Book Review: Just Interests: Victims, Citizens and the Potential for Justice
| Published date | 01 April 2020 |
| Date | 01 April 2020 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0964663919896951 |
| Author | Albin Dearing |
| Subject Matter | Book Reviews |
Book Reviews
Book Reviews
ROBIN HOLDER, Just Interests: Victims, Citizens and the Potential for Justice. Cheltenham: Edward
Elgar Publishing, 2018, pp. 288. ISBN 978-1-78643-402-9, £85.00 (hbk).
When we speak about criminal justice, what do we mean by ‘justice’? If we say that a
victim of crime should have access to justice, do we simply mean that they are entitled to
be present at important stages of criminal proceedings or do we assert that, beyond a
victim’s mere presence, proceedings should allow them to see that ‘justice’ is done?
And, in the latter case, what does ‘justice’ entail?
Focusing on criminal justice systems in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) and in
England, Holder traces senses of ‘justice’, both from a theoretical perspective and on the
basis of empirical evidence. Between 2009 and 2013, the author interviewed 6 Australian
and 6 English senior public prosecutors and, in the ACT, 33 victims of violent crimes
(this research is referred to as the ‘Justice Study’). The group of victims comprised 27
adult women as victims of domestic partner or ex-partner violence and 6 male non-
domestic assault victims. All interviews were conducted in a semi-structured format,
either face-to-face or over the phone.
Holder evidences the wide range of possible – th eoretical and lived, official and
‘private’ – uses of ‘justice’ to conclude that ‘there are many tales in the story of justice’
(p. 3): ‘justice’ cannot be nailed down to one meaning but instead integrates multiple
aspects.
As for the official view on the matter, public prosecutors interviewed contributed the
perspective of a powerful institution that in pure form represents the sovereign nation
state. While the actors forming the criminal justice system have in common that they are
‘imbued with an astonishing degree of power and authority over ordinary citizens’
(p. 76), public prosecutors’ offices are particular in that they work to a large extent out
of public sight and enjoy a high degree of discretionary privilege, derived from their
statutory independence and unaffected by any enforceable standard (p. 82).
What as a core organising concept orients and legitimises the work of public prose-
cutors is the assumption that their actions serve the ‘public interest’, where ‘public’
implies the claim that prosecutors represent the entirety of the polity – the people or
the Crown. The ‘public interest’ transcends individuals’ private, subjective and particu-
laristic concerns. The notion of ‘public int erest’ is ‘infinitely malleable in diffe rent
contexts’ and ‘has a unique capacity to silence questioning’ (p. 90). Hence, in enacting
the prosecutorial function, the ‘public interest’ is ubiquitously invoked and seemingly
justifies prosecutorial decisions without effectively restricting prosecutorial power.
Social & Legal Studies
2020, Vol. 29(2) 294–309
ªThe Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0964663919896951
journals.sagepub.com/home/sls
To continue reading
Request your trial