Just clocked this in the OS:
http://twitpic.com/9cxwkf
There are other bits n pieces too but I don't have time to read them right now
I am very confused by PII in this case. Part of me thinks if there's anything that has the potential to make JB's conviction unsafe it would be destroyed rather than held under PII. What senior bod is going to sign off a PII thus putting his/her neck potentially on the line when it seems anything incriminating could just as easily be destroyed? There again why the need for a PII? Are there other examples of criminal cases where PII has been applied?
Umm, what is 'twit pic'?
I can only make educated guesses about PII. I am not a member of the establishment but I know something of its culture, especially the legal culture. The English have a hypocritical approach to so many things and one of them is the plea bargain. We deprecate plea bargaining. So unseemly. And yet, so convenient and useful sometimes too. That creates a problem and the problem is solved by pretending that something that is in fact plea bargaining is no such thing. When I was in articles it happened from time to time that a client told us he was not guilty but that he wanted to plead guilty anyway, or that a client wanted to know in advance what his sentence would be if he pleaded guilty. This would entail a visit to the judge's chambers by the barrister at which the judge would give 'an indication' in the form of a hint as to what s/he would be likely to do if the client copped a plea. When I learned that I was entitled to attend these meetings I exercised my right to do so. I found myself in the judge's room with 10-12 bewigged and gowned barristers, there for the day's stitch ups. They marked my presence, which was unusual, but were not flustered by it and just got on with business. The judge spoke in code. He did not say - your client will get 6 months, yours a fine etc. He was cryptic. And all because of this weird feature of English life in which plain speaking is anathema and hypocrisy is all.
The legal establishment used also to deprecate the American fondness for no win no fee agreements. Such a thing could not possibly be right as it would give the saintly, detached lawyer an interest in the outcome. Leaving aside the fact that said lawyer always had such an interest, there came a time when the government decided it wanted to severely restrict access to legal aid and to replace it where possible with no win no fee. But, although that meant what had once been anathema was now going to be OK, the English distaste for such things still found expression in the 'conditional fee agreement. Somehow, this was morally superior to the contingency fee agreement, even though you would need an electron microscope to spot the difference.
Yet another example related to the plea bargain is the fiction that there is no penalty for pleading not guilty and losing. Instead, the defendant gets a 'credit' for pleading guilty. In this way we can comfort ourselves that all decisions to plead guilty are freely made and not at all the result of undue pressure resulting from the prospect of a heavy sentence.
Anyway, coming back to Bamber, that background ought to give an idea of the kind of thinking that goes on among those who pull the levers of power. The COLP report said they found 'no evidence' of any deal between Mugford and the DPP. What a nice choice of phrase. They did not record any denial of such an arrangement by the DPP> They said they found 'no evidence' of it. I can tell you as a criminal lawyer of some experience that the facts disclosed by her statements to the police scream out that she was involved in the murders or, at least, in covering them up. The police and the DPP knew there was no chance of convicting Bamber without her and equally knew they could not have her evidence if they prosecuted her beside him. So they made a deal but in a way that will have left as little trace as possible and any trace it did leave will have been covered by PII. It's not in the public interest for the great unwashed to know how their masters operate. We did not go far enough in 1649 I'm afraid and must accept the consequences.
The same hypocrisy btw. is what prevents them destroying the papers that prove what I'm suggesting. Only criminals and corrupt types do such things.
That's my theory, anyway. It's only a theory and might well be totally wrong.
