Posts tagged Criminal justice

Jon Venables case reveals the dark side of online opinion

Was the tabloid press telling readers what to think in the row over the return to prison of James Bulger’s killer? Or was it responding to what they thought already?

You could, in a sense, write the script the moment news of Jon Venables’ “serious offence” leaked out. Think murder on the moors. Think Myra Hindley – and her doomed efforts to regain freedom. Think grief-ravaged parents from long ago, and communities bent on implacable justice. Think rampant press and quavering politicians, too.

But not, in fact, all the press – and no frontbench politician from any of the major parties. The racketing row over our “right to know” what one of James Bulger’s 10-year-old killers had done now he was 27, and what he looks like today so we could hate him in person, was basically a case of tabloids against the rest.

“The chief enemy of British freedom at present is the British press,” declared Simon Jenkins in the Guardian. He despised Jack Straw and Alan Johnson for “sating themselves” on cheap publicity. He hated the Sun, Mirror and Daily Mail in “full outrage mode”. He argued that “transparency that contributes to injustice, failed rehabilitation and even greater secrecy is bad transparency”.

And Sir Simon was not alone. Brian Masters in the Telegraph, Terence Blacker in the Indy and a judicious leader writer at the Times all worked the same rich seam of distaste. The ghost of Lord Longford, champion of a rehabilitated Myra, could almost be heard clapping from a passing cloud.

Yet this time another voice opened another front. Hadley Freeman at the Guardian is a fashion expert turning into a terrific columnist. And suddenly her laptop had been taken over by hundreds of Venables-related groups on Facebook, “all hysterically screaming about how he ‘must be hung’, ’should rot in prison 4 eva’, should ‘die, die, die’”. These “portals into a brave new world are becoming little more than on-screen versions of the most retro pockets of the old-school media”, complained Hadley. Hang on to justice, she pleaded. Don’t confuse it with “vigilante vengeance”.

But there is deeper confusion here. For whatever liberal commentators think about the haunting aftermath of child murder, tabloid editors have always realised what grips their readers. They have the previous day’s sales figures on their desk when they decide today’s lead story. And the big question has always been, chicken or egg? Was this a press telling readers what to think – or a press responding to what readers thought already?

That question begins to answer itself in a digital world. The clicks of web readers choosing tales sends signals right around online newsrooms. The BBC (under attack from Simon Jenkins for ramping up the Venables saga) can discover in a trice what turns viewers on. Those hundreds of Venables sites that horrified Hadley sprouted spontaneously, not because someone at Bun HQ issued instructions. We’re on the dark side now.

Some of the most innovative and fascinating work in the online news world surrounds the “mutualisation” of interest between readers and journalists, a profound rebalancing of relationships. Once “we had the information and you didn’t”, said the Guardian editor, Alan Rusbridger, in an eloquent Cudlipp lecture the other day. But “that state is now in tension with a world in which many … readers want to have the ability to make their own judgments, express their own priorities, create their own content, articulate their own views”. Journalism, he said, might remain one source of authority – but not in “an inert context, one that can’t be responded to and challenged”.

Here’s the rub, though, the Venables rub. Suppose “authority”, from Jack Straw to the quality press, is getting challenged instantaneously. Suppose readers of the Bun think themselves quite as good as readers of the Times. Suppose we’re not finding convenient scapegoats – press or politicians – but talking about ourselves, our communities, our own visceral instincts. Rot in prison 4 eva? Suppose I don’t want to have mutual Facebook friends?

We ought to be nice to Facebook, too. Turn to one paragraph on page 4 of the Mail. “In an article by a criminologist on Tuesday we wrongly stated that he had conducted an experiment by posing as a 14-year-old girl on Facebook with the result that he quickly attracted sexually motivated messages. In fact he had used a quite different social networking site for this exercise. We are happy to set this record straight.”

Well, happy or not, Facebook may get litigious. But there’s one quick point to make. The lead headline on page 1 of Tuesday’s Mail read “Facebook under fire”. That story ran on to page 6, facing five-sixths of page 7 devoted to a piece entitled “I posed as a girl of 14 on Facebook. What followed will sicken you”.

Or at least mildly nauseate Mail editors who expect better fact-checking from the people they employ – and may covertly regret that the Press Complaints Commission code isn’t tougher about the need for due, equivalent prominence when somebody makes a debacle out of a straightforward yarn.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Jon Venables and dangerous dogs have more in common than you think

Animal stories and murders are interesting, but people read about them to be entertained, not because you can infer something important from them

Everyone likes an animal story. They fill up the nooks and crannies of newspapers like socks in a tightly packed suitcase. On TV, they’re a grace note between the empathic rage brought on by proper news and the despair induced by the weather.

Ducks that deliver letters, cats that like dogs, chimpanzees that play scrabble, squirrels that conquer assault courses and pandas that refuse to copulate. From the geese saving the capitol, to some chickens murdering a fox last week, they’ve always raised an eyebrow, albeit over a slightly glazed eye. Like Harry Potter and The One Show, they’re what passes for a massive hit in the 21st century: something to which nobody particularly objects.

Why don’t we scream “Stop telling me about some donkey that can count! I don’t care! It doesn’t matter!”? Until donkeys discover calculus or a gerbil finds the Higgs Boson, save it for an episode of Animals Do the Funniest Things, because all any of this really shows is that contact with the weird sophistication of human society can blow an animal’s tiny mind. The parrot that squawks the national anthem and the pitbull that savages a toddler are two sides of the same coin of bestial confusion.

This last type of animal story is increasingly common, with more than 100 people admitted to hospital every week after being attacked by dogs, hardly any of which subsequently said “Sausages!” This doesn’t surprise me. It seems to me there are more dogs about nowadays, and I don’t think that’s just an effect of getting older, like shadow chancellors looking younger. I’m convinced dog shit is back to early-80s levels and every street corner seems to have a scrawny teenager idly texting with one hand while a slavering wolf strains on a bit of string from the other.

So last week the government proposed a raft of new measures to deal with the problem, including the notion that every dog owner should have to take out insurance to cover the consequences of their dog attacking someone. That doesn’t make me feel any safer. I want dog owners to be thinking: “If my dog bites anyone, I’m for the high jump!” not: “Whatever Killer does, I’m covered.” The fact that I’d get a guaranteed cash bonus do


esn’t make me any keener to be penetrated by a Pedigree Chum-caked fang.

It’s insurance against irresponsibility. Where would it end? Adding 20p to the price of every pint of lager to cover your costs in case you glass someone later? Putting 10% on parking fines to deal with any issues arising from traffic wardens being bludgeoned to death? Still, it was the first animal story to arouse my interest since some wag at the BBC website came up with the headline: “Great tits cope well with warming”. I clicked on that like a sucker and now I’m a little better informed about the challenges facing the RSPB.

But the news isn’t just about informing people of things that matter. It’s also about entertainment. That’s why they’re called stories. Everyone likes a story before bedtime – some are funny, some are sweet, some are scary. Which brings me to Jon Venables.

The main reason that Jon Venables’s reincarceration has been all over the papers is that people enjoy reading about it – it’s another episode in a horrific but gripping story. The parts of people’s brains that it engages are, largely, the same parts that are turned on by a harrowing but compelling movie, and not a million miles away from those that flicker into life at an episode of Midsomer Murders.

Saying this is probably going to piss some people off. They could claim that I’m accusing them of enjoying child murder. Of course I’m not. But I am saying that many of us enjoy hearing the ghoulish details of horrible crimes, whether they’re real or not. Newspapers have always sold copies by sensationalising small-scale atrocities, and that’s fine. It’s perfectly possible to be appalled by a crime and its consequences – genuinely to empathise for the victims – and still to find hearing more about it fun. There’s no harm in that.

The harm only comes when we’re dishonest about our reasons for wanting to find out about it – when we lie to ourselves that we’re reading about a crime only with heavy-hearted regret and to keep ourselves informed of important events. The Venables/Thompson/Bulger horrors aren’t important events – they’re just interesting ones. They’re a bizarre and awful series of incidents – of a kind that hardly ever happen but, on a planet populated by billions, are occasionally bound to – from which almost nothing coherent or useful can be inferred. They are no more globally consequential than Josef Fritzl on the one hand, or the Bristol zoo rhino having triplets on the other.

Except of course I’m forgetting the cracking public debate about rehabilitation of criminals that the Venables speculation has spawned. That’s something which all the supporters of throwing keys away have got enthusiastically stuck into, shaking their heads at the naivety of the advocates of mercy. But the Venables case is so horrifying, unusual and unrepresentative, such an outlier on the graph, that making it the focus of a discussion about how convicted criminals should be treated not only perilously weights the debate against clemency but is logically absurd. You may as well cite Adolf Hitler as a reason for not encouraging children to paint.

Newspapers are fond of giving different sorts of story, like sport, fashion or finance, their own section. Well, they need a new one, separate from news, to which I’m giving the working title: “Interesting Things that Aren’t Important”. It would be for celebrity stomach staples, animal hilarity, the guy with the record-breaking number of Christmas lights and anecdotes about gruesome criminals.

That’s where the Venables reporting belongs, next to Ashley Cole’s indiscretions, not Michael Foot’s achievements – with the world’s biggest pizza, not its most destructive earthquake. That way we can be gripped and appalled by it without being lured into thinking that, other than to the handful of people tragically involved, it’s particularly significant.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Bulger killers should never have gone on trial, says youth advocate

Children’s commissioner Maggie Atkinson intervenes over Jon Venables, arguing that 10 is too young to be branded a criminal

The killers of James Bulger should not have been prosecuted for his murder, the children’s commissioner for England has said in a call to raise the age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 12.

Maggie Atkinson, who was appointed to the post last autumn, said children under 12 should not be prosecuted for any crime because they were too young to understand the full consequences of their actions.

A civilised society should recognise that children who commit offences should be treated differently from adult criminals, Atkinson told the Times.

Her comments come after James Bulger’s mother, Denise Fergus, met the justice secretary, Jack Straw, this week to discuss the return to prison of one of her son’s killers, Jon Venables.

Earlier this month it emerged that Venables – who was given a new identity and released on licence in 2001 – had been recalled to prison following “extremely serious allegations”.

Media reports have suggested that Venables, now 27, had his probation revoked over child pornography allegations, but Straw refused to confirm the details of why he was returned to prison.

Atkinson said politicians should put the needs of children first and not allow themselves to be so influenced by the views of victims’ relatives.

“The ‘we are too worried about the parents’ issue is something that runs like a thread through a number of cases. My constant song is ‘listen to the children and young people’,” she said.

Calling for the age of criminal responsibility to be increased, the commissioner said even the most “hardened” of children who had committed serious crimes were “not beyond being frightened”.

“The age of criminal responsibility in this country is 10 – that’s too low, it should certainly be moved up to 12; in some European countries it is 14,” she said.

“In terms of knowing what the full consequences of your actions are, you are into older childhood or adolescence.”

“In most western European nations they have a completely different way of intervening with youngsters who have committed crime. Most of their approaches are much more therapeutic, much more family and community based, much more about reparation than simply locking somebody up.”

Atkinson said the James Bulger killing was a “dreadful thing” and Venables and Robert Thompson, who were 10 in 1993 when they were charged with the two-year-old’s murder, needed to be in a contained environment like a youth justice facility and given programmes to help them turn their lives around.

Venables’s breach of the “life licence” under which he was released should help to force a debate on the effectiveness of the current system, she told the Times.

“Youngsters are usually tried in a youth court, [Thompson and Venables] were tried in an adult court. What they did was exceptionally unpleasant and the fact that a little boy ended up dead is not something the nation can easily forget. But they shouldn’t have been tried in an adult court because they were still children.”


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Sent to jail for throwing a single bottle

Last year, during protests against the attack on Gaza, a mixed group of demonstrators clashed with police. But when the alleged culprits were arrested in dawn raids, nearly all those taken were young Muslims

Badi Tebani and his wife were sleeping peacefully when all hell broke loose. He shudders at the memory. The front door was forced open, and then came the screaming. “Wah, wah, wah, get down, get down, you are under arrest.” Any number of voices. He thought it was a nightmare – that he was back in Algeria in the bad old days before he was granted political asylum in Britain, and that the military had broken into the house. When he opened his eyes, his bedroom was full of police officers. “I have diabetes and high blood pressure,” he says quietly. “It was worse than Algeria, even. I became very depressed.”

It was 5am, April 2009. Badi’s eldest son Hamza, 23, takes up the story. “I woke up and tried to get out of bed. The next thing is three police officers jump on top of me with their knees, and they handcuffed me so hard I screamed. That’s when I really woke up.” Hamza had been sleeping in shorts. When he asked if he could put a shirt on the police said no and opened the window. “It was freezing. I was shaking.”

His three brothers, the youngest of whom was 15 at the time, were also handcuffed. Hamza says there were too many officers to count – somewhere between 20 and 30. They took computers, clothes, iPhones, everything. “I’ve never been in trouble, never been to the police station except when my car was broken into, and they were treating me as a criminal. One of the officers was playing card games with my iPhone, another was just ordering coffee.”

Badi, an Arabic teacher, tuts. “They make our house into a coffee shop.”

But it wasn’t Badi or Hamza the police were after. It was Yahia, one of Hamza’s younger brothers. When Yahia heard that the police were looking for him he was confounded. “I didn’t know why they were there, and then I hear my name and I’m shocked.”

Three months earlier, in January last year, Yahia had been outside the Israeli embassy on a fractious demonstration against Israel’s sustained bombing of Gaza. The British foreign secretary, David Milliband, had condemned the “unacceptable” loss of life caused by the Israeli strikes on Gaza, saying the “dark and dangerous” events could fuel extremism, and had called for an immediate ceasefire from both Israel and Hamas.

Protesters complained that the demonstration was policed provocatively and that they had been “kettled” inside a tunnel and beaten. Meanwhile, the police complained that they had been assaulted by demonstrators.

Yahia, 18, says both accounts are true. He claims that the policing was aggressive and intimidatory, and that demonstrators responded by throwing sticks and bottles at the embassy and the officers, who were wearing full-body shields. Yahia picked up a few sticks from discarded banners and flung them in the direction of the police. He was one of approximately 50,000 demonstrators, many of whom threw objects. It was a mixed bunch – white and black, Muslim and Christian, Stop the War Coalition, CND, all sorts. This was one of a number of Gaza demonstrations covered on television news, and it was reported there had been some trouble – but nothing on the scale of, say, the G20 protests or the poll tax riots.

Yahia, who was studying media technology at Kingston University, had gone on the march for two reasons – to protest, and to interview fellow demonstrators for a project on Gaza. The crowd was held by the police for four hours and eventually released. Some people were filmed and had to give their name and address to the police, some were arrested. Yahia simply left of his own accord, and eventually got home at midnight.

He told Hamza it had been a difficult day, it had given him plenty of food for thought, and that was that – until the police broke into the family home in Finsbury Park, north London, three months later. Yahia was arrested in March and charged with violent disorder and burglary – at one point during the demo, he says, he had taken a chair from the nearby Starbucks to sit on, but police reports said the Starbucks was trashed and mugs and chairs were used as weapons. He was advised that the burglary charge would be dropped if he pleaded guilty to violent disorder, for which he would probably receive a suspended sentence or community service. He thought a lesser charge of affray would have been fairer, but agreed to the compromise. “It would always look bad in the future if it says burglary. People won’t know what really happened, so I couldn’t risk that being on my file.”

What Yahia didn’t realise was nearly all the protesters who pleaded guilty to violent disorder would end up receiving immediate prison sentences. His friend Sidali is serving two years. Yahia was in court the day Sidali was sentenced. “He didn’t even throw sticks,” he claims. “He just pushed or something, and his clothes were ripped a bit. In court he was crying. The shock on his face, I’ve never seen anything like that. Pah!” He blows his lips together in dismay.

Yahia is to be sentenced this month. How’s he feeling? “Stressed. Pah. Just waiting to go in. I’ve been asking my friend what it’s like. He says time goes quick – he doesn’t want to scare me.”

It’s not just the prospect of prison that terrifies him, it’s what comes after. “If I’ve got ‘ex-prisoner’ on my file, how am I going to get a job? It will destroy my career.”

At Isleworth crown court in London, where the cases are being heard, a disturbing pattern is emerging. Most of the 78 protesters charged with public order offences were young men in their late teens or 20s. Many were students. And nearly all were Muslim. Some 22 protesters have already received prison terms of up to two and a half years for public order offences, and more cases are due to come before the courts in the coming months.

The Gaza Protesters Defence Campaign has been formed by the families of some of those arrested, together with sympathetic MPs, the Stop the War Coalition and CND. The campaign aims to highlight the perceived injustice, and has launched a petition which will be presented to the attorney general and the director of public prosecutions.

Earlier this month, families queued up outside committee room 15 in the House of Commons for a campaign meeting. Many feel bewildered by the sentences the courts have passed on their sons and daughters, brothers and sisters. When Joanna Gilmore, a researcher at the University of Manchester’s law school who has monitored the cases, gets to her feet the room is already full, and latecomers are forced to listen from the corridor. “The vast majority of the people involved here are of exemplary character,” she says, to mutters of approval. “The demonstrations were overwhelmingly peaceful and if you compare the relatively minor disturbances that took place with the violence on other demonstrations these sentences are very severe.”

Gilmore, who has followed all the court cases, says the police arrested more people at the Gaza protests than at any political demonstration since the poll tax riots, when about 90 were charged with public order offences. At last year’s G20 demonstrations, during which a branch of the Royal Bank of Scotland was looted, 20 were charged.

“Many were on their first demonstration and were protesting because they were appalled about what was happening in Gaza,” Gilmore says. “These people and their families are in shock and say that they will never take part in political demonstrations again.”

Bruce Kent, a former general secretary of CND and long-time peace activist, gets to his feet to address the packed meeting. Kent, 80, had been on the demonstration and says he was “amazed and indignant” about the reaction of the police and the courts.

“I don’t know why there isn’t absolute outrage … All this will do is solidify in people’s minds the idea that there is a persecution of Muslims which is determined and organised and will result in some young people being radicalised.”

He says there is a huge discrepancy in the way different people are treated by the law, and recalls a time in 1986 when he had been convicted of criminal damage after cutting a wire fence during a protest at a nuclear base. “I was in the crown court waiting with my toothbrush packed. I thought I was off to one of her majesty’s holiday camps. Not at all, not even a fine. Why? Because I am middle-class and white.”

Like Yahia Tebani, 24-year-old Ashir was in bed when the police raided her west London flat at 4am. The strange thing is, she says, her brother, who is due to be sentenced for his part in the demonstrations this month, has never been interested in “politics or religion” and only joined the protest because he was at his cousins’ house when they decided to go.

Although Ashir says her younger sibling did not throw any missiles, she admits he did protect himself when the “police people started fighting”. He left as soon as he could, giving his details to officers. Two months later the police made their unannounced visit.

“We heard a disturbance at the neighbour’s flat first and I heard loads of banging and shouting,” she says. “I looked out of the window but no one had police uniforms on so I didn’t know what was happening. A few minutes later when we were getting back into bed we heard people running up the stairs and then our door burst open. I was so scared because I had no idea what was happening or who these people were.”

Every detail chimes with Yahia’s experience – the family were handcuffed for two and a half hours, Ashir only had her nightclothes on and was not allowed to get dressed and her computer was taken. “They said I may have weapons in the house, but I didn’t understand – what weapons could I have? I am not a criminal. They went through everything. They said they were looking for evidence, for clothes that my brother had been wearing on the demonstration. They took my laptop which had my university dissertation on spa tourism on it because they said he had had access to it. I asked if I could at least email the dissertation to myself but they said I wasn’t allowed to touch it. I still have not got it back almost a year later even though I keep asking for it. I had to start my dissertation from where I had last saved it on a uni computer.”

Ashir, who does not want to give her real name because she fears going public might result in her brother being given a bigger sentence, still has panic attacks about what happened that night. “I am scared if I see any police anywhere. Even if I was angry about something I would never go on a demonstration now because I have seen what can happen.”

Muhammad Sawalha, president of the British Muslim Initiative anti-racist group, has two questions: why were such a high proportion of those arrested Muslim, and why have they been dealt with so heavy-handedly?

Actually, Judge John Denniss has been quite clear about sentencing policy. He has said, more than once, the draconian sentences are meant to act as a deterrent to future protesters. But, because of the fact that the people being brought before the courts are disproportionately Muslim, Sawalha says, the consequences could be disastrous: “The British Muslim Initiative encourages Muslims to express their feelings and ambitions and frustrations only through political and legal processes. But if anything sends the message that Muslims cannot express themselves through political processes, and they will not be dealt with like others, it will give more strength to the fringes within the community who say democracy and the political system doesn’t apply to Muslims in this country. This will only increase the frustration and sense of alienation among these people.”

Dr Khalil al-Ani says his son Mosab was one of the lucky ones. There was no pre-dawn raid, no handcuffs, no ransacking. He was simply asked to surrender his passport to the police. Months after throwing an empty Orangina bottle – the police said it was at them, Mosab said it was at the Israeli embassy gates – he was charged. Mosab, who was on a medical access course, hoped to be a dentist or dental technician. He is now in prison serving a one-year sentence.

It was the first demonstration Mosab had been on since his family marched against the Iraq war in 2003. Al-Ani, an Iraqi who works as a GP in Wakefield and Leeds, was pleased his son would be on the march. His two sisters were also going, and Al-Ani felt Mosab, then 20, would protect them.

Mosab was arrested on the day and taken to a police station where he admitted throwing the bottle, apologised, and stressed that he had not aimed it at the police. He was released and returned to Yorkshire, but didn’t tell his father what had happened – he didn’t want to worry him, and he assumed it was the last he would hear of it.

“He didn’t think it was serious because how many times have you seen something like this or more serious, and nothing happens.” Al-Ani stops, and apologises for his tears. “I’m sorry I get so emotional. I came to this country in 1981. You can hear by the way I speak my accent is not purely British. It is a foreign accent after all these years. But Mosab was born here in 1988 – he is British in every sense. This is the first time I feel that because he’s a Muslim he’s been discriminated against. What he did was certainly wrong, but he should be treated similar to a British citizen. He’s gone to prison for a single bottle that didn’t hurt anybody.”

The astonishing thing is, he says, that the judge gave Mosab a flawless character reference. “He said, ‘I know you came here peacefully, I know you have an excellent character, I know you were not armed, you said sorry to the police.’” He was sure his son would go free. “I was so pleased. Then the judge says, ‘I’m going to give you this sentence to deter other people.’”

Back in north London, Badi Tebani is looking at the door the police forced open. As they left the house, they made a point of telling him it was still in one piece. “When they finished their work, the police officers show me the door and say, ‘It’s not broken, look, look,’ and they took a photograph. I told him, it doesn’t matter if you broke the door, you broke my life.”


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Jack Straw defends new identities for criminals whose lives are endangered

Justice secretary says he believes 2001 anonymity order on Jon Venables remains intact despite media coverage

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, today launched a robust defence of giving a new identity to criminals such as Jon Venables when they face the serious possibility of being killed or injured on their release.

“We do not have capital punishment in this country,” Straw told MPs. “We did not have rule by lynch mob even when we had capital punishment.

“So there will come a time that there is a high risk when they are released, however grave the offence they have committed, that they face a serious prospect of being maimed or killed.”

The justice secretary said such cases were very rare, and such anonymity orders were currently in force only on Venables, Robert Thompson, Mary Bell and Maxine Carr.

Straw said the orders could only be granted when it was judged that the “physical safety, indeed the life of somebody being released, could only be preserved if they are given a new identity”.

He added that, despite widespread media reporting of the Venables case over the last 10 days, he believed the original anonymity order issued on his release in 2001 was intact.

“Despite the coverage, the injunction has still held and his current identity has not been compromised,” he said.

He placed on the record that the director of public prosecutions had, on Friday, sought a separate injunction to prevent further extensive reporting of the case, including a Sun claim that the new offence possibly committed by Venables was of a serious sexual nature.

“But the learned judge decided not to grant the injunction,” he said.

Straw, giving evidence to the justice select committee, resisted becoming drawn into a discussion about whether Venables could now face a fair trial.

However, he defended some of the media’s actions, saying there was no regulation of what could be published before somebody was charged.

“The British press do test the boundaries, but once they know where the boundary is they do not go beyond it,” he told the committee.

A psychiatric evaluation of Venables, carried out before his release from prison, concluded that he posed a “trivial” risk to the public and the likelihood of him reoffending was “so negligible as to not amount to a serious consideration”.

The document, prepared by a psychiatrist in 2000 and excerpted in today’s Times, also noted that Venables had made “exceptional psychological progress” and had come to terms with his part in the murder of James Bulger in 1993.

“The Jon Venables of today is a very different person to the Jon Venables aged 10,” it said.

“It has been a very important part of his rehabilitation so far that he has come to terms in a wholly realistic way with the awfulness of his behaviour.”

It emerged last week that Venables – who was given a new identity and released on licence in 2001 – had been recalled to prison following “extremely serious allegations”.

Media reports over the weekend suggested that Venables, now 27, had been returned to jail in connection with child pornography offences.

It has also been suggested in the press that he has become mentally fragile, has been known to drink heavily and use drugs and has revealed his true identity to others.

Although the psychiatric report estimated that the chances of Venables being rehabilitated were “exceptionally high”, it stressed that his progress depended on him being able to maintain his anonymity and continuing to receive the “appropriate support and guidance”.

It also recommended that he be released from juvenile custody rather than placed in the prison system, where exposure to drug-taking and criminals would prove a “very major setback”.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Jon Venables posed ‘trivial’ risk to public, according to psychiatric study

Evaluation of Venables before his release in 2001 concluded the likelihood of the killer re-offending was minor

A psychiatric evaluation of Jon Venables carried out before his release from prison concluded that he posed a “trivial” risk to the public and that the likelihood of him re-offending was “so negligible as to not amount to a serious consideration”.

The document, which was prepared by a leading psychiatrist in 2000 and is excerpted in today’s Times, also noted that Venables had made “exceptional psychological progress” and come to terms with his part in the murder of James Bulger in 1993.

“The Jon Venables of today is a very different person to the Jon Venables aged 10,” the report noted. “It has been a very important part of his rehabilitation so far that he has come to terms in a wholly realistic way with the awfulness of his behaviour.”

It emerged last week that Venables, who was given a new identity and released on licence in 2001, has been recalled to prison following “extremely serious allegations”.

Media reports over the weekend suggested that Venables, now 27, had been returned to prison in connection with child pornography offences. It has also been suggested in the press that Venables has become mentally fragile, has been known to drink heavily and use drugs, and has revealed his true identity to others.

Although the psychiatric report estimated that the chances of Venables being rehabilitated were “exceptionally high”, it stressed that his progress depended on him being able to maintain his anonymity and continuing to receive the “appropriate support and guidance”.

It also recommended that he be released from juvenile custody rather than placed in the prison system, where exposure to drug taking and criminals would prove a “very major setback”.

The justice secretary, Jack Straw, has refused to bow to pressure to disclose the reasons for Venables’s recall to prison, and has been supported by the judge who granted the former prisoner anonymity.

Lady Butler-Sloss, the former president of the high court’s family division, reiterated “the enormous importance of protecting his anonymity now and if he is released, because those who wanted to kill him in 2001 are likely to be out there now”.

She said: “This young man may or may not be tried. He may or may not have committed offences. There is, of course, at least the possibility that he has committed no offence.

“And consequently, he may therefore be allowed again to be out (of jail) on licence.”

James Bulger’s mother, Denise Fergus, has accused the government of treating the issue like a political football and of closing doors in her face.

She told ITV’s This Morning that the days following the revelation of Venables’ recall had been “a massive rollercoaster”.

Fergus confirmed she found out about Venables’s recall when officials visited her home in Kirkby, Merseyside.

“Any question I have asked them, I have had no answers and it’s about time now I got some answers,” she said.

“I am sick of them closing doors in my face. It’s about time they started telling me what I think I should know. As James’s mother I have a right to know.”

However, Straw, who is due to meet Fergus later this week, said releasing further information was “not in the interests of justice” as it could threaten the fairness of any future trial.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Simon Hoggart’s sketch | Ministers take a shine to crime

Labour is repositioning itself as the hanging and flogging party, whereas the Tories are a bunch of bleeding-heart, Guardian-reading milquetoasts

It’s going to be an awful campaign, awful. Yesterday we were at Labour HQ (they still have a smart new building in Westminster, but after the election they may move to a scout hut in Streatham) to see the video.

It was introduced by the home secretary and by Harriet Harman, glossier than ever. Her eyes were like French-polished lentils. I spoke to colleagues afterwards, and we agreed that she seemed to be staring balefully at each of us. Like a very cross Mona Lisa, her eyes follow you round the room.

Alan Johnson has been buried deep in the Home Office for months now. Few politicians ever emerge from that Bastille oubliette, and if they do get out, they gibber about wanting to live naked in the woods, eat wild fungi, and weave baskets from osiers.

But Mr Johnson looked perky – and even shinier than Ms Harman. He had shiny white hair, a shiny grey suit and a shiny silver tie. He looked like the host at an ice-dancing contest.

They wanted us to look again at Tory policy on crime. This is because Labour is repositioning itself as the hanging and flogging party, whereas the Tories are a bunch of bleeding-heart, Guardian-reading milquetoasts.

Even the bad news is good. Number of women reporting sexual assault and violent crime up? That’s because they have confidence in the system! The more crime comes to light, the better things are!

Mr Johnson ran through a list of the Tories’ crimes against crime prevention. “We want people to take a long, hard look at their policies, and now we’re going to take a long, hard look at this film, which is entitled A Long Hard Look.”

It was ghastly. The US Republicans could hardly make something as stupid and unfair. It showed a sinister street at night. A nice, open-faced sort of fellow is nearly knocked over by a hoodie. Being on a bike, the hoodie might be David Cameron in disguise, though this is not spelled out.

The fellow is musing on Tory crime policies. They’re against CCTV cameras. “What is the point of that unnecessary evil?” he asks, adding: “I like where David Cameron’s going with his crime policy. He’s strong.” As for DNA: “Do we need a DNA database to see if someone’s dandruff matches their cigarette butt?”

Food for thought there. But then the guy whips out a piece of chewing gum, sticks it to a wall, and produces – a jemmy! He smashes into someone’s house. He’s a violent burglar! And burglars support Tory policies! What’s more, if the Tories scrap DNA early, they couldn’t bang anyone up for chewing gum near the scene of a crime!

One of those deep, masculine voices used for advertising men’s fragrances says: “David Cameron’s policies would make our streets less safe.”

But the Tories can reply. Why not have a knife-wielding drug dealer say, “Since Alan Johnson came to power, things have got much easier for me”? It would be just as fair.

Moments later, Mr Johnson told us that if and when prisoners get the vote, probably most will vote Conservative. To be fair, he grinned when he said it.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Alan Johnson accuses Tories of deceit as row over crime figures escalates

Soaring violence claim ‘concocted’, says minister, as Tories hit back over prisoners released early

The home secretary, Alan Johnson, today tried to escalate the political row over “broken Britain” by urging the UK Statistics Authority to censure the Tories for new claims that violent crime has risen since Labour came to power.

Johnson dismissed unpublished Conservative-commissioned calculations by the House of Commons library showing violent crime has risen by 44% since 1997 as a “concocted deception”.

The home secretary wrote to Sir Michael Scholar, the head of the UK Statistics Authority, asking him to intervene to ensure accuracy in the way politicians comment on crime statistics. He said the more authoritative British Crime Survey showed that violent crime had fallen by 41% since 1997.

The row deepened as Labour issued a party video in effect accusing the Conservatives of being the “criminal’s friend” because of their opposition to the growth of CCTV cameras and retaining DNA of innocent people, and for voting against mandatory sentences for gun crime.

Labour highlighted the Conservatives’ record on DNA, where they have been voting in the Commons to reduce the time limit for retention of profiles of unconvicted people from six years to three.

Scholar reprimanded the shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, last month for “misrepresenting data” on crime figures, after he compared levels of violent crime as recorded by the police in recent years with figures from before 2002, when recording methods were overhauled.

The latest Conservative figures claim a 44% rise for violent crime, from 618,000 offences in 1998 to 887,000 in 2009, having stripped out 24% of the increase to account for the new recording methods.

But Johnson claimed tonight that this was misleading as the 24% figure had come from a National Audit Office study which referred to only one year’s impact of the changes in the recording standards. The Home Office made clear at the time that the police violent crime figures were artificially inflated by the recording changes for at least two to three years afterwards.

Johnson said: “The Tories have an obligation to tell the true story rather than the pulp fiction version designed to fit in with their PR strategy. The truth for the Conservatives is that, without this deception on crime, the big fat lie about so-called ‘broken Britain’ collapses.”

Grayling said tonight the Conservatives would take no lessons on law and order from a government that let 80,000 prisoners out of jail early, leaving them free to commit horrendous crimes. “Gordon Brown’s administration has been soft on crime and soft on the causes of crime.”

Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, agreed that the Tories were wrong to claim that crime had been rising. But he added that Labour was also wrong to take the credit for the fall in crime, arguing that technology and demographics had had more impact than government action.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Straw has left justice to the tender mercies of the press | Simon Jenkins

Under the banner of transparency, ministers have allowed a frenzy of blame to develop around the Jon Venables case

The chief enemy of British freedom at present is the British press. The justice secretary, Jack Straw, was right eventually to refuse details of the re-jailing of the child murderer Jon Venables. By then it was too late. Following a possible breach in Venables’ new identity, he was pursued and allegedly caught with pornography on his computer. It is unclear whether this allegation, while sufficient to send him back to prison, would be enough for him to stand trial. The probation system seems to have worked as it should.

That was until ministers and the media became involved. Announcing Venables’ return to jail, Straw said it was because there were allegations that he had committed an “extremely serious” offence. He mentioned none and brought no charges against him. He is a lawyer, and must have known that this would declare open season for lurid speculation. It was an extraordinary decision.

Straw and the home secretary, Alan Johnson, then sated themselves on publicity. Johnson declared the public had “a right to know” what Venables was alleged to have done to breach his parole, an obscure right when the offence was unproven. Straw contradicted Johnson, said such a right was “not presently in the interests of justice“, and indeed would “undermine the integrity of the criminal justice process”.

The media took up the cry. BBC News, now chasing ratings with tabloid fervour, covered the Venables case extensively. His crime was “almost too terrible to contemplate”, it announced, before contemplating it at length. The tabloids went into full outrage mode. The Sun offered perhaps the most prejudicial front page in modern times, declaring: “On a scale of 1 to 5, Venables’ child porn rated 4.”

Leading a pack that included the Mirror and Mail titles, the Sun was unfazed by an attempted government injunction of restraint. It wrote of “experts horrified” at Venables’ computer material, “among the most depraved and serious anyone could possess” and involving “an element of sexual violence against children”. There was no sign of Venables having done more than allegedly look at porn images.

By yesterday, the Venables case had merged with another youth abuse case, that of Peter Chapman, groomer and murderer of the teenage Ashleigh Hall. The Sun linked the two and declared: “Mothers Betrayed: Two Women Let Down by Justice.” Bulger’s mother, with publicist in tow, went straight to the point, “hitting out at government handling”. Ashleigh’s mother, Andrea Hall, “blasted cops” and felt “let down by those who were supposed to be monitoring” the killer, a known sex offender. The implication in both cases was of “government” being somehow to blame.

Straw and Johnson did nothing to disabuse this implication. They could have de-escalated the affair by firmly leaving the Venables case to the judge who let him free, Lady Butler-Sloss, the probation service and the police. Either the police should have brought charges or the matter could have been left to burn itself out. Cases involving children are emotional, but there is no reason for politicians and the press abetting each other to make them more so. Venables had shown remorse and is said to be a candidate for rehabilitation. He may not be entitled to the benefit of any doubt, but justice is entitled to its dignities.

Instead, Venables’ prosecution has been rendered near impossible. Straw agreed to meet and consult the original victim’s mother, Denise Fergus, who was demanding “justice” and the “right to know”. Why victims’ families should enjoy special rights long after a case is over is not explained. The history of justice is of the channelling of personal vendetta and communal revenge into the rule of law. Now the law seems to be going backwards, towards the lynch mob.

The press campaign for greater transparency in public affairs has been noble, but is not unqualified. As the former director of public prosecutions, Ken Macdonald, said in the Guardian yesterday: “Like the right to speak freely, the right to know can never be absolute.” Excessive transparency can lead authority to install a battery of defensive mechanisms, defences that are becoming a blight on good government.

As was seen after the Bulger, Soham, Baby P and Doncaster cases, ministers react to each apparent failure not by acknowledging risk but with laws and regulations to minimise blame. The system becomes hyper-safe, risk-averse, regulation-happy and power-hungry. Public expectation of the state is raised to impossible heights. No parent is ever to blame, rather the authorities who claim to be responsible for parenting. Britain is quietly abrogating to the state both personal and parental responsibility.

Press and politicians may complain bitterly of the regulation, surveillance and control that now emanate from Whitehall and town hall. Yet the same press and politicians demand ever more control when the slightest thing goes wrong. Heads must roll and lessons be learned. Power is sucked from councils, prisons, schools, police forces. Responsibility is sucked from teachers, probation officers, doctors and social workers. We all protest, but we cannot bring ourselves to accept the risk of relinquishing such control.

In the case of the death of Baby P, the real scandal appears to be not so much the failure of the family – families “fail” every day – nor the failure of supervision. The scandal seems to lie in why that supervision failed. A local agency of government was so hard-pressed by regulation and monitoring that its social workers spent 60% of every day in front of a computer safeguarding their information trails, rather than doing the job of looking after children.

The reality is that ministers never knowingly shed power. When anything goes wrong they demand more to put it right. When the press cries “something must be done”, they try to do even more. It is the default mode of those who lack the political courage to stand up to pressure, to take a risk and trust others. As Pope said, it is thus that “we bring to one dead level every mind”.

The cliche holds that revealing the most lurid details of decisions about individuals is the price we pay for a transparent democracy. This is rubbish. Transparency that contributes to injustice, failed rehabilitation and eventually even greater secrecy is bad transparency. The Labour government’s obsessive lack of trust in public servants and its yen to de-professionalise their work with targets cannot be in the public interest. Nor was this week’s handing of justice over to the tender mercies of the press.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds



Alan Johnson on Tory crime policy – live

The home secretary puts the boot into David Cameron’s proposals to fight crime

1.32pm: Alan Johnson has been busy this morning. He was touring the television studios first thing publicising the new clampdown on dangerous dogs. Then he gave a speech on crime and antisocial behaviour that he used to describe the Conservative claim that Britain has a “broken society” as a “big fat lie”. And now he’s about to put the boot in even more. He’ll be hosting a press conference at Labour’s HQ where he will apparently be urging us “to take a long, hard look at the Tories’ policies on crime”.

Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary, launched a pre-emptive strike last night. He released some figures apparently showing that violent crime has increased by 44% since Labour came to power. The method used to record official crime statistics was changed in 2002 and last month the Tories got into trouble because they issued a leaflet comparing pre-2002 crime figures with post-2002 – even though any expert will tell you that such a comparison is not valid.

This time round, Grayling got someone to validate his figures. He consulted statisticians working for the House of Commons library and he even got the UK Statistics Authority to send him a letter saying the Commons library gave “sound professional statistical advice”. Using Home Office figures suggesting that the new methodology had inflated the violent crime statistics by 23%, the Commons library worked out that there would have been 618,417 violent crimes recorded in 1998-99 if the current system had been in use. Last year 887,942 violent crimes were recorded.

But this wasn’t good enough for the UK Statistics Authority. On Monday Sir Michael Scholar, the authority’s chair, wrote to Grayling, saying that the Commons library figures did not give the full picture. The letter, which is on the authority’s website, says:

A more balanced commentary on national trends in violent crime would, in the view of the authority, also make reference to the estimates given in the British Crime Survey, which in our view provide a more reliable measure of the national trend over time.

The BCS, which measures crime by surveying people and asking them if they have been a victim, shows that violent crime has gone down by 41% since 1997. But the Tories believe that the recorded crime figures are more reliable because the BCS does not include offences like gun crime, knife crime or rape.

The press conference starts at 2pm.


guardian.co.uk © Guardian News & Media Limited 2010 | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds