Quote:
Originally Posted by joglynne
To add my pennies worth.
As you say " seems a good idea in principle." I know this is a sign of my naivety but should we really need it.
Surely if, cases are investigated in a more thorough manner to begin with, these issues should already have been subject to a proper investigation in the normal process of justice.
For example the Post Office had knowledge that the Horizon software had bugs when rolled out, prosecution witnesses changed their statements when prompted by the Post Office, and lawyers hid evidence during trials of subpostmasters because it would have made their prosecutions unsafe. (contempt of court?)
So, when these cover ups are identified, why do they need a new law to bring the guilty parties to justice. or is failure to speak the truth, disclose a material fact during a police investigation or prosecution proceedings accepted as a legal option.
|
At Hillsborough, as I understand it higher ranking police officers changed the statements of lower ranking officers and they got away with it as there was no law to stop them, I may have misunderstood things, wouldn't be the first time