Miscarriages of JusticeUK (MOJUK) 22 Berners St, Birmingham B19 2DR to ask him/herself whether the sentencing court could conclude that the circumstances appli - Tele: 0121- 507 0844 Email: [email protected] Web: www.mojuk.org.uk cable when the sentence as passed had changed as a result of knowing failures by the assist - ing offender to give assistance in accordance with the assisting offender agreement?” MOJUK: Newsletter ‘Inside Out’ No 660 (02/11/2017) - Cost £1 Delivering the unanimous judgment of the Court, Lord Kerr stated “it is unquestionably true that in a number of instances, the judge found that the Stewarts had not been truthful”. Lord Supreme Court: DPP Correct in Deciding Not to Resentence Dishonest Witnesses Kerr found that the Court could not uphold the High Court’s view that “the predominant factor Seosamh Gráinséir for Irish Legal News: The UK Supreme Court has allowed an appeal by in deciding where the interests of justice lay was whether a change in circumstances had the Director of Public Prosecutions against the finding of the High Court in Northern Ireland occurred between those which obtained at the time that the agreement with the specified pros - that the DPP’s decision not to remit dishonest witnesses for re-sentencing was contrary to the ecutor was made and the time at which consideration of whether to refer the case back to the interests of justice. Overturning the High Court's finding that the matter of sentencing should original sentencing court took place”. be remitted to the DPP for a fresh decision, Lord Brian Kerr was satisfied that the DPP con - Section 74(3) imposes no explicit constraint on how the specified prosecutor should approach ducted “a careful, perfectly legitimate investigation of the question of the interests of justice” the question of the interests of justice and it was Lord Kerr’s opinion that there was “no warrant and that her decision could not be impeached. for implying a fetter on the exercise of the unrestricted discretion for which the statute clearly pro - Assisting Offender Agreements: In August 2008, Mr Robert Stewart and Mr Ian Stewart, for - vides”. According to Lord Kerr, the reasons for a failure to strictly adhere to the terms of the mer members of loyalist paramilitary group, the UVF, turned themselves in to the PSNI and agreement with the specified prosecutor could involve “a well-established fear of attack on his entered “assisting offender agreements” with a specified prosecutor, Mr Raymond Kitson, pur - family”. Lord Kerr was satisfied that the DPP produced a report which was “a careful, perfectly suant to the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. Those agreements required them legitimate investigation of the question of the interests of justice in these particular cases and that to provide information and assistance to ongoing investigations, truthful evidence in the trials of her conclusions cannot be impeached”. Allowing the appeal, and dismissing the application by accomplices, and guilty pleas to offences they admitted. They pleaded guilty to various offences Mr Loughlin for judicial review, the Supreme Court rejected the High Court’s conclusion that the including the murder of Thomas English in 2000 and membership of a proscribed organisation. prosecutor was bound to conclude that it was in the interest of justice to refer the case if there The minimum tariff of life sentences for the offences was reduced by 75% in recognition of the had been a change of circumstance since the original sentence had been passed. assistance they provided. As such, from a starting point of 22 years and once further reductions for their guilty pleas and personal circumstances had been taken into account, they each had to Can Social Media Damage Your Right to a Fair Trial? serve a minimum of three years. They were both released on life licence in August 2011. Cathryn Evans, Human Rights News: An impartial jury is an essential part of our right to a Evidence at Trial of Accomplices: Both men gave evidence at the trial of 12 alleged accom - fair trial, and the people may only consider evidence which has been lawfully presented in the plices, one of which was Mr Jason Loughlin who brought the present application for judicial courtroom. This standard was developed decades before Twitter was even thought of, so how review. The trial ultimately ended with the acquittal on all counts of 11 of the defendants, do we protect the integrity of the jury trial in the digital era? including Mr Loughlin. The twelfth was convicted on evidence other than the Stewarts’ testi - Are Our Rights At Risk? Everyone has the right to a fair trial. It’s enshrined in both Article 6 mony. In the High Court, Gillen J concluded that the Stewarts had lied to the police and to the of the Human Rights Convention and the Human Rights Act. Both state that a person is enti - court. In his judgment, Gillen J “acknowledged the extreme difficulty in reaching conclusions tled to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal. But in the age of about whether accounts he found to be unreliable were the product of imperfect memory, the social media, is this right at risk? It’s an issue even the Government is concerned about, with ravages that alcohol and drug consumption had wrought on both witnesses, the circumstance an investigation launched this year into its potential impact on defendants and the trial that both had been engaged in long careers of criminal offending, a natural inclination to process. In a call for evidence, the Attorney General Jeremy Wright is asking lawyers and understate their own role and to exaggerate that of others, or plain fabrication”. other closely involved in the investigative and trial process to detail how social media has The Question of Re-sentencing: It fell to the DPP to decide whether the assisting offender impacted the fairness of criminal trials, particularly the right to anonymity and the integrity of agreements had been breached and whether the Stewarts should be referred back to the sen - judicial orders. The review follows guidelines issues in 2013 to help social media users avoid tencing court pursuant to s.74 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. The DPP committing a criminal offence when commenting on legal issues. decided not to refer them for re-sentencing, and consequently Mr Loughlin brought judicial Is There Any Evidence That Social Media Affects Trials? Two years ago a murder trial was review proceedings against the DPP’s decision. The High Court granted the application and halted after a judge decided that prejudicial comments made online about the accused meant quashed the DPP’s decision, remitting the matter to the PPS for a fresh decision; it was this it was impossible for them to have a fair trial. He concluded that the jurors would not be able decision that was ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court. Central to the High Court’s deci - to deliver a verdict solely based on the evidence presented in court, and a fresh trial was sion was its consideration of R v P and Blackburn [2007] EWCA Crim 2290. ordered. This is particularly important considering how courts have to balance to right to a fair Supreme Court: The PPS appealed the decision of the High Court, and in the Supreme trial with the idea of ‘open justice’ – that the public should know what evidence is being con - Court, the following question had to be considered: “In exercising the discretion in s.74(3)(b) sidered in the case. A defendant, however, is guaranteed the opportunity to address and of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005, is the Specified Prosecutor required counter all the evidence considered by the jury. The key is that the jury is expected to decide based purely on the evidence they hear in court, as well as the arguments from the pros - cates creates difficulties. Are we to intervene to prevent miscarriages of justice . and run ecution, defences and directions from the judge. Social media use by jurors can potentially the risk of appearing to support the prosecution, or are we to remain silent and allow possible damage this balance though. If they look up the case to see material or views which haven’t miscarriages of justice to occur?” Lynne Townley, 48, who was formerly Mr Thompson’s man - been presented in court, the defendant has no opportunity to present a defence, so could ager, sued the CPS last year, alleging she was told to place bad senior lawyers on complex adversely impact the verdict of the case. cases rather than simpler ones to avoid equal pay claims from junior lawyers working on those So What Is the Law? The Contempt of Court Act 1981 is the legal framework which sets out cases. Bob Neill MP, chairman of the Justice Select Committee, said Ms Townley’s allegation rules on what information can be published during active trials and makes it an offence to pub - “confirmed a growing set of suspicions about CPS work”. “If people aren’t good enough then lish anything which could prejudice or impede a trial. It is a matter of strict liability – basically, they should be managed out or trained up,” he said. it is an offence to publish such information even if there was no intention to disrupt a trial. The law applies to all publications. While when the Act first came into force it was aimed at tradi - Northern Ireland: Troubles-Related Court Cases to be 'Fast-Tracked' tional media, such as newspapers and television programmes, it still has a broad scope to Mark Simpson BBC News NI: Plans have been announced to speed up Troubles-related include social media today.