A critical discussion and analysis of The Rule of Law
- Packer contrasts this with the Due Process model
- The crux of the prosecutions case
- The prosecution barrister, William Boyce QC
- The David Shayler case vs. the Burrell trial
- The public had a right to know about certain actions of the MI5
- David Shayler's lack of defense in law in disclosing information to the public
- Responsibility for those who would be injured if he did not take preventative action
- Dame Stella Rimington: It is wrong to make too sharp a distinction between police detectives and spy
- The true relationship between the police and the Crown Prosecution Service
Central to the general idea of the Rule of Law is the specific intention that it involves the rule of the law rather than the rule of the people. Judges hold a position of central importance in the relation to the concept of the Rule of Law. They are expected to deliver judgment in a completely impartial manner through a strict application of the law, without allowing their personal preference, or favor to any party of the action in their decision .
Nevertheless, decisions in the criminal process system often involve conflicts; the best framework to analysis the criminal justice system is the work of Herbert Packer, developed in the 1960s. Packer suggested that there were two models of evaluation, the Crime Control and the Due Process model. The Crime Control system is based on the suggestion that the criminal conduct is the prime function.
[...] David Shayler believed that the public had a right to know about certain actions of the MI5, but in contradiction, the government, in common with its predecessors, insists that the security and intelligence services must be shielded by total security if they are to function effectively. rejects any system of outside, independent, scrutiny on the grounds that outsiders whether MP's, privy councilor or judges could never be in a position to make judgment about the rights and wrongs of why and how the security services acted as they did in a particular case' The government argued over the years that an independent body which was allowed into the ?barrier of security' would have no effective function as it would not be able to disclose anything it had learned so would not be economically liable to introduce such an agency. [...]
[...] Police therefore frequently construct cases and therefore the screening of the case is obligatory the role of the Crown Prosecution Service who do not have the capability to reconstruct accounts of cases that they are given and weigh it against the ?probability of conviction' as shown in the Burrell case with a skillfully constructed case, the Crown Prosecution Service will see no-lines of re-investigation as there are no loose ends, the version on offer is of course the manipulated version of events as constructed by the police and may not be the true course of events. [...]
[...] Justice Rafferty had justified the secrecy as "to protect Princes William and Harry", and had not been a palace request she confirmed no application for Public Interest Immunity (PII) had been applied for. The crux of the prosecution case against him was that he not had told anyone that he had kept items belonging to the Princess at his home in Farndon. The Queen was not briefed on the way the case was being prepared against Mr. Burrell to avoid any criticism that Buckingham Palace would interfere with the proceedings. [...]