The problem, he said, with those who accused his Government of an
authoritarian approach – those, indeed, to whom David Blunkett once referred
sneeringly as the “liberati” – was that they were out of touch with public
opinion. This, then, is the ultimate abrogation of the politician’s duty to
defend the rights of the individual against the State: if the polls tell us
that people want to see the criminal justice system “rebalanced” in favour
of the victim, then that is what we will do.
But the criminal justice system is not meant to be for the victim and it is
dangerous that it should be seen in this context. Trials in this country are
conducted between the Crown and the defendant; however much we may wish to
see justice done on behalf of the victim, the purpose of the judicial system
and the rule of law is to prove that the suspect is guilty. Even to question
this fundamental tenet is to step on to a slippery slope. Of course, those
Labour MPs who say their constituents care more for their safety on
dangerous streets than for the civil liberties of the mugger have a point.
However, the proper response is to put more police back into such
communities, not remove the ancient protections afforded to individuals from
wrongful conviction.
Freedom of expression is another basic liberty that has been eroded under Mr
Blair, a statement that seems at odds with a world of incessant internet
chatter and unrestrained blogging. Despite this, probably not since John
Milton railed against restrictions on the press in the 17th century, has
this country been so confused about where the boundaries of free speech lie.
People used to be free under the criminal law to speak their minds, provided
they did not, in doing so, incite others to commit violence or infringe
public order.
Speaker’s Corner, in Hyde Park, London, came to symbolise a democratic
tradition of which the country was proud and whose parameters were also
understood. Rabble-rousers trying to whip up the mob have never been the
beneficiaries of this latitude, just as extreme Islamists should not be
today. Parliament Square was, rightly, off limits to rioters but a magnet
for those who wanted to shout in the ear of their legislators. Now, unless
permission is granted, it is not even possible to whisper criticism of the
Government.
Maya Evans found this out when she stood by the Cenotaph to recite the names
of Britain’s Iraqi war dead. For this she was arrested, arraigned and
left with a criminal record. It is hard to conceive of a police officer a
generation ago taking any notice of her since she was causing no public
order problem at all. But Ms Evans had fallen foul of a clause in the
Serious and Organised Crime and Police Act which established a one kilometre
zone around the Palace of Westminster, within whose boundaries political
criticism can be voiced only on application to the Commissioner of the
Metropolitan Police. Not only does the Government apparently feel no
compunction about this grotesque infringement of liberties; neither,
apparently, does the official opposition since they have not pledged to
repeal the measure.
Or ask Lynette Burrows about free speech. She had offered her opinion on the
radio that two homosexual men should not be allowed to adopt a boy, which is
a view with which you may agree or disagree, but does not warrant a call
from the local constabulary. She was told that, although a crime had not
been committed, it was policy to record details of such complaints, so Ms
Burrows is now, presumably, on some sinister register of people who express
views that are not considered acceptable. Needless to say, she was
flabbergasted to receive such a call. “This is a free country and we are
entitled to express opinions on matters of public interest,” she said.
But are we a free country any longer? Were we ever? It is said, though less
often now than it used to be, that the basis of English liberty is the rule
of law, under which everything is allowed unless specifically prohibited.
According to AV Dicey, the 19th-century constitutionalist, this was one of
the features that distinguished England from its continental counterparts,
where people were subject to the exercise of arbitrary power and actions
that were not specifically authorised were proscribed.
Effectively, this principle limited the scope of the State to intervene in
people’s lives. Law set the boundaries of personal action but did not
dictate the course of such action. Some limitations on personal freedom are
introduced ostensibly for our own good and some predate the Blair
government, such as the compulsory wearing of seatbelts in cars and a
requirement to wear a crash helmet on a motorbike; but, since 1997, the pace
of proscription has grown alarmingly.
On July 1, it became a criminal offence not merely to smoke a cigarette in a
public place, but even in your own car if that is shared by others for
travel to work or is used for work purposes or in a room in your own home if
it doubles as a workplace.
It is now a crime, punishable by up to five years in prison, to smack your own
child if a visible mark is left as a result. It is also an offence to mount
a horse and ride off in pursuit of a fox. Since 1997, it has been a crime to
possess any handgun, even a .22 calibre, for sporting purposes. An
individual whose most aggressive instinct is to fire at a target can no
longer do so in this country, even under licence. Those who wish to pursue
their sport must practise abroad. Not only has the ban on handguns failed to
reduce armed crime, it also means that when London hosts the 2012 Olympics,
it will be staging at least three competitions for which the equipment will
be illegal in this country, and special dispensation will be needed for
shooters.
Since 2003, it has been illegal to own a horse, donkey or a Shetland pony
without obtaining an ID card for the animal to ensure that it does not
poison anyone who eats it. Yet, at the same time, a thief who steals goods
worth £200 or less from a shop is no longer arrested and taken to the police
station but handed a £80 fixed penalty notice, without any criminal record
provided it is paid on time. So, you can go to prison for not getting a
horse an ID card although it has been perfectly lawful to own an animal
without State interference since our forebears painted their faces blue. But
if you are a thief, expect a rap on the knuckles, apparently because it
takes up too much police time to deal effectively with “low-grade”
shoplifters.
Even teenage canoodling is now criminalised under the Sexual Offences Act
2003, which forbids under-sixteens from engaging in any sexual activity,
though police and prosecutors have been issued with guidance to ignore the
law where it seems to them appropriate to do so. One solicitor told how he
had to deal with the case of two teenagers arrested on suspicion of mutual
indecent assault, following a complaint by social workers. The case was
dropped, though the children had to spend time in custody late at night.
