Bar Council and Criminal Bar Association voice concerns on Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill
8 January 2008
The Bar Council and the Criminal Bar Association have voiced their concerns about key elements of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill in a hard-hitting briefing sent to MPs this week. The Bill seeks to abolish the power of the Court of Appeal to quash a conviction where it is based on an abuse of the investigative or prosecution process. The Bill also proposes to extend the powers of non-legally qualified case workers to conduct trials for serious offences (punishable by imprisonment) in magistrates’ courts.
The Criminal Justice and Immigration Bill, which is scheduled to complete its remaining stages in the House of Commons tomorrow, proposes measures which are not in the public interest.
Altering the powers of the Court of Appeal, as proposed by Clause 26, will remove a vital constitutional check on illegality and abuse of power by the Executive.
The extended use of “Designated Case Workers”, as envisaged by Clause 86, could result in members of the public being prosecuted in contested trials by non-legally qualified people, who do not owe the same duty to the court as barristers or solicitors and who are not regulated by independent professional regulators. All users of the justice system deserve the highest standards. Using DCWs who are not qualified for the forensic tasks they are being asked to undertake risks downgrading the standard of service the public rightly expects, compromises independence and could add to the costs of criminal trials.
Commenting on the Government’s proposals to change the powers of the Court of Appeal, the Chairman of the Bar, Tim Dutton QC, said:
‘Britain is rightly proud of its justice system and of its adherence to the rule of law. Abolishing the power of the Court of Appeal to quash a conviction where it is based on an abuse of process, not just any abuse or irregularity but a gross and irremediable one, is contrary to justice. It could seriously erode the moral and practical basis on which convictions are secured. Those who enforce the law should also obey the law, not benefit from breaches or irregularities.’
Commenting on the extension of DCWs’ powers, Tim Dutton QC added:
‘The Bar Council recognises that non-legal staff have an important role to play to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the legal process in cases of an essentially administrative nature. But in cases involving contested facts, issues of law and serious allegations, which demand a high level of professional responsibility, independence and developed advocacy skills, legally qualified advocates are essential. Barristers bring these qualities and skills to court, the exercise of which on behalf of the prosecution and the defence is governed by their duty to the court.’
Sally O’Neill QC, Chairman of the Criminal Bar Association, added:
‘Barristers are public servants whose professional responsibility is to ensure that cases are prosecuted and defended to the highest standards, thereby ensuring that the criminal justice system is properly served, in the public interest. In their different ways Clauses 26 and 86 will undermine this principle and weaken the administration of justice to the detriment of the public. That is why we are asking the Government to think again.’
