I’m glad Lord Goldsmith spoke up about this in an interview on Sky News yesterday. I’m not so much interested in his defence of the decision to drop the investigation, but in the point of principle he raises (in the video clip I’ve linked to: I don’t think the written report does justice to it). His point was that the Administrative Court’s ruling last week raises serious questions about the traditional duty of a prosecutor to weigh whether any prosecution is in the public interest or not. Fair enough, an unreasonable decision will be unlawful; but to limit in principle the circumstances in which discontinuance will be unlawful potentially conflicts with the traditional position – care needs to be taken.
His concern is essentially the same as my second qualm about the ruling; I also alluded to it in my comment about this at Iain Dale’s Diary.
Your ‘second qualm’ is based, as I see it, on two concerns – one being the consistency of judgement by CPS officials, and the other that there is insufficient clarity of policy and application.
I’d agree that the CPS is remarkably inconsistent and, to go further, is largely politicised. That cannot be good for justice. As to the lack of clarity, that is probably a measure of:
a) (the lack of) individual abilities within CPS and,
b) insufficient history and precedent for its decisions.
However I’d also comment that competent, principled administrators are an astoundingly rare commodity in all levels of society – particularly so at the top.
The concentration in recent years has been on political expediency – that has damaged society and society’s perceptions of its public servants. It has also destroyed politicans’ credibility. The legal profession should take all measures to guard its independence with ferocity.
Frankly, I remain unimpressed by Goldsmith.
The CPS seem to apply a class based justice system; if you’re working class like Hinks, you get nailed. If you’re the son of a conservative MP or a party donor, deafening silence.