I was having my hair cut this morning and browsing through an old copy of the Sun newspaper. Flicking past Page 3, I read that an alleged war criminal had been found and arrested in Austria, to face charges of genocide going back 60 years. According to the Sun, 'alleged' be damned, he's as guilty as sin, but that's the Sun for you.
Back home for a light lunch and a dose of afternoon television, I was treated to the exhortations of a minor celebrity fronting an advertisement for personal injury claims, and I was reminded of a show he hosted on BBC1 where I happened to be one of the guest contributors. The question for debate was whether there should be a Statute of Limitations for the criminal law similar to the civil law, whereby no prosecution could be brought after the elapse of a certain number of years.
Inevitably, the debate focused on sex offences perpetrated by adults on children and subsequently reported to the police many years' later. Before the War Crimes Act 1991 came into force, I believed I held the all comers record, where my client was accused, charged and convicted of sex offences against children going back some 40 years whilst working at a reform school. He denied each and every allegation, but as all his potential witnesses were either deceased or untraceable, his defence fell on deaf ears, and as far as I know, he died in prison still protesting his innocence.
The debate on BBC1 was sterile and highly emotive, as it never touched on the potential injustice arising from fabricated complaints made for the sole purpose of securing an enormous sum in compensation. In my case, one victim was paid a six figure sum, and others lesser but still substantial sums. It was also disclosed that one of the complainants had never attended the school, but with the help of a former pupil, decided to jump on the bandwagon.
In the televised debate, I supported the proposition that there should be a time limit unless there are exceptional circumstances, and I could think of none. This includes war crimes. I was howled down.
I wonder if justice is served by having a defendant wheeled into court on a life support machine, barely able to raise his head or speak in his own defence, and having nonagenarian victims pointing the accusing finger at him and baying for his blood, or what is left of it.
In the civil law, the complainant has 3 years in which to bring a claim for personal injury, and 6 years for most other claims. The purpose of the Statute of Limitations is not simply to limit claims, but to ensure that the claim can be fairly tried. Why should the criminal law be any different? How can it be fair for a defendant to defend himself properly, if at all, against grave accusations going back 60 years, when his only defence would be "it wasn't me" and "it isn't true", and if convicted, to spend what remains of his broken life in prison?
That amounts to no defence at all.
About The Author
David Osborne is a successful barrister, author, public speaker and media personality. He writes articles of topical interest on the law for newspapers and journals, and he has his own blog at: http://david-osborne.com/blog.
0 comments:
Post a Comment