Selection for prosecution is a disgrace to our legal system

New Labour pushed risk based regulation to the top of the government agenda. Regulation represented a measure of state intervention in all manner of commercial affairs which cost little and could produce big results.

In 1998 its Better Regulation Task Force set out the five principles with which all regulation should

apply.

  1. Transparent
  2. Accountable
  3. Proportionate
  4. Consistent and
  5. Targeted – only at cases where action is needed

As usual, the Labour government was slow to engage, its Prince Hamlet complex at work in every area of reform.  Criticism grew and was taken up by the Conservative party in its unsuccessful election campaign in 2005.

The Hampton Report in 2005 set out further principles for regulatory inspection and enforcement, calling for regulation to be more targeted and less burdensome for both regulator and regulated.

Eventually the mouse emerged from under the sofa with the underwhelming Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008 setting out the principles first enunciated a decade before:

(a) regulatory activities should be carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent;

(b) regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed”

But the Act failed to rationalise the way in which prosecutiorial powers were exercised.  By 2008 an extraordinary patchwork of regulatory agencies had gained powers to prosecute. Tory criticism and media complaints intensified.

In 2009 the MOJ and BERR agreed that the Law Commission should undertake a project

  • To introduce rationality and principle into the structure of the criminal law, especially when it is employed against business enterprises. In particular, this will involve the provision of non-statutory guidance to all Government departments on the grounds for creating criminal offences, and on what shape those offences should take
  • To consider whether there should be created a statutory power for the courts to apply a ‘due diligence’ defence (the burden of proof beingon the accused) to a criminal offence.

Some but not all of these problems are now addressed in the Law Commission’s Consultation Paper.  The rationalisation it recommends is covered elsewhere.  But the question we ask is whether the Consultation should not now extend to all criminal offences and not just those in the regulatory sector.

In the UK there is no general restraint on the selection of who to investigate and prosecute – unlike in the US.  There the Equal Protection and Due Process Act bars not only discriminatory but also irrational selection for prosecution.  A growing number of entirely mercenary prosecutions undertaken to maximise prosecutorial income under the Proceeds of Crime Act are a disgrace to our legal system.

The time has come for prosecution generally to be brought under principled control.

Leave a comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: