A courtroom is the one place where the state and the individual are supposed to meet as equals. Delay, leaks and sentences that do not mean what they say all chip away at that, and all of them are fixable.
Article 6 does not promise a trial. It promises a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time. A Crown Court case listed years after charge fails that test regardless of how fair the eventual hearing is — and it fails it for everyone in the room.
The complainant puts their life on hold, sometimes long enough to withdraw. The defendant, presumed innocent, loses work, housing and reputation before a single fact is tested. Witness memory degrades. Cases collapse for reasons that have nothing to do with what happened.
Where a sentence carries automatic release at a set point, the court should state the custodial period and the licence period plainly, in open court, in terms a victim in the public gallery understands without a lawyer.
This is a transparency commitment, not a severity commitment. It is neutral between a longer sentencing regime and a shorter one — it simply refuses to let either be described dishonestly.
Learning about a release date, an appeal outcome or a charging decision from a newspaper is a specific and entirely avoidable cruelty. Victims should receive material decisions in their case before any media notification, with a named contact and a written explanation of reasons.
Where a defendant is or has been a looked-after child, that fact and the corporate parent's conduct should be before the court. A state that failed to parent a child should not then sentence them as though it had no part in the story.
Sentencing policy written without reference to capacity produces emergency early releases, which do more damage to public confidence than any sentencing framework ever debated openly. Any sentencing change this seat supports must come with an honest statement of the places required. Severity itself sits outside the core mandate — the constituency decides that under the Pledge.
This is where the justice section meets the reason this campaign exists. A case decided in print before a jury is sworn is not a fair trial, however carefully the judge directs the jury afterwards. You cannot un-read a front page.
Clear the backlog because delay is itself a breach. Say the real sentence out loud. Tell the victim before you tell the newsroom. And keep the trial inside the courtroom, where the rules of evidence apply and the person accused can answer back. The right to a fair hearing is worth nothing if it arrives three years late and after the verdict has already been printed.
Register to join the secure constituency polling platform and direct this seat on sentencing and the courts.
Register Your Vote