When justice let the victims down

Dec 12 2006 By Denise Robertson, The Journal

In my opinion, two wrong decisions were made in Britain's courts this week. In the first case, a man accused of a string of severe sex attacks on a woman with learning difficulties walked free from court. The reason? He is deaf and mute and understands very little English, so the prosecution decided to offer no evidence against him.

A battery of interpreters and sign language experts stood ready, to no avail. He still walked. Of course, the court must bend over backwards to ensure a fair trial for everyone, disabled or not, but the victim is entitled to a fair trial too. Someone attacked her.

She needs justice. If he is innocent, he needs that innocence proclaimed.

If he is not, he needs to be restrained from further offence.

That should not be beyond the capacity of a court prepared to spend time and money in getting to the truth. A lesser case, but one which still disturbs me, concerns the cuckolded husband forbidden to trumpet his wife's adultery from the rooftops because it might disturb the family of the "public figure" who stole his wife.

The "public figure" asked the court to protect his wife and children from upset, ignoring the fact that without his actions there would have been no upset in the first place.

Gagging the victim to protect the wrongdoer doesn't sound like justice to me. Nor do I think the "public figure" is solely interested in protecting his family.

Saving his own embarrassment is more probably the name of the game.

Surely we all have a right to privacy, except where our deliberate actions cause distress to others?

Will this judgment be the start of a sinners' charter or are the best legal brains in Fleet Street already trying to figure a way round it?