I’m concerned about the way the arrest of Tom Stephens is being handled by the BBC (I haven’t seen any news on the other side) and by the press. True, it’s only an offence to publish anything that creates a substantial risk of serious prejudice to criminal proceedings. There are no active proceedings here, so it seems there is no question of actual contempt of court. And nothing the BBC has published has been prejudicial in substance – it hasn’t given the impression that he is or must be guilty.

But it’s far from clear that the maglie calcio poco prezzo background interview he gave will be admissible in evidence, and that in itself worries me since it means many potential jurors will unecessarily have an impression of him from material that may not be before them in court. Not contempt, perhaps – but not good enough, either. And I’m worried about a drip-drip approach here: the more he is talked about, the more difficult it will be, if he is charged, for his subsequent trial to be fair. One day, some notorious suspect will go free because of the behaviour of the media, and the mob will throw their stones at editors instead of at police vans. Let’s not go there.

Oh, and by the way – I note Tom Stephens was interviewed first as a witness, then only subsequently under caution as a suspect. The thing I said in an earlier post was possible, though not probable, in Tony Blair’s case.

So, Tony Blair’s been interviewed by the police about “cash for honours”. Not under caution – and that may be very significant. A suspect must be interviewed under caution, and I know that when I used to prosecute, I would always advise investigators to interview under caution whenever they thought someone might or Maglie Calcio might well become a suspect. So it looks as though it’s unlikely he’ll be charged with any offence. Nothing’s certain, though: once police look at all the evidence from witnesses, it’s possible people might come under suspicion at that stage, not having been suspects before, and that they might be interviewed under caution at that point. Possible; though not probable.

I notice Marcel Berlins takes a diametrically opposed view to mine about family impact statements. Well, not quite diametrically: I agree with him in fact that presenting the statement ought not to be part of the role of the http://www.raybani.com/ prosecutor. There should be, as the government’s name for the scheme suggests, a separate “Victims’ Advocate”. I think Marcel is too concerned about fairness as between defendants, though, and not concerned enough about fairness to victims. Yes, it’s wrong (in a way) if defendants get longer sentences than others simply because their victim’s family is more articulate. But the whole idea of giving families legal support and an advocate to present their feelings is to ensure all families are reasonably articulate in the context.

I fear Marcel’s traditionalist approach to this simply amounts to silencing the bereaved, while cheap oakley everyone else – the state, the defendant, academics, the police, probation officers, psychiatrists, chance bystanders even – gets their say in a murder trial.

I was interested in Marcel’s remarks about the Attorney General, too. I think he’s right – Lord Goldsmith is certainly the most ambitious and activist Attorney in recent years.

Oh my God! I find myself coming over all lawyerly and conservative when I survey this appalling bill, which got through second reading in the Commons yesterday and which http://www.raybani.com/ would remove the right to trial by jury in fraud cases. The government’s logic is… well, to say flawed would be kind. There is none. Read the debate, and see the Solicitor General floundering, here.

It’s all nonsense. Lots of trials are too long: not just fraud trials. The Solicitor General says, over and over again, that he doesn’t think jurors are stupid. But what other reason is there for this bill? I’m afraid if enacted this would lead to two classes of thief: the nasty dirty little jury-convicted sort, and the nice posh suited judge-convicted sort.