"The ancient precept that the state must prove wrongdoing is waning."

I just heard about this today and have been tracking down the news to confirm if it's actually true.

The Scotsman, Wednesday October 12, 2005: Summary justice needed to fight crime says Blair

TONY Blair yesterday threatened to impose "summary justice" on people accused of offences including terrorism, organised crime and neighbourhood yobbery.

Claiming that the criminal justice system was "passing through a watershed," the Prime Minister suggested a radical and far-reaching shift in legal practice, hinting that many traditional legal protections could be swept away.

Mr Blair identified terrorism, brutal, violent, organised crime and antisocial behaviour as "new types of crime" that require new rules.

©2005 Scotsman.com

The Times (UK), Wednesday October 12, 2005: Blair baits judges over slow justice

TONY BLAIR was heading for another clash with the judiciary last night after he said that the courts were too slow and cumbersome to protect the public from drug dealers and yobs.

Signalling a big expansion of what he called summary justice through on-the-spot fines and anti-social behaviour orders (Asbos), he said: “You cannot do it by the rules of the game that we have at the moment. You just can’t.”

Using words that will infuriate the legal profession, he said: “Half of them end up getting off at the end of it . . . It’s too complicated, too laborious. The police end up completely hidebound by a whole series of restrictions and difficulties. It doesn’t work."

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

The Sun quotes him at length: 'Law change to curb yobs'

"If people want us to tackle the new types of crime today you can’t do it by the rules of the game we have at the moment.

"There is international crime, very brutal violent organised crime, anti-social behaviour.

"In every respect these types of crime are different from when I was growing up.

"People can write articles about going through this process. But it’s too complicated and too laborious.

"The police end up being hidebound by a whole series of restrictions. It’s too complicated. We have to put the duty to protect the law-abiding citizen at the centre of the system.

"If you are a police officer patrolling the streets and someone throws a brick through a window or abuses an old lady on the way to the shops . . . If you have to take that person all the way through a long court process, you are not going to do it.

"By the time you have filled out all the forms, done the statements, got them to court, three hearings, they have defence lawyers, all the rest of it, forget it.

"You may say ‘yes, we should do that if we are going to charge someone with an offence’. But if that’s what you do, you don’t get the job done.

"The reason I introduced fixed penalties was I said ‘we have had enough of that’. With serious crime, it takes two or three years. Heaven knows the millions they spend putting it together. We then have trials going on forever and half of them get off in the end. It’s ridiculous.

"If you want to change it you can change it but not by pretending the same system can be applied with a little bit of effort, because it doesn’t work."

© 2005 News Group Newspapers Ltd.

Apparently Blair made those statements a couple of days ago. I bet Mary Riddell feels dismally vindicated:

The Guardian, Sunday October 2, 2005: The R word in the gutter

The debate, though, has moved on from the cliche of yobs in hoodies. At issue is the rule of law itself. Last week, the Prime Minister promised new powers for the police, who may soon be able to issue on-the-spot Asbos and fixed penalties of £80 for disorderly behaviour, while cancelling late-night licences for rowdy pubs and clubs without reference to the courts.

Unpopular targets (anyone for crack houses?) obscure the risks of summary justice. The ancient precept that the state must prove wrongdoing is waning. In future, the onus will shift towards the suspect being guilty unless he or she can establish innocence. Turning justice on its head is meant, according to the Prime Minister, to help the frightened elderly. Which is where Walter Wolfgang so inconveniently butted in.

People do odd things in scared societies.

Like let the state decide what's best for them.

This news is making my reading of V is for Vendetta depressingly relevant.

Posted by Drizzten at October 14, 2005 02:56 PM