Letter: Pressure on the innocent to plead guilty
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: I am surprised that the Bar Council's proposals for a formal system of plea bargaining have been supported by Barbara Mills QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions (report, 8 July). They are wrong in principle.
In their desire to deal with rising costs, the Bar Council and the DPP appear to have ignored the defendant's fundamental right to be presumed innocent. The basis of the proposal is to avoid trials collapsing at the last minute when a defendant pleads guilty, by increasing the pressure on the defendant so that he or she cracks at an earlier stage. It is our view that the proposals will put unacceptable pressure on innocent and vulnerable defendants to plead guilty at an early stage for fear of a longer sentence.
Recent research demonstrates the low quality of legal services provided to defendants in criminal cases. Some criminal legal aid solicitors are failing to investigate clients' cases properly and persuading them to plead guilty when they have arguable defences.
Liberty receives a regular stream of letters from people complaining that they were pressurised by their lawyers into pleading guilty and asking us what they can do about it. In virtually all cases there is nothing they can do. Often the advice given by the lawyers at the time may have been tactically and legally correct, but defendants are entitled to insist that the prosecution should prove its case. The Bar Council's proposals would lead to a substantial increase in this problem.
Contrary to widely held belief, innocent defendants do plead guilty. A defendant who is confronted with strong circumstantial evidence, identification evidence and/or a contested confession, and is then told that testing the evidence may cost him or her an extra year or more in jail, may well decide not to take the risk.
It is right that a defendant should be properly informed about the likely sentence, and it is right that the defendant's attitude to the crime should be taken into account when the judge considers the sentence, but a 30 per cent reduction in exchange for a guilty plea at committal is not based on these principles - merely on a desire to reduce costs.
The Bar Council's report demonstrates that significant numbers of cases collapse for reasons that have nothing to do with the defendant. Many are discontinued just before the trial starts or are thrown out by the judge on the basis of inadequate evidence. The fact that they get this far is mainly the fault of the lawyers, including the Bar. Before they suggest taking away the rights of defendants, they ought to put their own house in order.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN WADHAM
Legal Officer
Liberty
London, SE1
8 July
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments