Tom ap Rhys Price – Adele Eastman’s statement

The papers today all report the life sentences passed on the murderers of Tom ap Rhys Price – what a senseless and stupid crime. A particularly interesting aspect of the case was the statement made by Tom’s fiancee Adele Eastman about the impact of his murder, which was read to the court under the current “victims’ advocate” pilot scheme http://www.raybani.com/ running in homicide cases in a number of major Crown Courts as well as the Old Bailey.

What to think about these statements, which are part of the government’s plans for “rebalancing” the criminal justice system in favour of victims? It’s easy for lawyers to reflexively sneer at this kind of thing as simply a populist stunt, or to pick holes in its logic (if it makes a difference it’s arguably unfair to those killers who happen to have picked on very traumatised families, as opposed to those who are saintly and forgiving, or simply stoical) but I think I’m in favour. Even if it makes no difference to sentencing ultimately, at least this scheme gives victims’ families some way of participating in the case, rather than feeling as though they’re the only people who have no say at all in what should happen to the killers.

In fact, I’d go one step further. As it stands at the moment, this kind of statement is made before the defendant’s mitigation – so that he gets the last word on Gafas Ray Ban outlet sentencing. That reflects out traditional sense that criminal defendants should always have the last word in the interests of fairness. But does fairness really require that, once guilt has been proved? Of course the defendant should speak after the prosecution, and of course he should have a right to contest anything the victims’ advocate says that the defence disputes. But I don’t really see how these family impact statements can fulfil their purpose of satisfying the bereaved unless they are the last word on the case. I suspect there’ll be pressure to adopt that procedure when the scheme rolls out nationally, probable in 2007. If that’s proposed there’ll be predictable objections from lots of my fellow lawyers – but I’m not sure I’ll agree.