Hi, again.
It's been awhile since I posted. Not because I stopped caring. Not because I came to believe Barry had done it after all. None of these things. I stopped because, in all honesty, I got scared.
Somewhere in the paperwork it says that I don't understand the justice system. They are right. I don't. Or didn't. One thing I have learned. The system is never wrong. And if you say so, you do so at your peril, or in my case, at Barry's.

I grew up avidly reading stories about the famous Chinese judge Ti who worked in the seventh century A.D., still famous because of his absolute determination to do his job well: Keeping the innocent out of prison, and sending the guilty down. In his legal system, he had access to all the evidence available in order to come to any decision. He asked for more if more was needed, or did some investigation of his own. There were no lawyers. Everyone made their statement there and then in the courtroom; this was recorded, read back to whoever had made it and signed if found in order. It was numbered and added to the file.

There were pressures: all his decisions (including all supporting documents) were routinely sent to the capital and checked for accuracy. If he got it wrong, it could cost him his career. If he got it too wrong, it could cost him his life. He could resort to torture, but chose not to, as he felt this did not necessarily provide the truth. (That is what made him famous. And loved.) He had to witness the consequences of his decisions, be present at executions.

One of my favorite stories explores the law that in those days dictated that if a person made an accusation and was found to be guilty of perjury, he or she would receive the punishment for the crime he or she had falsely accused another of. This is bound to have given people pause for thought.

But, I hear you say, having one person being judge, jury and executioner leaves the whole justice system too vulnerable to abuse. Not having lawyers leaves vulnerable people vulnerable. Some of us aren't as well able as others to present our case. And you are right.

So, is it any wonder that, with some 1300 years having passed, lawyers in abundance, some specialising in defense, some in prosecution, judges in all sorts and sizes, torture almost a thing of the past, capital punishment abolished, and even, for the more serious cases, a jury of twelve peers passing judgement, I end up with a -with hindsight wholly unwarranted and entirely naive- confidence in the British legal system?

Take the case of Simon Hall, whose conviction was upheld. Two years ago, I'd have agreed. Due process took place and he's guilty, end of. Now I know that he wouldn't have been allowed to mount an appeal unless he had excellent grounds to do so (i.e. new evidence). This, we are told, is so as not to waste our precious tax payers' money. But in the two years since Barry has been inside, I have heard of so many petty, nasty, horrid ways the legal system (and their sidekick the prison system) resorts to to ensure that even considering an appeal is something one has to be dedicated to do. You get a lesser sentence if you agree with them and say you're guilty. Many little (but oh so important) privileges that one is entitled to earn through behaviour (and that in theory are nothing to do with whether or not you consider yourself guilty or innocent) are denied anyone who maintains their innocence (or, revealingly, 'denies their guilt'). You are denied access to rehabilitation courses, and then punished for not attending them, even though they haven't been offered to you. They even come into your cell and steal the material you are putting together for an appeal, some two weeks or so before the deadline for submitting it. (This, btw, by the same professionals who give you a telly back two days after you used yours to hit an officer over the head with! Meaning, the legal system has conditioned the prison system to be keener to protect the lawyers' good name than their own colleagues actual health and safety!) And should you show a letter confirming you are allowed that material, they steal that too. Well, they don't steal it. They put it in your 'personal box', the one you only have access to once you get released. By the time you have a lawyer on the case, your sentence may very well have ended anyway. So much petty abuse of power. Ask yourself: Is this the behaviour of an organisation that is confident that what it is doing is right, or of one who knows to expect opposition, because of the many mistakes it makes. And one wonders at so many suicide attempts in jail?

Ask yourself these further questions: In the recent case of the crown prosecution having been found to sit on evidence that exonerated a defendant, I forget the details, do I really pay taxes so CPS lawyers can hinder justice taking its proper course by hiding evidence? Isn't the whole idea to find out the truth? Are their careers/purses really more important than justice? Do I really pay taxes so they can edit statements made to the police, leave out what isn't humanly possible (and therefore a lie) as well as what is unlikely to be proven? Is it possible we consider good enough a system that allows twelve of our peers to pass judgement without those people having had all this evidence? And yes, we don't (as a rule) torture victims or witnesses, but ... we pay them?!? Does that not put the whole system at risk? Have we improved on the system such as it was in China all those years ago? Or has true access to justice become a myth, something rendered much more difficult, not in the least because we seem happy to let it be run in an adverserial manner, by tow sets of lawyers who each have a vested interest in making any dispute last as long as possible. That way they earn more. Besides, it's all a game, the aim of which is to win, by any means. And anything you get past the judge is fine. Forgetting so often it's people's lives, their freedom at stake, and not football. And justice had better stay blind. Or is she blindfolded to hide the fact she must be crying her heart out?

And conviction targets for police and prosecution services? Isn't that as ludicrous as would be suggesting targets to midwives to ensure that of all births 85% are male? Doesn't that rather depend on what is in the womb in the first place?

I am not saying that CPS or police have an easy task. And I feel it is precisely because it is so very difficult that they should be allowed to get it wrong. Often. But there shouldn't be that siege mentality, to protect the system at all cost, even if it means that innocent people go down, and are kept down. By the time one stops counting the body bags, and soothes one's conscience with claims it is all done 'for the greater good', we might be better off in China.

I didn't understand the justice system. It is a system that works better for you if you have clashed with it before, and neither Barry or myself had. We made mistakes. Trusted expertise that wasn't all that expert. Trusted that the aim was to find the truth, not for one side or the other to win a game. Unfortunately, the system only allows you one shot at justice. We missed. And I know that saying this, I may make things harder for Barry. But it's got to be said.