The Marine A judgment – a handy 10-point guide

marine-blackman_2755985b

Sgt Alexander Blackman

 1. So, what’s this “Marine A” malarkey all about then?

Marine A, or Sgt Alexander Blackman, today succeeded in his appeal against his conviction for murdering a wounded Taliban insurgent whilst on a tour of Afghanistan in 2011. The Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC) quashed his conviction for murder and substituted a conviction for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility.

2. This sounds familiar. Hasn’t he already appealed?

He has indeed. Following his conviction for murder before a Court Martial on 8 November 2013, when he was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 10 years, he appealed against his conviction and sentence to the CMAC in 2014. On 10 April 2014, the CMAC refused his appeal against conviction, but reduced the minimum term (the minimum period before a life prisoner is eligible for release) from 10 to 8 years.

3. If his appeal against conviction has already been refused, how come he gets another?

Following the refusal of his appeal, Blackman applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission, the independent statutory body set up in 1995 to investigate potential miscarriages of justice, following a series of notorious errors including the  Birmingham Six, Guildford Four and others. If the Criminal Cases Review Commission considers that new  evidence or a new legal argument has emerged, which leads them to conclude that there is a “real possibility” that the Court of Appeal (or CMAC) will quash a conviction, they can refer the case back to the Court of Appeal/CMAC. This only happens in a fraction of applications to the CCRC. On 15 December 2016, Blackman became one of the fortunate ones.

4. What was the “new evidence or argument”?

At his first appeal, it was unsuccessfully argued that the Court Martial system – a peculiar, sui generis legal tribunal not entirely misrepresented by the depiction of the trial of Blackadder for the slaughter of Speckled Jim the pigeon –  was not compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. Subsequently, psychiatric evidence has emerged which it is said would, had it been available at trial, have afforded him a partial defence to murder.

 

5. A defence! So he didn’t do it – is that what the Court said?

It depends what you mean by “it”. If you mean murder, then that is correct. The CMAC concluded that, for the reasons below, the conviction for murder was unsafe. However, it was confirmed by the Court – and agreed by Blackman – that he had deliberately shot and killed a wounded, defenceless Afghan insurgent at point blank range. The details of the killing, which were captured on video and later emerged to form the primary evidence against him, are set out in paras 17 to 22 of the judgment and are worth reading in full. They are not pleasant. In summary, on 15 September 2011, Blackman was leading a foot patrol of around eight marines in Helmand Province. After an Apache helicopter opened fire on two armed Taliban insurgents, Blackman was ordered to undertake a battle damage assessment. His patrol found one of the insurgents badly injured in the middle of the field. The marines took away his weapons and moved him to a position where he was out of sight of the operational headquarters. The video then records a discussion between the marines as they contemplated whether to patch the insurgent’s wounds or to kill him. The appellant checked that the helicopter had moved out of sight, and then drew his pistol. He fired a shot into the insurgent’s chest, watched his body writhe back and forth for 15 seconds and said, “There you are, shuffle off this mortal coil, you cunt.” As the insurgent died, Blackman continued: “It’s nothing you wouldn’t do to us. Obviously this doesn’t go anywhere, fellas. I’ve just broken the Geneva Convention.” None of those facts are disputed. The partial defence that the Court found was established, “diminished responsibility”, has the effect of reducing what would otherwise be murder – unlawfully killing someone with intent to kill or cause really serious harm – to manslaughter.

6. He shot a man in cold blood – how is that not murder?

The defence of diminished responsibility is set out in section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957. It applies only to murder, and provides, in short, that a person who would otherwise be guilty of murder should not be convicted of murder if they were suffering “from an abnormality of mental functioning which (a) arose from a recognised medical condition, (b) substantially impaired [the defendant’s] ability to do one or more of the things mentioned in subsection 1A; and (c) provides an explanation for the defendant’s acts in doing or being party to the killing.” The relevant “abilities”, one of which has to be substantially impaired, are set out in ss1A as the ability (a) to understand the nature of the defendant’s conduct; (b) to form a rational judgment; or (c) to exercise self control. In short, the defence is designed to ensure that a defendant whose culpability is reduced because of substantial impairment caused by an “abnormality of mental functioning” is not punished as severely as a defendant who commits murder knowing and understanding exactly what they are doing. The law does not completely exculpate them – a conviction for manslaughter and a hefty sentence follows, but the consequences are not as serious as a conviction for murder, with the mandatory life sentence that attaches.

7. So how was diminished responsibility argued in this case?

After his conviction but before his sentence, a psychiatric report was obtained, which opined that Blackman might be suffering from an undetected combat stress disorder. This was new – there had been no suggestion at the original trial that Blackman was mentally unwell; his (rather implausible) defence had been that he thought the insurgent was dead when he shot him. However the psychiatric report set bells ringing, and a number of further reports were obtained in the course of the CCRC investigation. Three psychiatrists all agreed that at the time of the killing, Blackman was suffering from adjustment disorder, a recognised medical condition with symptoms that include depressed mood, anxiety, inability to cope with a situation and a degree of disability in performance of daily routine. Out of the 20 to 25% of all soldiers who suffer mental health problems, the most common diagnosis is adjustment disorder. The symptoms are often masked and not apparent, either to the person suffering or to onlookers. A sufferer might appear to others to plan and act with apparent rationality. In Blackman’s case, each expert, who had carefully examined him, agreed that this abnormality of mental functioning substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgment and exercise self-control. In other words, that the defence of diminished responsibility was made out.

8. What did the prosecution say about this?

The prosecution did not dispute the content of the psychiatric evidence, nor did they object to it being adduced at the appeal (there is a high bar for “fresh evidence” being admitted by the Court on an appeal). The prosecution accepted that the appellant suffered from adjustment disorder; however, they said that it did not have the claimed bearing on his actions. It was clear from the video that he knew what he was doing and intended to do it. It could not be proved that the adjustment disorder was operative at the time of the killing, and in any event Blackman’s judgment was not substantially impaired. The conviction for murder, they said, should stand.

9. And the Court agreed with the appellant?

It did indeed. It held that had the psychiatric evidence been before the Court Martial in 2013, the Board would have had to consider the issue of diminished responsibility, and that this could have affected their decision to convict of murder. The verdict was therefore unsafe. In arriving at this conclusion, the Court looked at the evidence of Blackman’s condition prior to his deployment to Afghanistan – how he was an exemplary, mild-tempered soldier up until the death of his father, and became “a husk of his former self” – and the conditions in which he was operating. He had insufficient training in Trauma Risk Management, lost the support of close mentors who were killed in action, and was working in a particularly dangerous, isolated environment. There were numerous stressors, the Court found, including very recent attempts on Blackman’s life, one of which was a grenade attack a month before the killing in which he escaped with his life by a whisker. The Court accepted that Blackman perceived a lack of support from his commanding officers, and that his cognitive function at the time of the killing would have been affected by radio chatter suggesting that another attack was imminent. Taken together, these amounted to “exceptional circumstances” the combination of which, applied to his adjustment disorder, substantially impaired his ability to form a rational judgment and his ability to exercise self-control. His actions, terrible as they were, had to be put in the overarching context of his disorder.

The Court then had to decide whether to remit the case for a retrial for murder, where a Court Martial could consider the evidence and the defence of diminished responsibility afresh, or to substitute a conviction for manslaughter today and be done with it. Given the Court’s findings above, they exercised their power under s.14 of the Court Martial Appeals Act 1968 to substitute a conviction for an alternative offence.

10. So what happens next?

He will be sentenced for manslaughter on a date to be fixed. There are no Sentencing Guidelines for manslaughter, but given the evident sympathy of the Court exhibited in the judgment, it would not be a surprise if they passed a sentence which resulted in Blackman being “time served” and immediately released. At the very least, it will be significantly below the 16-year equivalent sentence passed for murder (to arrive at the “minimum term” for murder, you take the appropriate determinate sentence that would be passed and chop it in half, to reflect the fact that automatic release applies to determinate sentences at the halfway stage).

Meanwhile, we can look forward to lots of angry people getting angrier and angrier, without bothering to read the judgment or acquaint themselves with the facts. For some, Blackman is a national hero who should never have been prosecuted at all for dispatching a murderous terrorist in the fog of war. For others, the prosecution of our own who, in their own, boastful admissions, breach international law and kill harmless, injured enemy combatants, is a mark of civility that stands us apart from the enemy.

For my part, I would urge everyone, whether of either view or none, to read the judgment in full. There is plenty to be learned, whether it’s a grim parable of the casual barbarity into which good people can descend, or an invaluable insight into battlefield conditions that most of us are fortunate enough never to have to endure.

********************

FOOTNOTE: The barometer of good judgment otherwise known as Matthew Scott (@barristerblog) makes a vital point buried in the judgment. Neither the result nor the judgment in any way amount to a criticism of Blackman’s original legal representatives at trial, nor the original Court Martial. His condition was invisible and he refused to allow his team to pursue a psychiatric defence out of fear of stigma. Those on social media attacking Blackman’s legal team do so from a position of guaranteed ignorance.

Accusing this judge of “victim blaming” is unfair, wrong and dangerous

On Friday 10 March 2017, HHJ Lindsey Kushner Q.C. drew a 43-year legal career to a close by detaining a rapist for six years. After 14 years on the bench, her final trial at Manchester Crown Court involved a set of facts grimly familiar to criminal practitioners, in which the defendant, Ricardo Rodrigues-Fortes-Gomes (19), led the 18-year old victim, who had been drinking lager and vodka and inhaling amyl nitrate, from a city centre Burger King to a canal bank, where she was raped. Her cries were heard by a witness in a nearby flat, who called the police.

The details are scantly reported, but it appears that there was a co-defendant, and it was said that they took turns to have intercourse with the victim on the canal bank. They each claimed that the sex was consensual. The co-defendant was acquitted while Rodrigues was convicted. (For those immediately curious as to how this might be, it should be emphasised that the burden of proof means that such a verdict is not a finding that the co-defendant was innocent and that the intercourse with him was consensual; all we can divine from the verdict is that the jury could not be sure that there was not consent (or reasonable belief in consent).)

HHJ Kushner Q.C.

Having passed a sentence of six years’ detention in a Young Offender Institution, HHJ Kushner Q.C. took her last ever sentencing remarks as an opportunity to share some wider observations. This is not uncommon; recent years have seen retiring judges use their last hurrah to shoehorn in some long-suppressed views about, for example, the crumbling Crown Prosecution Service. Given the trial over which she had just presided, HHJ Kushner Q.C. chose the topic of sexual offences on which to offer her insight. The remarks bear repetition in full, given the interpretation that has since been attached to them:

“We judges who see one sexual offence trial after another, have often been criticised for suggesting and putting more emphasis on what girls should and shouldn’t do than on the act and the blame to be apportioned to rapists…There is absolutely no excuse and a woman can do with her body what she wants and a man will have to adjust his behaviour accordingly. But as a woman judge I think it would be remiss of me if I didn’t mention one or two things. I don’t think it’s wrong for a judge to beg women to take actions to protect themselves. That must not put responsibility on them rather than the perpetrator. How I see it is burglars are out there and nobody says burglars are OK, but we do say ‘please don’t leave your back door open at night, take steps to protect yourselves’…Girls are perfectly entitled to drink themselves into the ground but should be aware people who are potential defendants to rape, gravitate towards girls who have been drinking.”

The judge also went on to remark that “potential defendants to rape” target girls who have been drinking because they are “more likely to agree as they are more disinhibited, even if they don’t agree they are less likely to fight a man with evil intentions off”. She said a woman would be less likely to report a rape “because she was drunk or cannot remember what happened or feels ashamed to deal with it”.

“Or, if push comes to shove, a girl who has been drunk is less likely to be believed than one who is sober at the time…It should not be like that but it does happen and we see it time and time again. They are entitled to do what they like but please be aware there are men out there who gravitate towards a woman who might be more vulnerable than others. That’s my final line, in my final criminal trial, and my final sentence.”

It did not take long for a flare to be sent up. This, it was swiftly asserted, amounted to classic Victim Blaming. Dame Vera Baird, former solicitor general and Northumbria Police and Crime Commissioner, told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme:

“When somebody is raped they feel guilt and shame and they find it very hard to report it. If a judge has just said to them ‘Well, if you drank you are more likely to get raped, we are not likely to believe you and you have been disinhibited so you’ve rather brought it on yourself’ then that guilt is just going to get worse.”

As reported by the BBC:

“Ms Baird said the judge should have given advice to help women stay safe instead of implying “it’s your fault for having attracted him in the first place”.”

“This looks like victim-blaming and they (organisations such as Rape Crisis) are worried that, yet again, it is going to become harder to get women to make reports. That’s a terrible shame.”

Similar sentiments were echoed by numerous charities and pressure groups. They were ad idem in their condemnation – the judge was blaming victims for the horrors that they suffered at the hands of their attackers. She was “telling women that they wouldn’t be believed” and “deterring victims from coming forward”.

This is the message that has since dominated the reporting of this story. And, with respect, it is wholly and dangerously wrong.

Victim blaming – ascribing moral fault to victims for crimes committed against them – is insidious and wicked for all the reasons correctly identified by Baird and campaigners. It wrongly seeks to diminish the moral culpability of the criminal by apportioning fault to the victim, in a manner unthinkable outside the arena of sexual offences; it increases the suffering of the victim; it deters present and future victims from reporting offences; and its logical conclusion holds that the solution to preventing these offences lies solely with the women who “invite” them, rather than the men who perpetrate them.

But it is not the same thing as seeking objectively to identify factors that increase one’s risk of vulnerability to crime, and urging awareness of those factors.

The sensitivity to perceived victim blaming in the criminal courts is understandable. The law – courts, judges and lawyers – has for centuries indulged in stark and blatant victim blaming. From the historical lack of respect and credibility afforded to “unchaste women”, to 1980s judges suggesting that a victim’s clothing or demeanour meant she was “asking for it”, to the fact that as recently as 1991 a wife could not in law be raped by her husband, the law has rightly been forced to update attitudes rooted in what is at best patriarchy and at worst institutional misogyny. And, while much has improved, it would be naive to assert that such attitudes can be comfortably boxed up as historical remnants.

The Fawcett Society earlier this year published a report suggesting that 38% of men and 34% of women surveyed said that a woman was “totally or partly to blame” if she went out late at night wearing a short skirt, got drunk and was the victim of a sexual assault. A High Court judge last year made comments, similar to those expressed by HHJ Kuschner Q.C., but with the added, ill-advised suggestion that the victim had been “foolish” to have exposed herself to risk. I criticised this on Twitter at the time as deeply unhelpful, representing, while not “victim blaming” as such, nevertheless a moral judgment of victims that we should strive to avoid.

It plainly still needs to be said, and should be said, loudly, clearly and repeatedly: It does not matter what a woman is wearing. Or how much she has drunk. Her body is her own. If you violate her autonomy, the responsibility is entirely yours. No-one else’s. She is not to blame for exercising her freedom. You will not, as happened in one notorious case in 1982 at Ipswich Crown Court, find yourself handed a shorter sentence on the basis that the victim is culpable of “contributory negligence” for putting herself in a position of vulnerability. Your crime is wholly your own.

But, to repeat the point – this should not be conflated with attempts to point out ways in which people can minimise the risk to themselves. The “locking your windows to keep out burglars” analogy often reached for in this debate, and indeed floated by the judge, carries an admitted crassness, comparing as it does a crime against property with an invasive sexual offence; but that does not diminish its inherent truth. Saying that there are common factors which are exploited by criminals is expressing empirical fact. It is not a value judgment on character or behaviour. It no more increases the moral culpability of the victim or decreases the agency of the offender than pointing out that going out without shoes increases your chances of cutting your feet on broken glass. You are not in any way morally to blame for someone else leaving broken glass on the floor, nor for expressing your right to dress as you please; the message is simply: here’s what experience teaches us you can do to minimise this risk.

In the instant case, it is obvious that this was all that the judge was doing. She was talking about a very specific type of offence which, although thankfully rare, crosses the criminal courts far more often than humanity can bear; namely, cases where a highly intoxicated lone young women is targeted by a predatory rapist due to her vulnerability. This is not a myth created by misogynist judges to frighten women into never leaving the house – it is an appalling reality. And what is more, as the judge carefully explained, the specific vulnerability of being blind drunk can be exploited not only in the commission of the offence, but a second time over by the defendant seeking to deny his guilt at trial. In the case that HHJ Kushner Q.C. had just heard, the guilty defendant had alleged consent. I can guarantee you that the defence barrister will have spent significant time in cross-examination tugging away at the minor details of that fateful evening to demonstrate how the alcohol had inhibited the victim’s memory in an effort to undermine the reliability of her evidence.

None of this, as the judge was at pains to say, is to in any way blame the victim for what happened to her. But it would be a nonsense to suggest that, in cases such as these, one’s vulnerability is not heightened by drinking to excess.

It is in many ways bizarre that at a time when there is a belated emerging social consensus that tackling “general” crime requires a multi-faceted approach, looking not only at the individual culpability of the offender but the broader environmental and causative factors that create the conditions for crime to occur, the tune of self-professed progressives is often one-note when it comes to sex offences. In political terms, emphasising that an effective criminal justice policy has to recognise the social and environmental factors that facilitate crime, and that so doing does not excuse the moral culpability of the individual, has been a gruelling campaign of the centre-left. It is usually the gravel-throated wails of the reactionary right that drown out attempts at nuanced assessments of crime that move beyond locating cause (as opposed to moral culpability) solely in the offender. But this is the adopted philosophy of those who shout down HHJ Kushner’s advice with the mantra of, “Rape is only caused by rapists”.

The choices of the offender are the largest part of the problem, of course. But it is blinkered to suggest that the solution to making the public safer lies simply in condemning louder and punishing harsher. Unpleasant as it is to accept, we will never eradicate violent and sexual crime. Never. There will always be people – usually men – who irrespective of the law, will rape. As long as we recognise that truth, it is incumbent upon us to help keep each other safe. This we do by focussing on the offender, and potential offenders, through social, criminal and penal policies combining education, deterrence, rehabilitation and punishment; but also by limiting opportunity for those who are determined to offend. A solution that focusses solely on the offender, asserting that there is nothing that can be done by the public to protect themselves, is no real solution at all. It’s cyclopic, prioritising the purity of The Cause ahead of pragmatic realities.

That, I fear, is what we are witnessing with this latest outburst against the judge.

And, again, in making these observations, I do not question the sincerity of the cause. And I understand why, whatever label one puts on the judge’s comments, it might still be suggested that they were not helpful. There is a justifiable worry that emphasising personal victim safety might deflect attention from the offender’s culpability in a way that is superficially extremely unattractive. One could argue that the prevalence of such remarks reinforce misnomers about sexual offending, and disguise more complex realities, such as the fact that the “stranger rapist in the bushes” is statistically rare, the offender and victim most likely to be known to each other. One might contend that the discussion about what steps it is objectively “reasonable” for a woman to take can easily fissure into normative value judgments about how women should act, or dress, or otherwise restrict their own liberties.

I would argue that none of those arise in this case – the judge’s remarks appear plain, sensitive and carefully targeted – but I can see why those who dedicate their lives to supporting victims may tire of what they perceive as an imbalance in public discourse, and wish that emphasis were placed elsewhere.

Nevertheless, whatever may fairly be tossed into the debate, and whatever deeper, noble motivations may pertain, the claims of “victim blaming” here are entirely unjustified. The ubiquity with which the term “victim blaming” is now thrown around, like “fake news” by a deranged faux-Presidential clown in a wig, risks degrading its meaning to “something we’d rather not hear”. Worse than that, it results in vital, non-judgemental messages about personal safety being lost in the din.

Judges and police trying to press home the message of personal safety find themselves like doctors telling a patient that there are certain environmental factors that increase their risk of vulnerability to a disease, and having their offer of advice angrily rejected as “victim blaming”.

In fact, it is worse than that. To stretch the analogy, Vera Baird’s words are akin to telling people: “If you go to see a doctor, you will suffer victim blaming.” Dame Vera, although I don’t doubt motivated by a genuine desire to improve the lot of victims of sexual offences, is becoming a repeat offender in this area, the first to heighten alarm rather than assuage concerns. The quote to the BBC, in which Ms Baird suggested that the judge had said “you’ve rather brought it on yourself” is, I’m afraid, simply untrue. Either Ms Baird did not read the remarks before commenting, or, worse, she did and has dishonestly misrepresented them to support her point.

It is a genuine shame that the publicity generated by the judge’s comments were not seized upon as a platform for a united message of support for victims, instead of being exploited as an opportunity for division and recrimination. Imagine if, instead of rushing to condemn this judge – who, with respect, will have a far deeper, broader and more objective understanding of the topic than many single issue campaigners – Vera Baird had said something like this:

“As this highly experienced judge rightly recognised, crimes of this type are always the fault of the offender. Furthermore, this type of rape is rare; but there are simple steps that we would urge people to take on nights out to increase their personal safety. Predators often seek out women who are drunk and alone and exploit their vulnerabilities. Of course go out, drink and have fun – but just take care. And, should the worst happen, please do not be deterred by media scare stories from reporting what has happened.”

It has been suggested that such advice is otiose, or patronising. As the Guardian was told by End Violence to Women:

“The group pointed out that women already take steps as a matter of routine. “They leave early, get taxis instead of buses, don’t wear ‘that’ top or ‘that’ skirt and they still get raped.””

And of course, the judge’s advice is not a panacea. It cannot and was not intended to be. But tragically the daily experience of the criminal courts shows that the message about personal safety still bears repetition. It won’t erase the problem, but it may help, in a narrow subset of cases, to save a few potential victims from having to pick up the fragments of their shattered lives off the courtroom floor. And if it does, it is a message which should be cheered by us all, with its judicial messengers celebrated rather than beaten into submission by misplaced accusations of “victim blaming”.

Guest Post by CrimeGirl: The fallacy of the fat cat legal aid lawyer

In the coming months, the tabloid “fat cat legal aid lawyer” staples are likely to re-emerge and recur with a vengeance, following the Ministry of Justice’s plans to slash legal aid fees paid to criminal law solicitors. In the din of misinformation that will be honked out by the MoJ to distract from the legal profession’s concerns, the truth may become estranged. This could have devastating consequences. If you are wrongly accused of a crime, your guiding light will most likely be a legal aid solicitor. Their importance to the functioning of our justice system is shamefully overlooked and underreported.

The Secret Barrister is proud to publish this exclusive guest post by barrister, former duty solicitor and fellow anonymous legal commentator, CrimeGirl (formerly DefenceGirl), who explains the reality of life for solicitors on legal aid.

 

@DefenceGirl

@CrimeGirl

One of the basic tenets of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales is that every person being interviewed under caution by the police, no matter how rich or poor, is entitled to free and impartial legal advice.  As I used to tell my clients, even Richard Branson is entitled to free representation in the police station.

For each case the Legal Aid Agency pays the lawyer a fixed fee.  Those fees vary for some nonsensical reason depending on the location of the police station (or nearest police station).   When cases are not prosecuted, the case ends there, with that fixed fee.   On average it is circa £170.  That is all the firm receives for the totality of the work they put in.  For every police station lawyer working today, there will be numerous cases every week that are resolved by way of an ‘out of Court disposal’ such as a caution, or are dropped altogether.  Preventing charge in an appropriate way is an extremely positive result for the client and something that I took great delight in achieving.

Year on year, the number of arrests has dropped.  You will see this spun in the news as “crime falling”.  Be assured that crime is certainly not falling.  The number of individual criminal acts is not accurately reflected by the way those acts are recorded.  Custody stations across the country have seen greater than 30% reductions in footfall following a concerted effort by forces to achieve fixed targets.  The knock-on effect of this alone has been devastating for Solicitors and Barristers alike.

On top of that, a sizeable chunk of cases end at the police station.  Each case that resolves without charge culminates after its own hefty workload.  Children falsely accused of serious offences, removed from school, where Solicitors have intervened with the investigation on numerous occasions.  Countless vulnerable adults arrested for offences never capable of being made out on the available evidence, necessitating solicitors to attend the police station on multiple occasions, and who call their solicitors no less than thirty times over the months their cases go on.  Lengthy letters to custody sergeants and inspectors protesting length of bail and onerous bail conditions, threatening more formal legal action if they are not amended or relaxed.

Some of those files will comprise detailed reviews of statute and Court of Appeal or Supreme Court cases, lengthy letters to senior officers raising complaints, representations on points of law, or letters to other Solicitors requesting assistance in ancillary legal challenges.  Others will contain identity procedure attendance notes, multiple pages of written disclosure, defence witness statements and documents provided by the client to assist in preparing their defence.  They will include correspondence from employers, divorce paperwork and screenshots or emails from former partners, all of which need to be considered in detail so that the client can be advised whether or not the contents needed to be disclosed to the police in order to bring about a faster resolution to the investigation.

How much are Solicitors paid for all of this work?

Having worked for or on behalf of many differently sized firms with legal aid contracts, I can confidently say that all clients are defended robustly with a view to fending off a potential prosecution.  Every file attracts that paltry £170 I referred to above.  That £170* covers at best two hours of work, three letters and four or five phone calls.  It is the norm however for it to become a huge financial hole, representing a considerable overall loss in terms of spent fee earner’s working hours, calls and correspondence.

It bears repeating.  Every police station attendance is now considered a ‘loss leader’.  It is hoped  that remuneration may  occur in the future, either the client will be charged or if the best possible result happens and charge is avoided, one hopes, a word of mouth recommendation through excellent client care will materialise.

How can criminal defence solicitors survive in these circumstances?

The only way that firms or criminal departments have stayed solvent without taking on privately paid work is due to larger Crown Court litigator fees.  Each case that results in charge attracts funding under a representation order payable on a fixed fee basis, and when those cases are larger and more complex, (such as cases with lots of defendants at the Crown Court) that fixed fee rises.  When there is a huge amount of evidence for lawyers to read (more than 10,000 pages) the fee rises significantly.  That does not mean that those cases are ‘well paid’.  Let us not become distracted by the fallacy that any publicly funded criminal work is properly remunerated.  It is not an argument that is worth repeating here.  Larger litigator fee cases come closer to properly remunerating those who conduct them, than the smaller cases do, while remaining in stark and depressing contrast to remuneration available in any other area of law involving the same volume of work.

Those large cases are rare.  They come around infrequently and when they do arrive, Crown Court Judges have become accustomed to splitting large groups of defendants into smaller cases and putting pressure on defendants to plead guilty early, before evidence is served, with promises of sentence discounts. That cutting, pressure and re-organising reduces the financial value of the cases significantly.

The government is now proposing to reduce the amount of money it is willing to pay Solicitors and Barristers for those higher page count, more complicated cases.  No proper justification has been offered for doing this.  Lawyers still need to read every page of evidence in every case.  Failing to do so is negligent.  Relying on automatic computer processes to read evidence ignores the fact that documents are frequently hand-written and scanned, and omits the chance for human error in typing the evidence prior to service.  I say it again, failing to read every page is negligent.

The losses sustained by Solicitors at the police station and in the Magistrates’ Courts, and by Barristers  who fall into a loss by properly preparing poorly paid Crown Court cases are not properly balanced by the larger cases.  All cases should be remunerated fairly.  However, those larger cases go a way towards keeping firms and Barristers afloat financially.  The criminal justice system has already been slashed to the bone.  Police station fees have been reduced.  Magistrates’ Court fees have been cut.  Crown Court fees have been lowered.  Less people are being arrested.  All this after no rise in almost two decades, despite vastly increased living and business costs.  So many individual cases are routinely being driven into losses that criminal lawyers’ (particularly at the more junior end) are now very poorly remunerated.

Trainee Solicitors in crime can expect to earn between minimum wage and £18,000 a year.  When they qualify they can expect little over £24,000 nationwide.  Solicitors with up to seven years post qualification experience can expect to earn up to £32,000 a year, and all this comes bearing huge student debt and bank loans to fund their qualifications.  Paralegals are routinely paid between £13,000 and £20,000.  Even the most passionate believers in justice are deterred.

Great people are leaving the profession and almost no one is choosing to join it, which is a problem for the future.  It is our children and the most vulnerable people in our communities who will suffer.  With any further cuts whatsoever, we can be satisfied that the criminal justice system will collapse entirely.

As a law abiding tax payer you might think legal aid is an unnecessary expenditure, you never know when you might need it. No one plans to be falsely accused of a crime – just as no one plans to be a victim.

*Save for those that attract the “escape fee”.  Escape fees require many hours of attendance at the police station by the Solicitor in interview and equate to circa 4 x the standard fee.  These are rare, occurring only in complex and serious indictable only offences and almost always result in a positive charging decision. (I think it requires more than twelve hours and remember that you still aren’t remunerated for every hour you spend there).

You can (and should) follow CrimeGirl on Twitter at @CrimeGirl. 

The “Rape Shield” Bill is well-intentioned, meaningless and dangerous

Like the tide or the relentless ignorance of Iain Duncan Smith, the rhythm of certain recurring natural phenomena offers a comfort of certainty in an otherwise torrid and unpredictable world. One such inevitability was the reignition of the “Ched Evans row“, as media fiat demands it be termed. After several heady weeks in which almost all concerned abandoned calm and reason to soak in a pool of righteous, misinformed anger over cross examination of complainants on their sexual history and the meaning of the Court of Appeal ruling in Evans, there was a period after we all got out and dried off when tempers cooled and a serendipitous peace descended.

Ched Evans was a star player at Sheffield United.

It could never last. It was never intended to. That much was known when the government announced a review into the operation of section 41 of YJCEA – the legal provision setting out the limited circumstances in which evidence may be adduced or questions may be asked relating to previous sexual behaviour of a complainant in a sex case. We do not yet have the review, but yesterday nevertheless brought a pre-emptive legislative response, in the form of a Private Members’ Bill introduced by Plaid Cymru MP Liz Saville-Roberts.

The Bill, dubbed as a “Rape Shield”, has gathered attention since the weekend, as Ms Saville-Roberts trailed it across various media platforms. Explaining her premise, Ms Saville-Roberts wrote in The Times yesterday:

“So what’s the problem? It seems that rather than being invoked occasionally as originally intended section 41 is being over-ridden in courts to the degree that its effectiveness as a rape shield is weakening. This was thrown into sharp definition by the Ched Evans retrial. What was previously presumed to be a legal resort for extraordinary circumstances was presented as a successful defence strategy across the popular press and social media, which begs the question: from now on will every man charged with rape seize on this case as a get-out-of-jail-free card, and instruct his lawyers accordingly?”

Counting slowly to ten and fighting the urge to scream “THE ONLY PEOPLE PRESENTING THE CHED EVANS RULING “AS A SUCCESSFUL DEFENCE STRATEGY ACROSS THE POPULAR PRESS AND SOCIAL MEDIA” AND SUGGESTING THAT DEFENDANTS WILL UNIVERSALLY ADOPT IT AS A FORM OF PRECEDENT WERE NOT DEFENDANTS OR DEFENCE LAWYERS BUT YOU, THE HYSTERICAL MOB RESISTANT TO THE STRONG LEGAL CONSENSUS THAT EVANS SET NO MEANINGFUL PRECEDENT”, I shall accept, for the sake of argument, the premise that section 41 is being too loosely interpreted by Crown Courts, and that judges are permitting lines of questioning that they shouldn’t. I will respectfully observe that Ms Saville-Roberts’ reliance upon an anecdotal “dossier of victims’ harrowing experiences” collected by charity Voice4Victims, as evidence for her proposition that section 41 is insufficiently restrictive, is a little unscientific – a complainant, who is not legally trained, was not present during the judge’s ruling on the section 41 application and has a personal stake in the case, is not best placed to impartially assess the objective lawfulness, relevance or propriety of the questions on sexual history – but let’s not refight old battles about what precedent Evans sets or whether section 41 is or is not being correctly applied. Let’s assume that Ms Saville-Roberts is right, and consider the Bill presented yesterday.

As a Private Members’ Bill at a first reading, we must allow for this being very much a first draft. But even so, it is of a standard, it has to be said, which my pupil supervisor would have merrily set alight with his cigarette lighter had I presented it to him as an example of my drafting. The first clause of the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill deals with the proposed “Rape Shield”, and reads as follows:

1. Restriction on evidence or questions about complainant’s sexual history

(NONE)In section 41 of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 after
subsection (1) there shall be inserted the following subsection―

(2) A Court in making a determination in respect of subsection (1) may
require that the cross examination of a complainant shall not involve
any matter appertaining to their appearance, behaviour or their sexual
history with any unrelated third parties regardless of the nature of the
complainant‘s alleged behaviour either before or subsequent to the
current proceedings nor should such matters be admissible as evidence
if the purpose is to undermine the credibility of the complainant unless
it would be manifestly unjust to treat them as inadmissible.”

That’s quite a mouthful. Let’s break it down. Subsection (1) of section 41 YJCEA 1999, as a brief reminder, provides the general rule that:

(1)If at a trial a person is charged with a sexual offence, then, except with the leave of the court—

(a)no evidence may be adduced, and

(b)no question may be asked in cross-examination,

by or on behalf of any accused at the trial, about any sexual behaviour of the complainant. 

The remainder of section 41 sets out the limited exceptions under which leave may be granted, namely the circumstances set out in subsections (3) and (5).

So the new subsection (2) presumably seeks to add a further compulsory qualification to the general circumstances in which the judge can give leave under (1). I say presumably, because it is in fact entirely unclear what the subsection is supposed to achieve. Having read it repeatedly, the only way to begin to analyse its intended effect is to look at it line by line. In so doing,  I shall refer to the proposed new subsection (2) as subsection (1A) (as it ought properly be), to avoid confusion with the existing subsection (2).

(1A) A Court in making a determination in respect of subsection (1) may require that the cross examination of a complainant shall not involve…”

Right from the off, we see that this isn’t a mandatory restriction at all. It simply affords the judge a discretion as to whether to apply the qualifications that follow. Which, if your complaint is that judges are presently not exercising their discretion in this area correctly, appears an odd solution.

As to exactly what type of questions the judge may prohibit, we’ll turn to the substance momentarily, but it assists to skip to the end to get an overview of the purpose. Doing so gives us:

(1A) A Court in making a determination in respect of subsection (1) may require that the cross examination of a complainant shall not involve [various matters] if the purpose is to undermine the credibility of the complainant.”

This gets to the nub of the (entirely proper) objection that Ms Saville-Roberts has to evidence of sexual behaviour being used to discredit complainants, this being one of the “twin myths” – (i) “promiscuous” women are less likely of belief, and (ii) are more likely to have consented to sexual intercourse – that section 41 was designed to combat. Firstly, given that this Bill is presented as the panacea to the “Ched Evans problem”, it bears constant repetition that the reason for the admission of the sexual history evidence in Evans had nothing whatsoever to do with attacking the complainant’s credibility. Secondly, the authors seem unaware that section 41 already has that exact prohibition in place:

(4)For the purposes of subsection (3) no evidence or question shall be regarded as relating to a relevant issue in the case if it appears to the court to be reasonable to assume that the purpose (or main purpose) for which it would be adduced or asked is to establish or elicit material for impugning the credibility of the complainant as a witness.

Which rather makes (1A) otiose.

But what are the restrictions that the judge may apply? Well, s/he:

may require that the cross examination of a complainant shall not involve
any matter appertaining to their appearance, behaviour or their sexual
history with any unrelated third parties regardless of the nature of the
complainant‘s alleged behaviour either before or subsequent to the
current proceedings”

This is so broad as to defy definition. It covers quite literally “any matter appertaining to behaviour” – not just sexual behaviour. Quite what is meant by  “sexual history with any unrelated third parties” remains to be seen, no definition being offered, and a literal reading suggesting that evidence of incest would be admissible. The last line really tops it off – regardless of the nature of the complainant’s alleged behaviour either before or subsequent to the current proceedings – reading as an attempt to ban any question in any context. The incoherence is staggering.

Then we reach the final qualification:

“unless it would be manifestly unjust to treat [those matters] as inadmissible.”

The discretionary nature of this provision renders an “unless” clause utterly pointless, but in any event, it again adds nothing. Because there is already built into the existing subsection (2) of s.41, a requirement that leave should not be given under section 41 unless the court is satisfied “that a refusal of leave might have the result of rendering unsafe a conclusion of the jury or (as the case may be) the court on any relevant issue in the case.” Much as the Court of Appeal enjoys a spot of sophistry, identifying a meaningful distinction between a decision that is “manifestly unjust” and one that merely “renders unsafe” the verdict would be a head-scratcher even for them.

The only conclusion one can draw, for this to have any meaning, is that the word “may” is an error, and that the author intended this provision as an imperative. In which case what you get is a mandatory restriction on asking the complainant any question on any aspect of behaviour – including lies, evasiveness or inconsistency – which may be designed to undermine their credibility. Faced with a false allegation, you would be prevented from challenging the credibility of your accuser in any way.

Put simply, the drafting of this Bill shows that no understanding of the law, or the principles behind section 41, has been attempted by its creators. It is knee-jerk to the point of hyperextension. Other comments by Ms Saville-Roberts, in which she mangles the reasoning of the Evans ruling, and even goes as far to suggest that section 41 as presently drafted is intended to exclude evidence of a complainant’s mental health, suggest that she, like many before her, has not taken the time to properly study the basics of her subject before rushing to legislate.

And I go into this tortuous detail because it exposes a deeper ignorance of our basic principles of justice, as demonstrated even more starkly in the next clause of the Bill, which seeks to impose a general ban on the police and CPS telling a defendant the name of their accuser, or other witnesses, in cases involving sex or violence, without the leave of a Crown Court judge (a proposal demolished by Nick Diable here). This is not a considered rebalancing of a finely-tuned and delicate ecosystem – it is an aggressive demolition of our common basic rights in the name of Doing Something to correct a problem which the architects don’t even understand.

I have no doubt that Ms Saville-Roberts and her sponsors are motivated by a genuine and noble desire to correct what they perceive to be cruel humiliation visited upon vulnerable complainants. But in so acting, they subscribe to a philosophy in which the court process is reimagined as a way of simply navigating our way smoothly to a conviction, safe in the certainty that if the defendant stands accused, it follows that he is guilty. In this model, it is of course rational that the minimisation of the complainant’s distress is the guiding principle, with the presumed guilty defendant’s interests an afterthought; worse, an inconvenience. A precondition of any reform of section 41 is sober analysis of the competing interests – defendant, complainant and state – and root principles of justice, before so much as a word of a new Bill is committed to paper. Otherwise we end up with Bills like this – well-intentioned, meaningless and potentially very dangerous indeed.

Do we really need a law telling people not to assault NHS staff?

Today’s PMQs offered a public airing to a campaign which struck a chord with me, but which may have been overlooked by others amidst the farce of Jeremy Corbyn mistakenly offering “condolences” to the family of a dead police officer who was in fact very much alive and trying to excruciatingly lie his way out of his error. The campaign in question was mentioned by Oliver Dowden MP, and seeks to offer protection to NHS workers at risk of violence from patients.

 

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

Although not explicitly stated, it appears that Mr Dowden is linking arms with a petition, currently running at over 110,000 signatures, which calls for Parliament to create a specific criminal offence of assaulting any member of NHS medical staff. The creator of the petition is Nick Ferrari, the LBC radio host, who demonstrated his grasp of sensitive and complex legal matters when he last month waded straight into the brouhaha over Marine A being refused bail without bothering to acquaint himself with the basics, echoing the lament of the ignorant – “Our courts grant bail to paedos but not to war heroes” – over his airwaves. [For an explainer of this affair, see here.] But the petition still deserves a fair hearing, as indeed it will get in Parliament now that it has hit the 100,000 mark. Its premise and purpose are to the point:

“There are 193 attacks on NHS staff a day in England. LBC’s Nick Ferrari thinks this is unacceptable. Support his ‘Guard Our Emergency Medical Services’ campaign to better protect our doctors and nurses by making it a specific legal offence to attack them.

Figures show that attacks on NHS staff are rising. With stretched resources, higher demand and rising waiting times the NHS can ill afford this violence.

For twenty years it has been a specific offence to attack a Police officer conducting their duties. (Section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996).

We the undersigned believe it is time to extend this higher legal provision and protection to NHS medical staff and make it a specific offence to assault them.”

 

 

 

The methodology behind his numbers is not clear, but if we accept for now the premise that attacks on NHS workers are rising, is a new law criminalising this particularly despicable type of violence – giving doctors and nurses the same protection that we offer to police officers – not a self-evidently good thing? Should the cries from the British Medical Association and Royal College of Nursing not be acted upon? Particularly when, as Mr Dowden pointed out to the House today, specific laws also exist to criminalise assaults on prison officers and immigration officers?

I’m afraid not.

For a start, extending section 89(1) of the Police Act 1996 as the petition demands (and as is achieved in the case of prison officers by s.8 of the Prison Act 1952), would have next to no practical effect. Because the offence of assaulting a police officer presently has next to no practical effect. The maximum sentence for assaulting a police constable under s.89 (or a prison or immigration officer) is six months’ imprisonment, which is the same maximum sentence that a court can impose for common assault or battery under s.39 Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Act under which less serious assaults against NHS workers – indeed, against anyone – are currently charged. More serious assaults causing injury, whomever they are against, will be charged as assault occasioning actual bodily harm or inflicting grievous bodily harm, which carry significantly higher maximum sentences.

Furthermore, under the Sentencing Guidelines which courts are required to follow, if an offence of assault was committed “against those working in the public sector or providing a service to the public”, the court must already treat that as an aggravating factor when arriving at the sentence.

It is difficult to see therefore how what the petition seeks would in any way offer the “higher legal protection” sought, assuming that by “higher legal protection” Ferrari means “tougher sentences”. It would create a new shiny offence with an exciting new name, that would tie up Parliamentary time and add yet further pages to our diarrhoeaic criminal law, but would not result in a jot of practical difference when it came to sentencing these crimes. Unless Ferrari envisages a higher maximum sentence for this new offence, in which case we can look forward to the immediate uproar from police officers wanting to know why someone punching them in the groin can only get 6 months while someone performing the same manoeuvre on a dentist can get up to a year.

Which leads us to the broader problem with laws of this type – What About Me? If NHS medical staff are to be regarded as comprising a vulnerable, public-facing group against whom an offence is ipso facto more serious, no doubt other interests would wish to be considered. Teachers, for instance. Or firefighters. MPs have a pretty good claim. The Armed Services have been pushing for such a law for some time. Bus drivers are common targets of unhinged violence. Court staff put themselves face-to-face with the very worst people in society on a daily basis. So in fact do we lawyers. And our staff. All of us are performing a public service. All of us deserve protection. Can we have a law named after us too?

The greatest objection though is that this approach just does not work. The petition plays to the legislator’s fallacy, beloved of those like Ferrari who think that the panacea to the social maladie du jour is just one law away. If we say X is an offence, and the punishment sounds tough enough, X will stop. Reality does not bear this out. The fact is that the people we see in court every day who roll into A&E smashed and abusive, spitting at nurses and headbutting doctors, are not going to be deterred by the knowledge that Ferrari’s Law means they might now be charged with Assaulting a NHS Worker instead of common assault. The problems isn’t that there’s not a law to prohibit what they’re doing. It’s that law alone is not enough. Simply adding further legislation to existing legislation in the hope that enough reams of the stuff will somehow resolve deeply embedded social, cultural and behavioural problems is the theory of the madhouse.

I appreciate from first hand experience that medical staff risk their personal safety daily in what are usually intolerable and at times highly dangerous conditions, and my scepticism for this initiative should not be read as a lack of sympathy. If there were a practical law that could achieve the desired result of fewer assaults on medical staff, I would mount my hobby horse and back it to the highlands. But this petition’s promise of “higher protection” bestowed by a special, targeted offence is a chimera. Well-intentioned, no doubt. But wrong.

If I were a shock jock riffing on an ill-thought out prescription for an immediately better society, I’d speculate that the solution lies somewhere between spending more money on staff, decreasing the time that these violent thugs can spend winding themselves up in the waiting area, spending more money on mental health services so that those offenders are properly diverted, and spending more money on security at hospitals. But I’ll settle for saying, more authoritatively, that whatever the answer may be, Ferrari’s Law isn’t it.

article-1160214-03bdbdaf000005dc-465_468x286

Were the judges “incompetent f****-ups” to refuse Marine A bail?

There is a risk, I am acutely aware, of this blog appearing to transmogrify into The Secret Judicial Cheerleader. Which it is not. By way of pre-emptive self-defence, I should point out that much of my professional life is spent politely pointing out to judges why, in my respectful submission, the course they are thinking of taking, which just happens to be adverse to my client, is wrong.

And sometimes, I dare say I’m even right about that. Because judges are fallible. From magistrates – especially magistrates – through to Supreme Court Justices, errors in reasoning and application of the law occur. And people far brighter than me forge glittering careers appearing in the higher courts, and publishing brain-stretchingly clever academic criticism, telling judges just how wrong their brethren – or they – are.

But what those types of argument have in common is that those making the case against judicial decisions do so in full possession of the relevant facts and law. Which is a precursor, you might think, to entering any debate, whether in court, print media or online. Know what you’re talking about. If you’re not sure why something happened, pause and find out, before leaping to the settled conclusion that, because that something instinctively offends you, it must be wrong. Or unjustifiable. Or evidence of systemic corruption. Or proof of some other cosy conspiracy theory.

It’s rather sad that I feel I have to open with such obvious points, but increasingly it becomes clear that they escape many who wish to inflict their opinions on their large, and often inexplicable, followings.

And so to Marine A, or Sgt Alexander Blackman. I touched on his case a few days ago, when his application for bail pending his appeal against his conviction for murder was adjourned. Yesterday the Court Martial Appeal Court (CMAC) heard the bail application, and refused it. The appeal will be expedited and listed as soon as possible next year, but the appellant will not be coming home for Christmas.

marine-blackman_2755985b

On cue, a band of merry speaking heads sprang up, Whack-A-Mole style, to denounce this decision. That so many did without being in court and before the Court published its judgment perhaps tells you something about the factual soundness of their premise. A choice few include:

So what happened? As a brief recap of the case, Sgt Blackman was convicted of murder in 2013 by a Court Martial, having shot an Afghan detainee at point blank range in 2011 while on tour in Afghanistan.  The case pricked emotions all round. For many, this was an act of cold-blooded murder which degrades the reputation of our military and endangers fellow servicemen, and Blackman was rightly prosecuted and convicted. For others, this was a mistake by a respected hero risking his life for our safety, and the morality and legality of such things done in the fog of war cannot be second-guessed by civilian commentators or media.

The details of the appeal are subject to reporting restrictions, but what we know is that the Criminal Cases Review Commisison has presented fresh psychiatric evidence which it is said relates to the appellant’s state of mind at the time of the shooting, and which renders the conviction for murder unsafe. It will be submitted that the correct verdict should have been manslaughter, on the grounds of diminished responsibility. There are also further grounds relating to, amongst others, alleged incompetence of the trial representatives. (The full issues for appeal, some referred by the CCRC, some raised for the first time by the appellant, are listed at para 9 of the judgment.)

Yesterday was the first effective hearing at the CMAC. Bail was sought and refused. Why? Was it, as Bannatyne says, because judges are incompetent? Was it because they are, in the poetic words of Jon Gaunt, “fucked up”? (A side note on Mr Gaunt – he is the radio presenter who, after being sacked by Talksport for calling a guest a “Nazi”, took his case against Ofcom as far as the High Court, where it was held that “the offensive and abusive nature of the broadcast was gratuitous, having no factual content or justification”. Which will no doubt be his epitaph.) Was Blackman failed by judges maliciously applying lesser standards to a war hero than they would a migrant rapist, out of loathing for their country?

Actually, the reasons are set out in the judgment, which, if one takes the time to read it, makes for a far less scandalous tale. As para 18 patiently explains, bail pending appeal is rarely granted. This accords with most practitioners’ experience of appellate proceedings. Bail will only be granted in “exceptional” circumstances. Before conviction, there is in most cases a presumption in favour of bail, and the court will need to be satisfied that there are substantial grounds for withholding bail (e.g. the defendant is a flight risk, or there is a risk of further offending). But where someone is convicted and is seeking to appeal, entirely different considerations apply. Exceptional circumstances must be made out in order for bail to be granted. What amounts to “exceptional”? The test is set out in case law. Normally, “exceptional” requires that the merits of the appeal are overwhelming, or that the appellant will have served his sentence by the time of the appeal, rendering it practically nugatory.

Here, neither of those was satisfied. The Crown, although neutral on the issue of bail, do not accept the premise of the appeal. They do not agree that the new psychiatric evidence establishes a potential defence of diminished responsibility, and will argue that the conviction for murder is safe (para 13). With this in mind, and the Court having seen the fresh evidence, it considered that the case cannot be seen as “overwhelming”. (And anyone who feels able to positively  disagree with this assessment without seeing the evidence is frankly beyond reason.)

Turning to the second limb, even if a conviction for manslaughter were successfully substituted for murder, it does not follow that by the time of the appeal, he will have served all of his sentence. Exceptional circumstances, the Court held, are not made out on the test that the Court has to apply. The test is not, as some would wish, whether one has sympathy with Sgt Blackman, or whether the judges know the true meaning of Christmas. It’s the same test that is applied to all murder convicts. Reaching for the trite point, if you were the family of the deceased, you would want the Court to follow the law when entertaining a bail application from your beloved’s killer, rather than to base their decision on the whims of the public mood. This is the rule of law, folks. It’s there to protect us all.

The timing of the appeal is also important. In recognition of the urgency of the appeal, the Court has agreed to sever the various issues raised in the grounds of appeal and to expedite the seemingly most pressing – that of the psychiatric evidence. The appeal on this ground is likely to be heard at the end of January 2017 or start of February. To those abusing the judges for their lack of compassion, for the Court of Appeal to list a substantive murder appeal hearing involving fresh psychiatric evidence within a month of the CCRC reference being received, is rare. This case, whether rightly or wrongly, is getting afforded attention and speed of treatment that many equally, if not more, meritorious appellants can only dream of.

Again, I’ll close with repetition: this is not, as some like to suggest, blanket support of the decisions that judges take. It’s not even saying that this particular decision is unimpeachable. It’s certainly not saying that people shouldn’t feel strongly about cases like this. But there’s a difference between criticism factually-grounded and forcefully expressed, and ignorant, gratuitous abuse such as that spat out by Bannatyne and his ilk.

The reactions of these louts should be contrasted with the quiet dignity of Sgt Blackman’s wife, who said:

c0nvkcdxcaavx1a-jpg-large

Which perhaps, at this stage, is all that properly can be said.