Following the people's priorities

Tweet

 

“How will you pay for it?” is one of those standard questions asked of opposition politicians whenever they propose a different policy to that being pursued by the government. For reasons which have been discussed here previously, it’s actually a very silly question, depending on the assumption that government finances are like those of a household, but it’s a question which is effectively deployed not just by government politicians, but by supportive – or merely lazy – journalists who either don’t want or else can’t be bothered to delve more deeply into the question.

It’s not a question which has been much asked about the vast amounts of military aid being sent to Ukraine, despite the fact that none of that aid was ever budgeted for at the time it started to be sent. It’s not a question which has been much asked about the strikes on Yemen, where millions of pounds’ worth of ordinance has been expended on trying to take out a few cheap drones. And whilst ‘the cost’ is apparently an entirely valid obstacle, in Tory eyes, to expanding the membership of the Senedd, it’s not an issue which seems even to have been raised about the government’s plan to appoint an extra 150 judges to deal with the surge in immigration cases. Although, interestingly enough, when the Tories told us what Wales needed more than more politicians, they only referred to  "…more doctors, dentists, nurses and teachers…". No mention of judges there.

Given the backlog of criminal cases, it’s hard to disagree with the government’s conclusion that we need more courtrooms and more judges to hear cases, but for those waiting for cases against those who have burgled or assaulted them, giving priority to the surge in immigration cases in an attempt to deport a tiny number of people to Rwanda buy off opponents within the Tory Party may not be a precise match with their own priorities. It turns out, however, that even if the government do fund more judges, and even if the processes for recruiting them can be sped up from the normal glacial pace of such matters, the government have no power to direct which cases they will hear. That, it seems, is a matter for the Lady Chief Justice, who takes a dim view of the government trying to tell her what to do. (On the other hand, judges taking a dim view of their actions is hardly a new experience for the current government, for whom abiding by the law is not considered to be something about which they need to worry themselves unduly.)

Still, it means that Sunak might actually achieve something he’s always boasting inaccurately about. If he finds the money, and if the judges are recruited, and if the Lady Chief Justice deploys them as she sees fit rather than as the government might wish, it might actually help to reduce the backlog of criminal cases. In which case, Sunak would, indeed, be acting in line with ‘the priorities of the British people’. Even if it’s by accident.

Justice for the plebs, too

Tweet We may never know exactly what was or was not said in the infamous exchange between Andrew Mitchell and the police at the gates of Downing Street.  There will probably always be at least two versions to choose between.

What we do know though is that at least one policeman lied; he wasn’t even there but gave a statement reporting what he had “heard”.  (Although, of course, the fact that he wasn’t there to hear what was said doesn’t actually conclusively prove that it wasn’t said either!)

To an extent I have some sympathy with Mitchell, who lost his job as a minister and was disgraced for something which he (in all probability) didn’t actually say: and all on the evidence of a policeman prepared to lie.  I might have even more sympathy if he’d been a little more forthcoming with his own version of events; but in legal terms it isn’t up to him to prove his innocence, it’s up to others to prove his guilt.  To date, they have utterly failed to do so.

There’s another question here though, and that’s about how and why the police came to concoct evidence (there must surely have been more than one of them involved - who told the absent witness what he was supposed to have "heard"?).  It all seems to have been done so casually – it must surely raise a question about how common a practise this is.

I would not wish to suggest that all police are corrupt and dishonest; that is patently not the case.  However the knowledge that most people are more likely to believe a policeman than a defendant in the dock – or even more so than a politician – is likely to be a temptation which occurs to more than one policeman, and in more than one set of circumstances, particularly if they “know” what happened and are merely ensuring that the miscreant gets punished.

Mitchell is in the fortunate position of having the public profile, and the support from the media, to get to the bottom of the matter.  All power to his elbow in that endeavour, but I’d be even more supportive if those less able and privileged who had suffered from a similar approach came forward and were given the same opportunity.

A convert?

Tweet

It’s never a surprise to see the Tory MP for Monmouth, David Davies, calling for tougher something or other when it comes to treatment of convicted criminals.  And his ‘three strikes and you’re out’ call is surely something he’s said many times before.  It plays well with his target audience, I’m sure.

There was something new about the story yesterday though.  According to the Western Mail, “Wales must introduce a policy of ‘three strikes and you’re out’ to deal with the problem of multiple offenders avoiding jail” was “the warning from one Welsh MP”, i.e. Davies.

Given his past less than enthusiastic support for devolution, or for different policies between Wales and England, I find it hard to believe that he has not been misunderstood in some way, because for Wales to introduce such a policy would mean a substantial increase in the powers of the Assembly.

I’d be delighted if he really has come round to the view that criminal justice is a matter which should be devolved (although the likelihood of getting a majority in the Assembly for the sort of measures for which he is calling seems slight to me), but I won’t hold my breath.