It is indeed a sad day when a recently retired British judge anticipates being pilloried, albeit figuratively, for not only speaking the truth, but also declaring the patently obvious.

Criminal convictions should be based on the “beyond reasonable – or any – doubt” principle.

Of course, this is quite correctly awkward when it is one person’s word against another’s with no corroborative evidence.

And of course, this is even trickier when the alleged victim was so intoxicated that he or she was unable to give or withhold consent or remember whether it was granted.

In which case, for both the complainant’s and accused’s sakes, the matter should obviously never come to court, not to mention the cost and inconvenience to the wider society. It is not Mary Jane Mowat who has made any “outrageous misguided and frankly dangerous statement”, nor is she “victim-blaming” but merely stating a socio-legal fact.

I have been robbed and assaulted, at times rather seriously, on a few occasions when inebriated. My condition in no way exonerated the perpetrators but, on the contrary, rather aggravated the cowardly offences, though it would be absurd to argue that there was no contributory negligence (as opposed to actual complicity) on my part, or that this would not diminish, somewhat, the validity of my testimony, not that this justifies the sometimes excessively dismissive reaction of the police. When she calms down, Natalie Brook will, hopefully, appreciate that her Honour is not at loggerheads with her and in fact represents a useful ally, understandably and helpfully viewing the issues from a more rational and practical angel.

As for Ms Mowat’s observations regarding the virtually automatic early release of prisoners, what alternative, given chronic over-crowding, does she suggest?

Do judges and magistrates never unofficially take, when possible, this curtailment (or not) into account?

And can a phenomomen which has been common knowledge for years constitute “the biggest fraud on the public ever”?

Finally, I am sure that the learned ex-judge speaks authoritatively on claiming that some defendants facing possible custodial sentences are being denied essential legal aid, but does this not constitute a violation of European Law?

David Diment,

Riverside Court,

Oxford

  • Do you want alerts delivered straight to your phone via our WhatsApp service? Text NEWS or SPORT or NEWS AND SPORT, depending on which services you want, and your full name to 07767 417704. Save our number into your phone's contacts as Oxford Mail WhatsApp and ensure you have WhatsApp installed.


Today’s letters