Respect, man

Respect, man: that is what it is all about. I have done plenty of cases where the motivation behind the alleged offending appears to be something to do with 'respect', and 'dissing' that respect due. Now respect in these cases is a funny old thing '“ a bit of a one-way street to be honest. In these cases the defendant's sense of his own self-respect normally exists in a bubble that appears not to allow space for respect for others. You know the sort of thing: the defendant's right to respect is mutually exclusive to the victim's right not to have a knife stabbed in their guts or a glass shoved in their face and so on.

Fortunately, such ego-centric notions of respect don't normally chime with a jury's sense of mutual respect and so the defendant ends up seething about the outrageous injustice of it all over the terms of a five-year stretch.

Out the window

This week we have heard of a different court '“ this is a new one on me and I suspect most people, but apparently there is, existing parallel to and indeed in ascendancy over the legal system, the 'court of public opinion'.

The right honourable Harriet Harman has decided that the law is actually irrelevant when it comes to politics '“ quite what her motivation is for identifying some parallel jurisdiction I shall leave to those political commentators who are presumably 'in the know' about what this is really about. But it is all very worrying indeed that respect for the rule of law goes right out of the window when things aren't going your way '“ somewhere on a spectrum with the knife-wielding defendant who decides that his idea of respect is the valid and unimpeachable one, rather than the law of the land's idea of what respect is. Harriet Harman has decided that the law does not count when it gets in the way, and that if it is in the way then retrospective legislation will do the trick.

Now I was not the most attentive of students but I do recall a faint ringing bell from my administrative law days that suggested retrospective legislation was altogether a bad thing and was not tolerated, apart from something called the War Damages Act. I may be wrong so don't bother to correct me, but the principle I think is true.

Out the door

Then we have had in the news more about respect: this is the research that has suggested that community penalties are devalued in the eyes of the public because defendants who are breached are not being punished properly and are walking away from court laughing '“ literally. I have to say that this is within my experience '“ often of a Friday have the sentences been passed out and the reaction of the defendant (always youthful, I should add) has been one of incredulous delight; the uncomfortable sense lingers that for some offenders the crime is almost worth it on a risk:benefit analysis as if you do get caught, do get prosecuted and do get convicted, the sentence is not too much of a burden. So here too there is an issue of respect '“ one that the law is not respected appropriately either by the defendants or the public or both. In these circumstances we need to examine why that is so, and correct it in some way.

The point is that without respect for the law it will quickly fall into disrepute, and people will decide that it does not matter. Politicians, particularly those who are in or aspire to high office, should recognise this and work hard to uphold and respect the rule of law. If the law is a bad one, or needs change or qualification, then the politician is uniquely placed and advantaged to do something about it (unlike the rest of us who can only get impotently angry while carrying on with our lives).

No doubt all politicians will be dismayed that young offenders have no respect for community penalties and that in turn is undermining public confidence in the criminal justice system.

Out of the running

If anybody is wondering what it would be like to have a laissez-faire attitude, a 'court of public opinion', then we can look at the recent rather trivial example of University Challenge. The Corpus Christi, Oxford team were disqualified as one of their members was no longer a student of the university, although he was when he started (rather like Mastermind '“ he'd started so he finished). Heaven knows what the rules of the competition are, but if they have not addressed the situation where a team member is no longer a student by the time the final is recorded '“ then they should. If they have then it should be easy to see if the rules have been broken; if they have not then confusion reigns and everyone gets hot under the collar and a bit of fun turns very sour. So, having a robust legal system and a rule of law that is respected means that we all know where we stand, and if we don't like it then we can think about changing it.

The people who emerge with real credit in all this jurisprudential stuff are the Manchester University team '“ grace, dignity, generosity of spirit, and a sense of perspective. How refreshing '“ perhaps they should be running the country (just a thought).

On a completely different note, I caught something of the latest drama about that ever-popular girl, Laura Norder, on television this week. A child was accused of murdering another child and the trial was proceeding without a wig in sight, except for the judge. Sign of the times? Ho hum.