You may be wondering why I have been quiet for more than a week. I have not run out of things to say, it has been more a matter of attending to the needs of daily life. But at the week-end, as more and more people seem to be realising just how much money greedy bankers have been taking from us, I let my mind think about another deserving profession - lawyers. Not many lawyers earn as much as bankers but they do very well, thank you. Of course, we know that lawyers are very important in maintaining an equitable society and protecting us all from criminals and abuses by those in power. Unfortunately, these wonderful ideals are not available to us all.
Only the very rich are protected by lawyers.
Nevertheless, in the most serious cases lawyers and the legal profession in general will be available to all to ensure that justice is done. Particularly, I was thinking of the crime of murder. Anyone convicted of murder will be sentenced to life imprisonment and a judge can indicate just how long he considers "life" to be. Mainly, it will be 10 to 15 years but in some cases, life can mean exactly that. There are some who believe that, for the worst offenders at least, judges should have the option of passing a death sentence. I can understand such sentiments but they are not ones that I can support. I am opposed for two reasons. First, I would not ask the state to do on my behalf, something that I would not want to do myself. And certainly that would be the case with an execution. But, second, I would worry that the possibility of a mistake could not be eliminated. It is a conclusion that settled in my mind more than 50 years ago, when I was a teenager and two specific cases became front page news.
One was that of Derek Bentley. In his case there seems no serious reason to doubt the facts. In November of 1952, Derek Bentley with his friend Christopher Craig broke into a warehouse in Croydon. The break-in was seen by a child from across the street and her parents called the police. The first contingent of police arrived and went up onto the roof of the building where Craig and Bentley were hiding. Only Craig had a gun and Derek Bentley was quickly detained. He was not formally arrested but for 20 or 30 minutes he was in police custody and taking no part in events. Craig fired many shots and PC Sidney Miles was shot in the head, dying instantly. Craig carried on shooting until he ran out of ammunition, then jumped from the roof. He was quite badly injured but was arrested. A trial took place only 5 weeks later in front of Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, an arrogant, inflexible and authoritarian figure who made sure that the jury reached the right verdict. At the time of the shooting, Bentley was 19 but Christopher Craig was only 16 and could not, therefore, be sentenced to death. Although the jury in a mere 75 minutes found both men guilty of murder, they made an appeal for mercy in the case of Derek Bentley. He was a man with learning difficulties and in today's climate it is doubtful if he would have been found fully fit to plead. Nevertheless, Lord Goddard ignored the request of the jury and sentenced Bentley to death. His appeal was rejected and the Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Ffyffe, did not commuted the sentence to live imprisonment - even that was unusual. So, on 28th January 1953, Derek Bentley was hanged. I thought, even then that it was not right to hang the man who did not do the killing and not hang the man who did. After 45 years of campaigning the Appeal Court finally said that the conviction was "unsafe". Even now, the lawyers will not admit that they were wrong.
The other case that took place earlier and I only became aware of during the subsequent attempts to overturn the verdict. The case was that of Timothy Evans, a retarded man who lived with his wife and daughter at 10 Rillington Place in Notting Hill, London. In November of 1949, the wife and daughter were found murdered and after some police investigations Evans allegedly admitted to murder. This was subsequently denied at the trial but, nevertheless, Evans was found guilty and was hanged in March of 1950. Subsequently it was discovered that the murders had been committed by John Christie, another tenant in the house and who turned out to have been guilty of at least five murders. It took many years of campaigning by a group led by Ludovic Kennedy and Harold Evans to get a posthumous pardon. This was granted by Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, in 1966. Yet again, it was up to others to sort out the mess.
I was thinking of these matters at the weekend when another man with learning difficulties, Sean Hodgson, was released from prison after serving 27 years for a crime that DNA evidence has proved conclusively that he could not have committed. He, also, allegedly confessed to the murder and we must accept that if the death sentence had still existed in 1982, he would have been executed. For many years Hodgson has not been considered a risk to society and he could have been released if he had been prepared to admit his guilt. Since he was not, in spite of everything, prepared to approve the infallibility of our justice system, he would not be released. The DNA evidence could have been tested 10 years ago but it was said that the samples had been lost. Only the diligence of new lawyers established that this was not so and obtained his release. And the final insult? He was released with the standard sum of £46 to help him get back on his feet in the outside world; a man who went to prison when he was 29 years old and is released when he is 56 years old and is granted £1.70 for each of his years inside.
Only the very rich are protected by lawyers.
Only the very rich are protected by lawyers.
Nevertheless, in the most serious cases lawyers and the legal profession in general will be available to all to ensure that justice is done. Particularly, I was thinking of the crime of murder. Anyone convicted of murder will be sentenced to life imprisonment and a judge can indicate just how long he considers "life" to be. Mainly, it will be 10 to 15 years but in some cases, life can mean exactly that. There are some who believe that, for the worst offenders at least, judges should have the option of passing a death sentence. I can understand such sentiments but they are not ones that I can support. I am opposed for two reasons. First, I would not ask the state to do on my behalf, something that I would not want to do myself. And certainly that would be the case with an execution. But, second, I would worry that the possibility of a mistake could not be eliminated. It is a conclusion that settled in my mind more than 50 years ago, when I was a teenager and two specific cases became front page news.
One was that of Derek Bentley. In his case there seems no serious reason to doubt the facts. In November of 1952, Derek Bentley with his friend Christopher Craig broke into a warehouse in Croydon. The break-in was seen by a child from across the street and her parents called the police. The first contingent of police arrived and went up onto the roof of the building where Craig and Bentley were hiding. Only Craig had a gun and Derek Bentley was quickly detained. He was not formally arrested but for 20 or 30 minutes he was in police custody and taking no part in events. Craig fired many shots and PC Sidney Miles was shot in the head, dying instantly. Craig carried on shooting until he ran out of ammunition, then jumped from the roof. He was quite badly injured but was arrested. A trial took place only 5 weeks later in front of Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, an arrogant, inflexible and authoritarian figure who made sure that the jury reached the right verdict. At the time of the shooting, Bentley was 19 but Christopher Craig was only 16 and could not, therefore, be sentenced to death. Although the jury in a mere 75 minutes found both men guilty of murder, they made an appeal for mercy in the case of Derek Bentley. He was a man with learning difficulties and in today's climate it is doubtful if he would have been found fully fit to plead. Nevertheless, Lord Goddard ignored the request of the jury and sentenced Bentley to death. His appeal was rejected and the Home Secretary, Sir David Maxwell Ffyffe, did not commuted the sentence to live imprisonment - even that was unusual. So, on 28th January 1953, Derek Bentley was hanged. I thought, even then that it was not right to hang the man who did not do the killing and not hang the man who did. After 45 years of campaigning the Appeal Court finally said that the conviction was "unsafe". Even now, the lawyers will not admit that they were wrong.
The other case that took place earlier and I only became aware of during the subsequent attempts to overturn the verdict. The case was that of Timothy Evans, a retarded man who lived with his wife and daughter at 10 Rillington Place in Notting Hill, London. In November of 1949, the wife and daughter were found murdered and after some police investigations Evans allegedly admitted to murder. This was subsequently denied at the trial but, nevertheless, Evans was found guilty and was hanged in March of 1950. Subsequently it was discovered that the murders had been committed by John Christie, another tenant in the house and who turned out to have been guilty of at least five murders. It took many years of campaigning by a group led by Ludovic Kennedy and Harold Evans to get a posthumous pardon. This was granted by Home Secretary Roy Jenkins, in 1966. Yet again, it was up to others to sort out the mess.
I was thinking of these matters at the weekend when another man with learning difficulties, Sean Hodgson, was released from prison after serving 27 years for a crime that DNA evidence has proved conclusively that he could not have committed. He, also, allegedly confessed to the murder and we must accept that if the death sentence had still existed in 1982, he would have been executed. For many years Hodgson has not been considered a risk to society and he could have been released if he had been prepared to admit his guilt. Since he was not, in spite of everything, prepared to approve the infallibility of our justice system, he would not be released. The DNA evidence could have been tested 10 years ago but it was said that the samples had been lost. Only the diligence of new lawyers established that this was not so and obtained his release. And the final insult? He was released with the standard sum of £46 to help him get back on his feet in the outside world; a man who went to prison when he was 29 years old and is released when he is 56 years old and is granted £1.70 for each of his years inside.
Only the very rich are protected by lawyers.
No comments:
Post a Comment