One of John Lennon’s famous songs is “Power to the People.” The song has been a rallying cry ever since. Actually people’s power, especially in the Western Countries has diminished. In the wake of terrorist threats, 9/11, and similar events the basic legal right – the “presumption of innocence”, where the burden of proof is on the prosecution, long recognised in many nations, has been changed.

“Proof lies on him who asserts, not him who denies.” That statement actually goes back to the second or third century and was recorded in Rome – the accused is presumed innocent.

Quoting from Wikipedia, “The presumption of innocence is in fact a legal instrument created by the French cardinal and jurist Jean Lemoine to favour the accused based on the legal inference that most people are not criminals. It is literally considered favourable evidence for the accused that automatically attaches at trial. It requires that the trier of fact, be it a juror or judge, begin with the presumption that the state is unable to support its assertion. To ensure this legal protection is maintained a set of three related rules govern the procedure of criminal trials. The presumption means:

• With respect to the critical facts of the case – whether the crime charged was committed and whether the defendant was the person who committed the crime – the state has the entire burden of proof.

• With respect to the critical facts of the case, the defendant does not have any burden of proof whatsoever. The defendant does not have to testify, call witnesses or present any other evidence, and if the defendant elects not to testify or present evidence, this decision cannot be used against them.

• The jury or judge is not to draw any negative inferences from the fact the defendant has been charged with a crime and is present in court and represented by an attorney. They must decide the case solely on evidence presented during the trial.

“This duty on the prosecution was famously referred to as the “golden thread” in the criminal law by Lord Sankey LC in Woolmington v DPP [1935] AC 462: Throughout the web of the English criminal law one golden thread is always to be seen – that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt….”

The RCIPS have asked for more powers to be given to them in the wake of the recent gang related killings. Whilst I have no objection to tougher laws I have a major problem with the safeguards put in place by wise persons centuries ago to protect people from misuse of power. Unfortunately power corrupts. There are powerful reasons why these protections were instigated. The one regarding warrants having to be sought by a police officer is a case in point. Has it been that difficult here to get a warrant? The RCIPS were able to get one very easily when they wanted to search the home of a respected judge! When it comes to switching the burden of proof to the accused I have a MAJOR problem with it. No matter what the crime the person is accused of. To erode this basic legal right is akin to plucking out your eyes.

The only safeguard in the proposed changes is the words “reasonable cause.” And the “reasonable cause” is actually the police officer who wants to break down someone’s door of their home, to search his premises and based only on suspicion, will also be able to keep suspects in custody for 14 days without charging them with a crime! He will then be able to apply to the court to extend that detention period for another two weeks giving him [police] almost a month before they need to come up with a crime to keep holding a suspect.

When a number of our country’s lawyers have asked questions concerning the encroachment by legislators on civil liberties in order to help law enforcement bolster weaker cases, we all should take notice and say, “NO!!!”

“Changing laws to aid weak prosecution and poor police investigations will not stop the crime, just reduce the people’s rights,” said one.

“Oppressive laws can only lead to further and more extreme acts of criminality,” local attorney Peter Pollack warned. He pointed out the problem of passing such an amendment would immediately come to the fore once an innocent friend, relative or child is arrested.

“If a firearm is found on a bus, is everyone to be arrested or just the driver?” the lawyer asked rhetorically as he pointed out the potential pitfalls in this type of legislation “If a firearm is found in a community meeting is everyone to be arrested or just the community leader? If the commissioner and 14 UK officers are on a North Sound cruise and an illegal firearm is discovered, are all to be arrested? We are already on the slippery slope and the leaders of non-performing institutions should be stepping aside instead of deflecting poor performance,” he added.

The RCIPS have been blaming everyone but themselves for their lack of success. They seem to ignore criticism from every department, even agencies created by Government. They do not comply with reasonable requests and after delaying tactics correspond with even more annoying verbiage saying “it is still an ongoing investigation.”

Yes. We want to help you. We want you to succeed but it is a two way operation. We above everything else want to trust you – but it has to be earned and before more Power [is given] to the Police.