appeal and appealed again to the Divisional Court on a point of law which in the main, though not exclusively, related to the interpretation of the word 'malicious'.
Better minds than mine have analysed this argument but it must surely have been obvious to anyone that this had the potential of dividing opinion. But no, the Court sat, not unusually, with just two judges and you've guessed it, they were split. There now has to be a rehearing at considerable expense.
One wonders how between them the Government and the Judiciary could have messed up this man's life to any greater degree. A foolhardy message and a frivolous one there is no doubt, but is it too much to ask that: (1) The Police apply themselves to tackling the very real threat of terrorism and other 'real' crime that causes untold misery to the public; (2) The CPS apply a modicum of common sense to their decisions to prosecute, and (3) The courts show a semblance of intelligence in their listing policies, regardless of the merits of a case?
Most of us accept there is a very real need to monitor suspect communications (I'll be ranting about the so-called Snooper's Charter in another post) but when something like this happens you realise just how far our personal freedoms have taken a nosedive since 9/11. One can only imagine that Bin Laden is looking down (or up) and chuckling to himself.
I would be too if it wasn't so tragic.
