The justice system needs to be more impersonal, not less

In recent weeks we've seen two cases which have seen judges and the legal system being accused of being out of touch with the people.

In the first, radical cleric, convicted terrorist and all-round nasty piece of work Abu Qatada was released from prison after winning a fight against deportation because he faced torture in Jordan.

In the second, double-murderer Iain Davies had his conviction quashed when the Law Lords ruled evidence from anonymous witnesses was invalid. This could yet open the door for the release of the four men who murdered Charlene Ellis and Letisha Shakespeare in Birmingham in 2003.

Both cases have provoked hand-wringing, promises from the Government to change the law, and much talk of out-of-touch judges with their heads in the sand. One Birmingham lawyer even admitted that rulings like this will see guilty people walk free.

You know what? He's right.

You know what else? This is the way things should be.

Courts are emotional places. Victims and their families and relatives often face a harrowing time, and are, not surprisingly, often distraught to see the poeple accused of perpetrating crimes get away scot-free. Again, not surprisingly, they want to have their own voices heard in what can seem like a cold and impersonal system.

But the myth that the justice system favours criminals is just that - a myth. Over the years, the legal climate has become more and more hostile to the defendant. Changes include the right of victims to speak before the court, the removal of the right to remain silent without incriminating yourself, and - yes - allowing witnesses to give evidence anonymously.

Of course it's not fashionable to defend the rights of the likes of Abu Qatada, Davies, and the Ellis/Shakespeare killers. But this is the heart of how the justice system works.

The role of the criminal justice system is to convict and punish the guilty: nothing else. Not to console the victims of crime.

This isn't a Jeremy Kyle-type free-for-all where the desires of the mob are played out on criminals (or those who seem to be criminals). Innocent until proven guilty isn't just a catchphrase, it's the foundation of the whole system.

And yes, this will mean guilty people going free. It will mean witnesses refusing to testify because they're scared of reprisals. It will mean it's harder to prosecute cases of gang violence.

But what is the alternative?

*Disclaimer. Much of this article, while my own opinion, is based on a conversation with defence solicitor Nicholas Roy, of Jonas Roy Bloom, who is acting for one of the men convicted of murdering Letisha and Charlene.