Reach A Verdict

Alex Hepburn is not exactly the perfect gentleman, but what does "failed to reach a verdict" even mean? 

Either the jury was convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty, a conviction that ought to have to be unanimous, as was the case for most of English history, and as remains the case in almost every Common Law jurisdiction to this day. Or the jury was not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty, in which case a verdict of not guilty ought to have been recorded.

We need the replacement of the existing categories of sexual assault with aggravating circumstances to the general categories of offences against the person, such that the sentences could be doubled. There must be no anonymity either for adult defendants or for adult complainants.

We need to reverse even the existing reversal of the burden of proof, rule out the legal possibility of being a specifically sexual assailant below the age of consent, and specify that intoxication was a bar to sexual consent only insofar as it would have been a bar to driving.

We need to outlaw American-style internally administered "balance of probabilities" or "preponderance of evidence" tests to sexual assault allegations at universities or elsewhere, outlaw extradition to face charges that fell short of these standards, and exclude such convictions from any legal standing in this country.

And we need to end the practice whereby the Police and others blocked people's progress into paid or voluntary work, even though they had been acquitted, by suggesting that they might have been guilty after all. The bizarre C5 notices that are now being issued need to be outlawed.

Moreover, the point of having principles is to stick to them even when it tears your heart out to do so. First in the Stephen Lawrence case, and more recently in the Babes in the Wood case, the abolition of the protection against double jeopardy has done its work even from the point of view of those who argued for it.

At the very least, since it was supposed to deal with historic instances of incompetence or malpractice, then it ought now to be restricted to cases that predated it. Anything that happened after the coming into effect of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, one of the most monstrous pieces of legislation ever enacted, ought now to be subject to the previous and immemorial provision that an acquitted person could never be tried again for the same offence.

As it is, we have instead the astonishing state of affairs whereby the State can hound to the grave people who have not only dared to plead not guilty, but who have then been found to be so by juries of their peers, even though we are also almost unique in the Common Law world in having given up what was, again, the immemorial requirement of unanimity among jurors for a criminal conviction.

Another hung Parliament is coming, and our people need to hold the balance of power in it. It has become a local commonplace that I am on 30-30-30 with Labour and the Conservatives here at North West Durham, so that any one of us could be the First Past the Post. I will stand for this seat, if I can raise the £10,000 necessary to mount a serious campaign. Please email davidaslindsay@hotmail.com. Very many thanks.