We don’t prosecute out of vengeance, or with personal animus towards the accused. We don’t seek a “win” at all costs. We don’t ask for “the maximum sentence”. We don’t appeal to a jury’s worse nature, or use tricks or adverse publicity to secure cheap advantage.
We take fairness seriously. We ensure disclosure - material capable reasonably of assisting the defence or undermining the prosecution - is made. If we believe there’s insufficient evidence & a risk of wrongful conviction, or it’s not in the public interest to prosecute, we say.
We do prosecute robustly, ensuring that all admissible evidence is put before a court, and that the judge is properly assisted with the relevant law. We ensure that sentences are lawful and proper, and advise on appeals when in our judgement a court has got it wrong.
We encounter the very worst things that humans can do to each other. Cases that would haunt you for the rest of your life - that haunt *us*. But we don’t let that affect our professional conduct. We take no joy in conviction; merely pride in performing our role as best we can.
Prosecuting is a privilege. You carry responsibility for ensuring the fair trial of your fellow citizens. You learn not to take defeat personally, and not to measure success by your victories or by the length of sentences passed on the people you help to convict.
Somebody who derives pleasure from convicting others, who delights in the most severe punishment available, or who sees prosecuting not as a public service but an opportunity for self-promotion, is not fit to be a prosecutor.
I find that people often mistake our system for that in the US, where vote-chasing District Attorneys push for the most serious charges and longest sentences.
That is not the way we do things.
We endeavour to keep politics out of prosecuting.
Long may this be the case.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Whatever the outcome of this hearing, an Attorney General who is not even qualified to prosecute a magistrates’ court trial should not be personally prosecuting this extremely serious case.
A shameful exercise in politicking for tabloid applause.
Before the hearing, the Attorney General leaked to the Daily Express, via an alleged “friend”, her views that, should the judges find against her, it will be because they are “wet liberal judges” who are “soft on criminals”.
The Attorney General - who has absolutely no experience of criminal law - is so desperate to exploit this tragic case that she is inserting herself into proceedings that she is not competent to conduct.
Treasury Counsel who usually represent the Attorney General at the Court of Appeal for appeals against “unduly lenient” sentences are appointed from the best and most experienced criminal barristers.
The Attorney General has not to my knowledge prosecuted a magistrates’ trial.
Apparently Ms Braverman believes that the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) needs reminding “how important this issue is to the government”.
And a spoiler of what Ms Braverman thinks about the “wet, liberal judges” of the Court of Appeal.
We have more information now about the case of #ClaireParry, following news reports of the judge’s sentencing remarks. And it is complicated, more so than I had appreciated when I tweeted last night.
So a brief [THREAD] to look at what seems to have happened.
It was widely reported yesterday that the defendant, Timothy Brehmer, had been acquitted by a jury of the murder of Claire Parry. It was said that he strangled her after she sent a text message to his wife telling her of their (Parry and Brehmer’s) affair.
It was also reported that Brehmer had admitted manslaughter, but denied intending to kill or cause really serious harm (the necessary intention for murder), claiming that the fatal injuries were sustained “accidentally” during a “kerfuffle”.
It means that if the jury think he might have intended to kill/cause really serious harm, he’s not guilty.
If the jury think he *probably* intended to kill/cause really serious harm, he is not guilty.
If the jury were *almost sure* he did, he would be not guilty. [2/3]
The burden and standard of proof is often misunderstood. It’s something I look at in depth in #FakeLaw.
Without having heard all the evidence, it is impossible to draw any conclusions about what the jury did or did not believe. Other than - they weren’t sure. [3/3]