Fair trial revisited
^ TOPAttorney General
The last week has not been kind to the Attorney General. Nor has the press comment really assisted anyone other than a lawyer to easily follow what the Attorney General has been doing and why. Possibly not assisted some lawyers to do so. Without wishing to make the legal profession look like a conspiracy which closes ranks whenever there is a threat to one of their own, it is important that lawyers do what they can to set the record straight. This is not just about the Attorney General, but due legal process.
^ TOPFalse impressions
Whilst the words used are often correct, the impression given is not. Lord Goldsmith is frequently described as being in a political controversy or words substantially to that effect. Whilst that is true, it does not really explain why none of that is his fault. I am put in mind of a very well-known footballer who some years ago was the victim of an assault in a nightclub toilet. The thrust of various headlines was to the effect of " X in nightclub brawl". Unless you read the detail of the story you would assume that X was a participant behaving badly, rather than the hapless victim who deserved sympathy rather than censure. Like the footballer, the Attorney has done nothing wrong but is caught up in events not of his making. Like the footballer, the Attorney deserves sympathy and support, not blame.
Part of the problem is a failure of large sections of the public to get to grips with the detail. This encourages journalism by catchy headline. Unfortunately, if the readers do not bother to read the detail of the accompanying article, they may get the wrong end of the stick entirely.
^ TOPPublic perception
The Attorney, at the request of the police, was trying to get injunctions to make sure details did not get into the public domain. Two simple and cogent reasons. Avoiding any suggestion that a fair trial could not take place. Avoiding prejudice to ongoing investigations. However when parts of relevant documents were leaked anyway (not of course by or on behalf of the Attorney) maintaining the injunction in the form sought was not going to happen. It would be interesting if there were any public poll to see how far the public have grasped what really happened. I would bet that a large number have got the impression that the Attorney tried to get an injunction stopping details being given to the public, failed, and that that was indicative of his in some way trying to suppress the facts getting out to avoid political embarrassment. That of course is a million miles away from what the Attorney was actually trying to do. It is nonetheless disturbing that when he has tried to act correctly, it may well have given rise to a public perception that he has done the opposite.
^ TOPWider effect
That is monstrously unfair on Lord Goldsmith personally. However it has a wider effect. If the lawyer who is a senior figure occupying a critical role is seen wrongly as behaving improperly, that will not only lead to an adverse public perception of him, but of the law and lawyers generally. It is ironic to say the least that an indication of the system working properly, namely what Lord Goldsmith was trying to do, is likely to give the public entirely the opposite impression.
^ TOPFrancis Bacon
In defending his actions Lord Goldsmith referred to the statement of Francis Bacon (Attorney General 1613-1617) that the role of Law Officer is "one of the painfullest places in the Kingdom". The present unwarranted poor publicity is painful no doubt for the Attorney, particularly when it in no way represents what he really tried to do, but sadly any impact on the public perception of lawyers could in time be painful for both sides of the profession.