Frances Gibb in today’s Times is reporting that the government will propose handing over to the DPP the Attorney’s role of consenting to a range of prosecutions – although otherwise, the Attorney’s role will remain unchanged.

I don’t say all change to the Attorney’s role is ridiculous – I’m not quite that bufferish. But the fact is that the fashionable chattering desire for change simply results from a series of controversial decisions by or involving Lord Goldsmith. I’ve yet to see a properly thought-through, sustainable proposal for change.

As for this… nonsense, isn’t it? What’s the point, if she’ll keep her role in relation to cases involving “the public interest”? And anyway, I think the whole idea of transferring consent to the DPP objectionable. The whole point of consent is to ensure some prosecution decisions have to be taken by someone responsible to Parliament. Giving that role to the DPP is no better than simply leaving it with a Crown Prosecutor. That’s all he is, after all.

If this goes through, in a year or two there’ll b calls for these decisions to be made “independently” (i.e. of the CPS) by someone “accountable” (i.e. to Parliament).

Funny that, after the Garry Newlove case, the local MP Helen Jones thought to write to the Attorney whenh she wanted someone to complain to.

2008-01-29T11:51:00+00:00Tags: , |