A Reply to Bridges and McConville on the Report of the Royal Commission
| Date | 01 March 1994 |
| Author | Michael Zander |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1994.tb01936.x |
| Published date | 01 March 1994 |
REPORTS
A
Reply
to
Bridges and McConville on the Report
of
the Royal Commission
Michael
Zander
*
A reader of a review article who has not read the text under review relies on the
writer of the commentary not to give him a misleading account of its contents. If
the article appears in an academic journal, he may also expect a minimum quotient
of objectivity and balance. This is especially
so
if
the journal is generalist since it
can be assumed that many, indeed probably most, readers are non-experts who
will not have read the original text. A non-expert reader might therefore assume
that, in reading in the MLR’ a fifteen-page critique of the Royal Commission’s
Report by authors of good repute, he could rely on their commentary having that
necessary minimum quotient of objectivity and balance required for a contribution
to a scholarly generalist journal. In my view, in the case of the article by Dr Lee
Bridges and Professor Mike McConville, such reliance would, sadly, have been
misplaced. Their article raises a whole raft of detailed substantive issues on which
we disagree. An adequate response on these issues would require much more space
than is available here.2 This reply, however, is about something different,
namely to suggest that the Bridges/McConville review demonstrates a mindset
that, on this subject at least, is incapable of allowing a fair judgment.
Needless to say, I have no objection (though naturally I regret) that their views
about the Report are negative. Anyone
is
entitled to his or her views. But I do
object to a commentary that presents a seriously distorted view.
I
regard it as a
serious distortion that in a long review article on a Report that makes
352
recommendations there is hardly a sentence that suggests that the Report has any
constructive value at all. Both tone and content are bleakly and consistently
negative. Could a fair-minded person who had read the Report accept that view?
The
352
recommendations are aimed at many different targets
-
Government, the
Bar Council, the Law Society, the police, the courts and judges, etc. The
Commission clearly takes the view that most parts of the system need reform and
that the performance of all the actors in the system shows the need for higher
standards. Large numbers
of
recommendations are directed to achieve such
improvements. There is no recognition whatever of this from Bridges/McConville.
On my count, around
90
recommendations are aimed specifically at
strengthening the position of the suspect/defendant, about
25
are aimed at
strengthening the position of the prosecution, whilst the rest are aimed at
improving the system generall~.~ The great majority of the recommendations of
the Report have
so
far proved uncontroversial and I imagine that Bridges and
McConville agree with most of them. But, again, there is not a word of this.
*Professor
of
Law, LSE; a member of the Royal Commission.
Lee
Bridges and Mike McConville, ‘Keeping Faith with their Own Convictions: The Royal
Commission on Criminal Justice’ (1994)
57
MLR
75.
Some have been raised in our exchanges in (1993) New
Law
Journal.
See issues of 24 September,
1,
15,
29
October and
5
and 12 November. Others are new.
I
have prepared a nine-page summary of these
first
two categories which
I
would be happy
to
send
anyone who writes to me at LSE.
1
2
3
0
The Modern Law Review Limited 1994 (MLR
57:2,
March). Published
by
Blackwell Publishers.
108
Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 IJF and
238
Main Street, Cambridge, MA 02142,
USA.
264
To continue reading
Request your trial