The Daily Telegraph - 07.08.2019

16 ***^ Wednesday 7 August 2019 The Daily Telegraph

Front Bench

Everything you

need to know

from Westminster,

every weekday

morning

telegraph.co.uk/

front-bench

1

A

ttending court can be a

traumatic experience for victims

of crime – not least in that they

may have to relive an experience that

in some cases has devastated their

lives. It is only right that they should

be given the chance to make their

voices heard, and that they should be

put at the centre of the process.

But it is not happening. Research

I am publishing today shows that

only one in seven victims recall being

offered the opportunity to make a

Victim Personal Statement (VPS), to

explain how the crime has affected

them, even though the Victims’ Code

states that all are entitled to give such

a statement. Among those who made

a VPS, under half felt it was taken into

account by the criminal justice system,

a significant drop from a year ago.

These disappointing figures raise

two important concerns. First, it is

clear that a large proportion of these

victims of crime have no recollection

of being offered the chance to make

a VPS. Victims are being robbed of

the opportunity to have their say in

court. Second, it is worrying that the

proportion of victims who feel they

are being listened to has dropped so

sharply. We need to understand the

reasons behind this so that we can take

steps to reassure victims that their

voices will indeed be heard.

This fall in victim confidence

coincides with a recent debate in

the House of Commons, where an

MP reported on a case in which a

defendant’s lawyer was allowed by

the court to require the editing of

the victim’s statement. It was a tragic

case where the victim’s daughter had

been killed in an extreme episode of

dangerous driving, yet their desire to

express their feelings was supplanted

by considering the sensitivities of the

defendant. The MP stated that she was

aware of other cases where statements

had been similarly edited.

A VPS is how the criminal justice

system offers the opportunity to

victims of crime to express how

they have been affected by what

has happened to them. This can be

cathartic, to know that the court and

wider society has heard what they

have suffered.

In particular, the VPS can help

people suffering bereavement to

feel that they have done their best,

in this regard, for their lost loved

one. It cannot be appropriate for

the defendant to be able to edit out

the bits he or she does not want to

hear. Victims must be entitled to say

what they have suffered without that

interference.

Making a VPS can empower victims

to put into their own words how a

crime has affected them and their

family. They are emotional and written

with deep feeling, especially when

a family member has been killed or

seriously injured by criminality.

Some police forces say they offer

them in as many as 90 per cent of

cases, but this is contradicted by

British Crime Survey data which shows

that just 14 per cent of victims recall

such an offer.

Another factor may be the lack

of awareness among many victims

that they have this entitlement,

which is why I welcome moves by

the Government to streamline the

Victims’ Code – which has more than

Explaining in court how an

offence has affected you is

cathartic, but many are

being denied this chance

Vera Baird

A

mong the many

unlikely aspects of Boris

Johnson’s elevation to

the premiership, beyond

the fact that it happened

at all, is that he is the

first occupant of No 10 for 140 years

to come from the Commons’

backbenches. Ever since William

Gladstone became prime minister for

the second time in 1880, all the others

on taking office have either been in

the government or were leaders of

the opposition.

To be pedantic, Mr Johnson became

leader of the opposition the day before

entering No 10 because Theresa

May stayed on for a final flourish in

the House. But you get the point.

Gladstone stepped down as leader of

the Liberal Party after its defeat in 1874

by Disraeli, but its victory in 1880 was

attributed to his relentless attack on

Tory foreign policy during a successful

campaign to win a seat in Midlothian.

When Disraeli resigned, Queen

Victoria invited the Liberal leader

Spencer Cavendish, Lord Hartington,

to become her new prime minister.

But he declined, saying the

majority in the Commons was a

“Gladstone‑created one” and she

should send for him instead.

The Queen, however, disliked

Gladstone, and told her private

secretary Henry Ponsonby “she will

sooner abdicate than send for or

have any communication with that

half‑mad firebrand who would soon

ruin everything and be a dictator.

Others but herself may submit to his

democratic rule but not the Queen.”

In the end submit she did, though

under sufferance, thereby averting a

constitutional crisis. Her antipathy to

the Grand Old Man was well known

among voters but that only served

to boost his popularity. He was

affectionately dubbed “the People’s

William”, just as Mr Johnson now

wants to be “the People’s Boris”.

His aides have let it be known that

he proposes to set himself up as the

champion of the people, who voted

by a majority to leave the EU, against a

Parliament that has refused to honour

their wishes. However, unlike Oliver

Cromwell, the last leader to dismiss

Parliament, he hasn’t got an army to

ensure he gets his way. He must rely

upon parliamentary procedure, the

law and constitutional convention

• none of which is easy to manage
  without a majority.
  There are many uncertainties in the
  weeks ahead but one thing we think
  we know is that there is a majority
  in the Commons against leaving the
  EU without a deal. When this specific
  point was voted on in March, the
  Government lost. No 10 was quick to
  say that it changed nothing, was not
  binding and “we will still be leaving
  on March 29”. We know now that was
  rubbish. So what are we to make of all
  the talk about Boris brazening it out by
  staying on as Prime Minister even if he
  lost a motion of no confidence?
  First of all Labour must table
  such a motion. Jeremy Corbyn
  said this week that he would do

so at “the appropriate very early

time”, whatever that means. He has

reason to be cautious. Defeating a

Government on a no‑confidence

motion is not easy. Since the Second

World War it has happened just once,

in April 1979 when James Callaghan

lost and then only by a single vote. He

resigned and called an election.

Matters are complicated now by the

Fixed‑Term Parliaments Act (FTPA)

introduced by the Coalition in 2011.

To my mind, fixed terms of four years

are a good idea but this legislation is a

mess. There are only two ways under

the legislation that a general election

can happen outside of the five‑year

term. Either two thirds of all MPs

vote for one, or the Commons passes

a motion of no confidence in the

Government by a simple majority.

The measure was supposed to

prevent prime ministers going to the

country when it suited their partisan

purposes; but it was put to the test

in 2017 when Theresa May secured

the necessary backing to hold a

general election (though in view of

the outcome she probably wishes she

hadn’t). Alternatively, if the Commons

passes a motion of no confidence in

the Government there is then a 14‑day

interregnum during which another

government can be formed that can

command the confidence of the House.

The difficulty is that the legislation

sets out no provisions as to how this

might happen and no one rectified

this flaw when it was going through

Parliament. Let us imagine that Mr

Corbyn tables a no‑confidence motion

when MPs return on September 3 for

debate the next day. If it passes what

happens then? Mr Johnson remains

as Prime Minister but talks will then

take place among other parties to see if

they can agree on an alternative.

It is inconceivable that this could

Or might MPs call on Ken

Clarke, the Father of the

House, in a last-ditch plot

to stop a no-deal Brexit?

philip johnstonnston

madeline grant

The victims of crime must not be silenced

Remainers and

eco-zealots are

driven by their

feelings, not facts

E

arlier this week, a

middle‑aged Extinction

Rebellion activist

broke down in tears while

defending himself in

court against public order

charges relating to a protest

in London last April. “For

22 years I have been acting...

in all aspects of my life, to

combat climate change,”

sobbed Dr Steve Melia,

justifying his rule‑breaking.

“I realised that this is not

enough.” The lecturer had

“never even had a parking

ticket before”. But the

climate “catastrophe” was

so grave as to force him to

abandon all self‑control.

My first thoughts on

reading this were: “Spare

me the self‑pity.” Melia’s

punishment, a £500 fine

plus costs, was small change

compared to the price and

inconvenience of bringing

the capital to a halt. But

given the absolutism that

has engulfed the climate

debate – with even those

who agree that global

warming requires urgent

attention, yet disagree on

the solutions, branded

“deniers” – it is hardly

surprising to see visceral

reactions combined with

a sense of rigid moral

certainty.

But Melia is not alone.

Politics – particularly

among eco‑zealots, Left‑

wing radicals, and hardcore

Remainers – is becoming

an increasingly emotional

exercise. I first noticed

this after the Tory victory

in 2015. Left‑wing friends

reported tears, horror,

depression, behaving as

though David Cameron, the

triangulating heir to Blair,

was a far‑Right fascist. On

election night, the writer

Laurie Penny tweeted:

“Please everyone take care

of each other tonight. So

many are already close to

losing hope. Reach out to

that friend. I mean it.”

Where an unexpected

Tory majority prompted a

lachrymose trickle, Brexit

opened the flood‑gates.

Remainers suffered “mental

distress”, akin to a “chronic

migraine”, according to

researchers from Warwick

180 entitlements – and to enshrine the

rights of victims in a new law.

As the code states, the statement

can be read to the court after a

defendant has pleaded guilty or been

convicted. It can be the only chance

a victim has of making sure that the

impact on them is understood by

the powers that be and by the wider

world. Yet my research shows there

are some victims who had said that

they wanted their statement to be

read out, but for reasons that are not

clear this did not happen.

If victims’ voices are not heard, then

the criminal justice process can appear

remote. They can be left with a feeling

that they have been denied justice.

We need to change the culture so that

practitioners at each stage recognise

and respect the value of the victims’

voice. I intend to talk to police leaders

who I am sure will want to put this

right. And I will continue to raise this

issue with government.

We all need to know that, if we are a

victim of a crime, we can express our

feelings about what has happened to

us freely. And we must be confident

that the criminal justice system has

listened.

Dame Vera Baird is the Victims’

Commissioner

Can the People’s Boris really take

on Parliament and win the day?

be Mr Corbyn since many of his own

MPs do not want him as their leader,

let alone prime minister. It cannot

be anyone from the current Cabinet,

all of whom are pledged to see Brexit

through on October 31, deal or no deal.

Similarly a Remainer Labour MP like

Yvette Cooper or Sir Keir Starmer

would be unacceptable to most Tories.

There is one Conservative with the

reputation, experience and pedigree

who might command agreement: Ken

Clarke. As an implacable Remainer –

indeed the only Conservative to vote

against triggering Article 50 – he none

the less reconciled himself to leaving

and voted three times for Mrs May’s

abortive deal.

He also occupies a quasi‑

constitutional role as Father of

the House. Could he be the next

prime minister plucked from the

backbenches? It sounds fanciful

but stranger things have happened.

Boris Johnson, after all, is in No 10.

However, there is nothing in the

FTPA to explain how any of this

might happen. At the end of the 14

days, a motion that this House has

confidence in “any government of

Her Majesty” needs to be passed; but

if Mr Johnson has not resigned he

still leads the Government. No one

has yet explained how a defeated

incumbent can be made to leave

other than by exhortation. Will the

Queen have to intervene?

If no new administration is in place

after 14 days it falls to Mr Johnson to

decree the election date, which he

could set for after October 31. There

would then be no Parliament sitting in

the run‑up to Brexit. Legally, there is

nothing to stop this. Constitutionally,

it would be an outrage against

convention. Politically? The People’s

Boris may win the day and the ensuing

election. But there will be blood.

To order prints or signed copies of any Telegraph cartoon, go to telegraph.co.uk/prints-cartoons or call 0191 603 0178  [email protected]

University. Despite

championing open borders,

they are more likely to close

themselves off from Leave

voters, are less comfortable

having Eurosceptic friends

and more likely to object

if a close relative marries a

Brexiteer than vice versa.

What explains this

melodrama? There may be

cognitive biases at play. The

US psychologist Jonathan

Haidt has shown how

progressives particularly

struggle to comprehend the

motives of conservatives;

he found that, when asked

to think as their opponents

do, conservatives answered

moral questions as the

liberal would have done, yet

liberals were unable to do

the reverse. This tendency

to mischaracterise perhaps

explains liberals’ heightened

fear of ending up on the

losing side – since your

opponents must have the

worst of intentions – and

why many seek solace in

forms of “in‑group love” like

the Twitter hashtag #FBPE

(“follow back, pro EU”).

It also doesn’t help that in

some quarters fragility has

gained a social currency of

its own. Over the weekend,

the Democratic Socialists of

America provoked ridicule

after clips from their annual

convention emerged online.

One delegate thanked his

“comrades” for waving their

hands instead of applauding,

since loud noises could be

harmful. It’s easy to laugh

at the excesses, but many

progressive movements

possess this quasi‑religious

quality – with strength of

feeling taking precedence

over strength of argument:

“It’s true because I feel

it’s true to the depth of

my being – not because

I can actually prove it.”

What better example than

Extinction Rebellion’s

entitled belief that normal

rules should be suspended,

because they care so deeply.

read more at

telegraph.co.uk/

opinion

read more at

telegraph.co.uk/

opinion

follow Madeline Grant on

Twitter @Madz_Grant;

read more at

telegraph.co.uk/opinion

Comment

РЕЛИЗ ПОДГОТОВИЛА ГРУППА "What's News" VK.COM/WSNWS