:00:00. > :00:19.Welcome that too HARDtalk. I Stephen Sackur. His English justice all it
:00:20. > :00:28.is cracked up to the? Today, I will put that question to Keir Starmer,
:00:29. > :00:31.the top barrister who has stepped down after five years as the
:00:32. > :00:35.Director of Public Prosecutions, in effect of the chief prosecutor in
:00:36. > :00:39.England and Wales. Are the pillars of this country's judicial system,
:00:40. > :00:44.the Lord and the courts, really fit for purpose? -- the law and the
:00:45. > :01:13.courts. Keir Starmer, welcome to our talk.
:01:14. > :01:16.Thank you. You have just let one of the most important positions inside
:01:17. > :01:22.the English legal system. Would it be fair to say that you have left
:01:23. > :01:27.that system in disarray? Identity that would be fair. I think that
:01:28. > :01:33.there are number of quite difficult issues which I had to confront as
:01:34. > :01:38.director of public prosecutions. We dealt with them as best we could. I
:01:39. > :01:43.would not accept disarray. There are always difficulties. There is an
:01:44. > :01:49.unprecedented strike from criminal lawyers. Talk of cuts to the Crown
:01:50. > :01:54.Prosecution Service which go beyond what most lawyers seem to regard as
:01:55. > :02:01.safe. That does suggest that the system itself is creaking. While I
:02:02. > :02:08.was in the DPP, we did take significant cuts to the Crown
:02:09. > :02:13.Prosecution Service. 27.5%. More than quarter of the Budget. Another
:02:14. > :02:22.5.5% to go in 2015 -16. Significant cuts. To some extent, it has been
:02:23. > :02:27.possible to take those cuts and... I have been clear that there will come
:02:28. > :02:31.a point when no further cuts can be sustained. We are very close to that
:02:32. > :02:38.point. That point is already here, isn't it? One senior QC who recently
:02:39. > :02:41.retired said that the deeper the cuts by the Crown Prosecution
:02:42. > :02:45.Service, the more tomorrow prosecutors have become and the
:02:46. > :02:50.faster prosecutors have fled. The system is imploding. He said that
:02:51. > :02:58.months ago. I do not accept his depiction of the situation. We have
:02:59. > :03:03.taken significantly cuts. We have managed those. Did you protest to
:03:04. > :03:08.the government about the scale of those cuts? You say that we are
:03:09. > :03:13.close to the edge. Did you say to them, David Cameron, Osborne, the
:03:14. > :03:24.Treasury, did you say that you are running a great risk? I made my
:03:25. > :03:28.position clear. My position has been that the services taken all the cuts
:03:29. > :03:32.it can sustain. Anything else puts at risk the service that it is
:03:33. > :03:40.capable of delivering. Is said to me that there is another 5% to come
:03:41. > :03:44.after 2015. Those cuts have been planned for. Those cuts were known
:03:45. > :03:49.and sometime ago. We have reached the point now where I do say that no
:03:50. > :03:55.further cuts are sustainable to the criminal justice system. Point here
:03:56. > :03:58.is that this matters. Some will say that lawyers fees may go down a bit
:03:59. > :04:02.and who would worry? Perhaps we should all worry about that if it
:04:03. > :04:07.means that the quality of legal representation goes down and if, for
:04:08. > :04:11.example, it means that solicitors who are no longer pay for the actual
:04:12. > :04:14.work that they do will be more inclined to advise clients that they
:04:15. > :04:19.should just plead guilty because it may not be in the client's interest
:04:20. > :04:24.but it would be in the economic interest of a solicitor. That is
:04:25. > :04:28.real cause for concern. This is about access to justice. Legal aid
:04:29. > :04:33.is for those who cannot afford representation to have it. One of
:04:34. > :04:38.the most fundamental printable of English law. The removal on the
:04:39. > :04:44.civil side is a cause for concern. On the criminal side, the rate at
:04:45. > :04:48.which people are... You tell me this is serious but for five years,
:04:49. > :04:56.especially in the most recent two-year period, had sat there and
:04:57. > :04:59.are supervised these major changes. I had the responsibility for the
:05:00. > :05:04.fees paid to the defence which is what the current dispute is about. I
:05:05. > :05:08.had responsibility for the fees paid on the prosecution side and the
:05:09. > :05:12.reductions we negotiated were far less than on the defence side. I
:05:13. > :05:16.made that point to the government. We ought to have basic equality
:05:17. > :05:20.between the prosecution and defence. If you upset the balance, it is not
:05:21. > :05:25.good for the criminal justice system. The concern here is not so
:05:26. > :05:31.much over the pounds and p that earned on a daily basis. It that the
:05:32. > :05:37.quality is affected if you reduce the fees. People are not coming in
:05:38. > :05:42.to do criminal law for the future. You all risk in five or ten years
:05:43. > :05:49.time, is a 2-tiered system. That is a cause for concern. You have also
:05:50. > :05:53.suggested. It is an important point. You have suggested that sooner or
:05:54. > :05:57.later in this climate, politicians will have to talk about what you
:05:58. > :06:03.actually want your criminal justice system to do. I.e., would have to
:06:04. > :06:10.withdraw or at least downsize what it does in certain areas of law and
:06:11. > :06:15.law enforcement and prosecution. What can give, in that case? My
:06:16. > :06:18.position has been this: I readily accept that cuts have been made
:06:19. > :06:24.across all government departments and you cannot immunise Vikram
:06:25. > :06:27.justice system. We have now reached the point where no more cuts can be
:06:28. > :06:31.taken without affecting the quality of the system. -- you cannot
:06:32. > :06:35.immunise the criminal justice system. How can you reduce the money
:06:36. > :06:40.that the system costs? I want to look at how the system is run. What
:06:41. > :06:47.goes into the courts? You assistance in courts? Yes. You would have to
:06:48. > :06:51.recategorised certain kinds of offences, wouldn't you? Lots of
:06:52. > :06:55.minor cases going to the magistrates and lower courts which simply do not
:06:56. > :06:59.need to be there. You do not need to convene a court to decide some of
:07:00. > :07:05.these issues that are being decided in the country every day. I would
:07:06. > :07:09.look again at what goes into court. Is what sort of offences you believe
:07:10. > :07:15.the future should not, need not go through the courts? Whole category
:07:16. > :07:19.of offences in the lower courts where people plead guilty to minor
:07:20. > :07:25.offences. They plead guilty by post so they don't even have to turn up
:07:26. > :07:28.and so the offence is trivial. Yet the court convened. For my part, I
:07:29. > :07:36.would look again, taking all of those out of the system altogether.
:07:37. > :07:41.I would also want to step back and look at the way the default system
:07:42. > :07:45.is set up in the court. I'm trying to be specific about crimes. What
:07:46. > :07:52.specific, minor, drugs crimes for example? What about theft? The
:07:53. > :07:58.low-level theft? Are you saying that these sorts of offences in future
:07:59. > :08:02.perhaps need to be to a certain extent shoved under the carpet
:08:03. > :08:07.because we can't afford the court time? Not under that carpet but
:08:08. > :08:10.there are alternatives. We have restorative justice schemes in this
:08:11. > :08:16.country whereby offenders and victims get together and outcome can
:08:17. > :08:22.be properly put forward. Those schemes are very good. There is some
:08:23. > :08:27.suggestion that the victims are far happier with the outcomes in my
:08:28. > :08:32.accounts is -- minor cases than going to court. It is a matter of
:08:33. > :08:37.looking at the cases and how we are processing these cases. That is the
:08:38. > :08:43.future in the context of the economic climate. Putting aside the
:08:44. > :08:46.economic summit, we should look at how the system since I failed in
:08:47. > :08:54.recent years in big way. One of the most recent seems to be the way the
:08:55. > :08:57.has failed to offer the right sort of redress to victims, in particular
:08:58. > :09:04.victims who are vulnerable. An thinking of victims of sex crimes,
:09:05. > :09:12.abuse crimes, it doesn't seem to be system which works of those people.
:09:13. > :09:15.This is a real cause for concern. The concerned -- conclusion I
:09:16. > :09:19.reached after five years is that the more vulnerable you are as a victim,
:09:20. > :09:26.the less able the criminal justice system is to protect you. That is a
:09:27. > :09:29.very significant... That is a shocking indictment. These that is
:09:30. > :09:33.true today as it was five years ago. What did you do about it? Some
:09:34. > :09:39.progress was made in those five years. Certainly in issues such as
:09:40. > :09:43.child sexual abuse. I made it clear that they needed to be a radical
:09:44. > :09:47.change of position. I worked hard with a number of individuals and
:09:48. > :09:54.groups including the police to change the approach. Let's be clear.
:09:55. > :10:02.I think that this is so important. You are saying that on your watch,
:10:03. > :10:11.the system that let down the most vulnerable victims of terrible
:10:12. > :10:14.crimes? The problem is that our system was essentially created and
:10:15. > :10:20.developed over the last 200 years as a straight fight between the state,
:10:21. > :10:27.the prosecutor, and the defence. Nobody thought about the rights of
:10:28. > :10:31.victims until very recently, the last 20 years. Since then, we have
:10:32. > :10:44.had a number of old Tom is fully can bus from a victim perspective, the
:10:45. > :10:50.system is not fit for purpose. -- a number of bolt-ons. I realise this
:10:51. > :10:53.is a serious conclusion to reach. But talk about victims, especially
:10:54. > :10:57.of domestic violence or sexual violence, they don't come forward.
:10:58. > :11:00.They do not come forward because they do not think that the system is
:11:01. > :11:05.capable of assisting. If they do come forward, they generally say
:11:06. > :11:08.that they would never do it again. I have seen quotes from women as
:11:09. > :11:14.recently as a few years ago saying that they felt crucified by the
:11:15. > :11:17.system, feeling that they got no support whatsoever from the Crown
:11:18. > :11:20.Prosecution Service. This is a serious conclusion. It is not
:11:21. > :11:25.necessarily about individuals but the way the whole system is set up.
:11:26. > :11:32.The more I can to the view that our system is built on assumptions about
:11:33. > :11:35.the way that victims will behave and actually those assumptions do not
:11:36. > :11:44.withstand scrutiny. That is the product of many years of our system
:11:45. > :11:47.operating as adults. It is not necessarily about individuals. They
:11:48. > :11:53.did say all this while I was DPP. I tried to do about it. I want to
:11:54. > :11:57.resist the temptation to say that this is the first time I said these
:11:58. > :12:01.things. It is an important area and you had to deal, towards the tail
:12:02. > :12:06.end of your watch, in your job as DPP with the fallout from the Jimmy
:12:07. > :12:11.Savile scandal and people around the world will remember that Jimmy
:12:12. > :12:16.Savile, we now know, was responsible for hundreds of crimes, sexual
:12:17. > :12:20.crimes, against offering young people as young as eight years old.
:12:21. > :12:25.I know that you launched a review which has now concluded that the
:12:26. > :12:28.police and the prosecution service could have prosecuted him given the
:12:29. > :12:36.information available at the time but they did not. It comes back your
:12:37. > :12:44.point that it is because of victims who were prepared to justify the --
:12:45. > :12:46.testified were taken not seriously enough and unjustified caution. Can
:12:47. > :12:53.you say that things would be fundamentally different today? Yes.
:12:54. > :13:00.We published the report on the Jimmy Savile cases and immediately set
:13:01. > :13:09.about a series of around people be discussions with all sorts of
:13:10. > :13:12.individuals including victims and victims of support groups and we
:13:13. > :13:16.made changes and published the guidelines before I left office. --
:13:17. > :13:19.round table. Having come to the conclusion that these individuals
:13:20. > :13:25.are let down, I tried to do something on my watch in relation to
:13:26. > :13:30.prosecutors by engaging in that process straight up. It is only the
:13:31. > :13:35.beginning. You say it is only the beginning and now of course you have
:13:36. > :13:38.signed up with the Labour Party to work on a far-reaching review which
:13:39. > :13:46.you say will, within a year, produce a putative law for victims. A
:13:47. > :13:51.victims' law. What would that say to ensure that victims' rights are
:13:52. > :13:55.never trodden upon? The first thing to recognise is that it is a
:13:56. > :13:58.victims' law. We have had a criminal justice system from long-time and
:13:59. > :14:02.have laws covering what the prosecution can do, what defence can
:14:03. > :14:07.do and the rights and entitlements thereof but never before in
:14:08. > :14:14.victims' law. With a victims' law, the best consensus should be strive
:14:15. > :14:19.for. It ought to be an enduring piece of legislation. Although the
:14:20. > :14:25.Labour Party is the only political party committed to a law, I would
:14:26. > :14:31.hope that any such law would be passed with the broadest possible
:14:32. > :14:35.appeal and support, for obvious reasons. It would be in the nature
:14:36. > :14:40.of a constitutional document. It is interesting that he we are in 2014
:14:41. > :14:44.talk about a victims' law from the first time in a crippled justice
:14:45. > :14:53.system. That reinforces my point that victims' rights are only just
:14:54. > :14:56.catching up in our system. Looking at witnesses and their rights. You
:14:57. > :15:05.will not be surprised to note, the case of Nigella Lawson, it caused
:15:06. > :15:10.worldwide interest, as the famous television chef. She was involved in
:15:11. > :15:20.a case because on trial were two sisters in devolved as house
:15:21. > :15:25.keepers. -- involved as house keepers. She in fact had been put on
:15:26. > :15:33.trial. She said, my experience as a witness was deeply disturbing. I did
:15:34. > :15:39.me civic duty only to be vilified without the right to respond. Do you
:15:40. > :15:44.think she has a case? I think she does. If you ask most people what
:15:45. > :15:48.they thought about the way victims and witnesses are treated in the
:15:49. > :15:55.criminal justice, they would say not properly. The Crown prosecution fail
:15:56. > :16:06.in the wake it supported or did not support Nigella Lawson as a brick
:16:07. > :16:12.is? -- a witness. The defence beat the case. The job of the prosecution
:16:13. > :16:19.is to prosecute. Obviously, the resort role looking and supporting
:16:20. > :16:27.victims and witnesses. Would you say they failed in that instant? It was
:16:28. > :16:33.after I'd left. So you are free to comment. At the principal point is
:16:34. > :16:38.that the prosecution cannot represent the interests of
:16:39. > :16:46.witnesses. I am not saying they should not put in place protections
:16:47. > :16:52.and be supportive but it is not as straightforward as saying it failed.
:16:53. > :16:57.What a concerned about in this bait is the greatest temptation that
:16:58. > :17:04.whenever there is a problem to point the finger at an individual, group,
:17:05. > :17:11.a body. Sometimes that is legitimate that it lets us of the book about
:17:12. > :17:15.the bigger problem which is a criminal justice system does not
:17:16. > :17:18.work well for victims. One simple question, should witnesses be
:17:19. > :17:24.allowed their legal representatives in court? I do not think it would be
:17:25. > :17:30.the way forward but there needs to be a shift in the way we deal with
:17:31. > :17:34.wit this is a big terms. I want to go to a slightly different theme,
:17:35. > :17:41.the way the law fails to keep up with social attitudes of the time.
:17:42. > :17:45.The instant I want to look at is drugs. Reflections from view on the
:17:46. > :17:51.way you did your child in the way the law worked in terms of the use
:17:52. > :17:59.of cannabis. It is illegal to possess cannabis. It was redefined
:18:00. > :18:06.as a place be drug in 2009 when you were in office, against the advice
:18:07. > :18:10.of Council on the misuse of drugs. I wonder if you think it is time to
:18:11. > :18:19.make a fundamental reassessment of how we treat use of possession of
:18:20. > :18:23.cannabis in this country. This is a question that comes back from time
:18:24. > :18:30.to time. I am not short now is the better time... You can look in South
:18:31. > :18:35.America, Colorado, Holland. Ferrari temples which suggest that we all
:18:36. > :18:41.know can people in particular but frankly, millions of people in this
:18:42. > :18:45.country, at technically committing a criminal offence and there is a
:18:46. > :18:51.sense in which because of the way it works, the law has been brought into
:18:52. > :18:58.disrepute. Broadly speaking, in our system, the more serious offences
:18:59. > :19:04.are the one prosecuted. Simple possession of drugs is sometimes
:19:05. > :19:09.prosecuted but very often people... It depends on where you live and the
:19:10. > :19:14.mood of the police officer - is that appropriate? It is important to have
:19:15. > :19:19.discussions. One of the issues that I tried to tackle is how that
:19:20. > :19:23.discretion is exercise. Make sure everybody understood the way in
:19:24. > :19:30.which the police and prosecution approach it. You are still talking
:19:31. > :19:37.about the prosecution is handled. I am wondering, in the longer to, the
:19:38. > :19:44.direction is towards the controlled legalisation of some drugs? It may
:19:45. > :19:50.be. There is a place for debate about it. Conclusions will follow
:19:51. > :19:58.that debate. Yes or no? Is that the way you see it in terms of direction
:19:59. > :20:03.of travel? It is in sensible to prosecute everybody in possession of
:20:04. > :20:08.drugs. And that is why people are diverted every day in our system. We
:20:09. > :20:12.want to talk to about Edward Snowden and his reservations about mass
:20:13. > :20:19.electronic surveillance undertaken by the US and the UK. Do you see
:20:20. > :20:26.Edward Snowden as a whistleblower? Yes, I think he hasn't brought to
:20:27. > :20:30.the attention of the world information and practices that were
:20:31. > :20:35.not otherwise known so in that sense, he is a whistleblower. You do
:20:36. > :20:40.not see him in any way as a criminal because on your watch, there were
:20:41. > :20:45.Tory MPs calling for him to be prosecuted, also suggesting that the
:20:46. > :20:52.Guardian newspaper, here in the UK, had aided and abetted terrorism,
:20:53. > :20:57.committed eight terrorism offence according to Julian Smith and people
:20:58. > :21:00.'s I have to tread very carefully because the reason a criminal
:21:01. > :21:07.investigation ongoing and that started last I was a DPP. I do not
:21:08. > :21:10.think that while one is a whistleblower one has not done
:21:11. > :21:16.anything wrong. Usually they have. The question is what they have
:21:17. > :21:27.achieved. Is that the greater good than what they have done wrong. It
:21:28. > :21:31.usually involves leaked information. So it is maybe not germane to
:21:32. > :21:36.discuss whether he will face any prosecution in this country because
:21:37. > :21:41.he is eight US citizen. But the role of the government and journalists.
:21:42. > :21:46.You think the Guardian should also face trial on anti- terror charges?
:21:47. > :21:51.I am not in a position to answer that question. I have not seen
:21:52. > :21:58.anything the Guardian has published that will bring it to that. On the
:21:59. > :22:02.face of it, looking at what has been published, do not think anybody
:22:03. > :22:06.would be suggesting that the Guardian should be prosecuted for
:22:07. > :22:09.offences. A final dig thought, there are powerful voices inside the
:22:10. > :22:14.Conservative party right now who wants the British government of
:22:15. > :22:17.Britain to withdraw from the European Court of human rights and
:22:18. > :22:22.all it brings with it in terms of its power to intercede in British
:22:23. > :22:29.law. Would that be wise? No, it would not be wise. It would be a big
:22:30. > :22:35.mistake. The right set out in the Human Rights Act universally
:22:36. > :22:38.accepted around the world as minimum standards. Almost every country
:22:39. > :22:43.subscribes to them. The idea that we cannot live with them is
:22:44. > :22:49.far-fetched. But this is politics as well as the law. Minister Damian
:22:50. > :22:53.Green said British law must be made in Britain that is way to restore
:22:54. > :23:00.respectability to human rights. He has a powerful elliptical point. It
:23:01. > :23:05.is made in Britain. It is a piece of legislation passed by our
:23:06. > :23:12.Parliament. It could just as easily be decided not to be bound by the
:23:13. > :23:15.European Convention of human rights. But it is not want to be bound by
:23:16. > :23:23.universal standards that the rest of the world respects and bytes? That
:23:24. > :23:28.is a pretty proposition. We have a Supreme Court, why should not the
:23:29. > :23:31.British Supreme Court decide fundamental matters of British and?
:23:32. > :23:37.It does not make sense to British people. It does. It is out Supreme
:23:38. > :23:42.Court. It take into account what the European Court has said that art --
:23:43. > :23:46.they are the words, take into account. That is at the settlement
:23:47. > :23:52.into the legislation passed into Parliament. It is straightforward
:23:53. > :23:56.and legitimate. Before we rush to an end or repeal the Human Rights Act,
:23:57. > :24:04.I would ask the simple question, what all which group has benefited
:24:05. > :24:08.most from human right act? It is the terms, not criminals. It is
:24:09. > :24:12.important we do not overlook the real achievements of this act. We
:24:13. > :24:14.have to end there. Keir Starmer, thank you for being on HARDtalk.
:24:15. > :24:37.Thank you. The risk of flooding continues to
:24:38. > :24:44.diminish across the UK. Inland could see further land and river flooding.
:24:45. > :24:45.Further heavy rain to come. There will be fewer showers and lighter