Balancing the scales of justice

Second, we have taken numerous steps in recent times to limit the ability of an accused person to attack the credit and character of a complainant or of other witnesses giving evidence in the process. Let’s balance that by allowing an accused person to call evidence of good character without the artificial restrictions that are currently imposed. If on the one hand we are going to limit, and some believe appropriately, an attack on character then we should balance that by allowing an accused person to lead evidence of good character in an unfettered way.

Third, we should reimburse the costs of a person acquitted of a criminal offence.

Explaining to a client the whole “social contract” theory after they have been acquitted, and why they cannot recover their costs, if not their reputation, and often their relationships, is the most hollow speech in the world. To them it just seems the ultimate insult and grossly unfair. They have done nothing wrong and have been dreadfully punished. Often the expenses they have been forced to incur have been ruinous, and they should be put back into the same position, at least financially, before the process started.

These are just three practical examples of things that could be done to go someway to realign the balance.

A victim is entitled to feel that they are being treated with dignity, respect and compassion. Many of the legislative changes that have occurred have gone someway to assist in this process. An accused person should also be in a position where they feel that they are being treated with dignity, respect and fairness.

We do not need to diminish those steps that have been taken to assist the victims of crime, what we do need to do is take positive and proactive steps to realign the balance.

The scales of justice illustrate my point. It’s all about the balance.