1 Comment

In your third working paper, you state "For good reasons, Criminal Court of Appeal processes are not vehicles for individual accountability; nor are academic working papers."

I disagree profoundly.

To contribute to the search for accuracy and truth as an academic, I am held informally to high standards by my peers. Formally as has been shown in various cases that if I falsify results and conclusions, I could (and should) be sacked - normally after examination of the research records and methods.

I see no reason why lawyers in the Criminal Court of Appeal should be held to lower standards or that their processes should be privileged. They are usually making more important decisions and therefore should be held to higher standards of transparency and accountability.

We can see your principle has been enthusiastically adopted in many areas of life where secrecy is the name of the game, for the very good reason that it protects the person with power, e.g. government advice and decisions, official reports on medical mal-practice, commercial contracts to public bodies, advice to the PO, with little care for those on whom the power is exercised.

The situations where your principle should apply are rare. Certainly not the law (from top to bottom), as Horizon has demonstrated in spades.

Expand full comment