U.K. police chief alleges “trickery” by lawyers

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33516, 23 April 1974, Page 13

U.K. police chief alleges “trickery” by lawyers

i By

T. S. MONKS)

LONDON. Are there lawyers in criminal practice who secure acquittals by “highly • paid forensic trickery,” who concoct defences with false alibis, and who are more harmful to society than the criminals they represent? These were some of the charges made and the phrases used by Britain’s most influential policeman Sir Robert Mark, head of Scotland Yard, recently. There is support, and there ii vigorous protest. Sir Robert has also been questioning the efficacy of! trial by jury and calling for a detailed study. The general belief that the system was the best in the world was, he said, “based on prac-, tically no evidence what-: ever." These were not off-the-cuff comments. They were made in a long and reasoned lecture on 8.8. C. television which aroused considerable attention. NEW KIND OF CHIEF Sir Robert has become well known as a new kind of police chief, one who is not only highly articulate, but who has views and opinions he is determined to express. What he said in his television lecture was this: In serious criminal cases, although it was right that the burden of proof should be on the prosecution, the

prosecution had to act with-' jin a complicated framework of rules which were de-’: . signed to give every advan- 1 tage to the defence. RULES OUTDATED ? But most of those rules/ :were old and related to a 'ii 'ere . system, and it was! . arguable, that those samel rules were not suited to thej ; trial of an experienced crim-'; inal, using skilled legal as-1 sistance, in the late' twentieth century. “The criminal and his law-; ‘ yers take every advantage ofj these technical rules,” hej , said. “Every effort is made I to find some procedural mistake which will allow the! I wrongdoer to slip through I: the net || “In many criminal trials,! the deciding factor is not! ’ the actual evidence, but the! ' contest between a skilled ad-l ; vocate and a policeman or I • other witness under this! ■ kind of attack.” The advocates for thej defence were, for the most; part, only doing their iob, J Sir Robert went on. They 1 were there to get their ‘ clients off. HIGH STANDARDS And most lawyers observed, high standards. They s managed to serve both their I clients’ and the public inter- ; est honourably and well, so , much so that most of them • tended to be frankly incred- • ulous when it was suggested that there were some other - lawyers who did not. “The kind of behaviour I . have in mind is often easy t for the police to recognise, ! but almost impossible to 1 ? prove," he said. I

i “We see the same lawyers; 'producing, off the peg, the! ’same kind of defence for dif-i ferent clients. I “Prosecution witnesses; | suddenly and inexplicably! Ichange their minds. FALSE ALIBIS | “Defences far beyond the! I intellectual capacity of the! (accused are concocted. False! lalibis are put forward. | “Extraneous issues dam-; iaging to police credibility! i are introduced.” All those were part of the! I stock-in-trade of a small mi-1 inority of criminal lawyers. ! “Let there be no doubt! I that a minority of criminal ‘lawyers do very well from (the proceeds of crime. LACK OF SCRUPLE i “A reputation for success, (achieved by persistent lack lof scruple in the defence of ithe most disreputable, soon' ‘attracts other clients who ‘see little hope of acquittal in I any other way. I “Respected metropolitan detectives can identify lawyers in criminal practice ■ who are more harmful to society than the clients they represent.” A conviction said to result from perjury or wrongdoing by police rightly caused a public outcry, said Sir Rob- ' ert. Acquittal, no matter how blatantly perverse, never did, even if brought about by “highly-paid foren- ■ sic trickery.” He said that he spoke only in general terms. He would like to be more specific, but for obvious reasons he could not be. But immediately after Sir

Robert’s lecture there were ‘demands for specific cases and charges from lawyers. The Law Society 'challenged him to make ‘complaints about any lawyers and to offer his proof ito the society’s disciplinary (committee. A similar challenge was made by the chairman of the (Bar Council, Mr James i Cornyn, Q.C., who said that I if there was misconduct by | barristers, “which I do not (admit,” then generalised accusations could do nothing Ito remedy it. I But some solicitors and barristers have conceded to journalists that there are solicitors who concoct false evidence and barristers who turn a blind eye to it. CONFIDENTIAL LIST It is indeed believed that Scotland Yard has compiled ; a confidential list of lawyers

.regarded as suspect, but that no further action is being taken because wrong-doing cannot be proved. Police Federation spokesmen say that men in all ranks have been delighted by Sir Robert's tough public comments on something which had never before been brought into the open. And though the legal profession is calling on Sir Robert to produce his evidence, many policemen think the Law 'Society and the Bar Council will not exactly ignore what he has said and may be particularly watchful. JURY PROBE Sir Robert said that noone had ever thought it necessary to make a full, practical and impartial investigation of how the jury system worked. There was little reliable information

‘about how and why juries, arrived at their verdicts be-; cause no-one was allowed to | listen to their discussions. “I cannot think of any other social institution which is protected from rational inquiry because investigation might show it was not doing its job.” he said. He was not attacking trial by jury. What he was complaining about was the atmosphere of sacred mystery which always obscured any discussion of the jury system. But why should there be a study? ACQUITTAL RATE Sir Robert said that one fact alone should be enough to demand some kind of inquiry — the rate of acquittals. Of all the people in England and Wales who pleaded not guilty and were tried by jury, about half were acquitted. Every acquittal, he went on, was a case in which either a guilty man had been allowed to go free or an innocent citizen had been put to the trouble and expense of defending himself. There must be some rate of “failure,” he said, but a failure rate of one in two was far, too high. Sir Robert doubted if it would be tolerated in many other kinds of activity, so it needed looking into. Some lawyers, at least, agree, and a prominent Conservative lawyer M.P., Mr Edward Gardner, is asking; the Attorney General to hold I a full investigation into the I value of juries.