Gli Avvocati dell'Accusa (CPS) potranno fare i giudici.
di Joshua Rozenberg, dal Daily Telegraph, Gran Bretagna (03/06/2003) traduzione di Giulia Alliani per Bollettino Osservatorio

In base ad una controversa riforma che verra' annunciata oggi dal Lord Cancelliere e dal Procuratore Generale, gli avvocati dell'accusa potranno fare i giudici part-time nelle Magistrates' Courts (ndt.Tribunali penali per reati minori, senza giuria popolare). Gli avvocati che lavorano per la Pubblica Accusa (Crown Prosecution Service) potranno trascorrere 20 giorni all'anno come giudici distrettuali supplenti nelle magistrates'courts. Da soli e senza una giuria popolare, presto avranno il potere di emettere sentenze di condanna fino ad un anno di prigione.

Tuttavia gli avvocati del CPS non potranno esercitare la funzione di giudici nei casi istruiti dal CPS. Giudicheranno i casi portati dai councils, dal Customs and Excise, e dalle autorita' per le licenze di guida e le licenze televisive. L'iniziativa fa parte di un progetto piu' ampio che intende consentire a tutti gli avvocati del Servizio Legale Governativo di svolgere il compito di giudici part-time, per acquisire la necessaria esperienza prima di essere presi in considerazione per la nomina a giudice a tempo pieno.

Sir David Calver Smith, il Direttore della Pubblica Accusa, che e' a capo del CPS, ha negato ieri che il suo staff possa avere carenze dal punto di vista dell'imparzialita'. "A loro,- ha detto- come rappresentanti dell'accusa, viene richiesto tutti i giorni di valutare la forza dei casi per i quali si chiede di procedere, prima di prendere una decisione (molto simile a quella di un giudice) sull'opportunita' che il processo abbia o non abbia luogo. (ndt.la decisione si basa su due criteri:

1-il criterio della prova, cioe' se le prove sono sufficienti a fornire una realistica possibilita' di condanna,

2-Il criterio del pubblico interesse).Sono quindi abituati a comportarsi in modo imparziale"

................

Progettando gli odierni cambiamenti, il Governo era ansioso di assicurare che non sara' possibile per gli imputati reclamare perche' e' stato negato loro l'umano diritto di essere processati da un tribunale indipendente e imparziale. I Ministri credono che questo diritto sia rispettato dal momento che gli avvocati del Governo non possono svolgere la funzione di giudice nei casi in cui sono interessati i loro dipartimenti.

___________

L'hanno detto al Direttore della Pubblica Accusa che puo' fare il giudice?
dal Daily Telegraph, Gran Bretagna (05/06/2003) traduzione di Giulia Alliani

Sir David (Calvert Smith, attuale Director of Public Prosecution) potrebbe dare il primo esempio ai "prosecutors" che volessero trovare posto in un collegio giudicante. Joshua Rozenberg l'ha incontrato. " Penso che nessuno dovrebbe batter ciglio se, come accade in altri paesi, un senior prosecutor (ndt.rappresentante dell'accusa), forse anche un Direttore della Pubblica Accusa, dovesse essere nominato giudice".

L'ha detto martedi' il Procuratore Generale, Lord Goldsmith, spiegando perche' il Governo intende permettere agli avvocati della Pubblica Accusa (Crown Prosecution Service: CPS) di svolgere il ruolo di giudici distrettuali nelle magistrates'courts (ndt. sono i tribunali penali per i reati meno gravi, e civili per cause minori), un requisito essenziale prima di poter essere presi in considerazione per una nomina a giudice a tempo pieno.

Sottolineando il fatto che non sarebbe loro consentito di considerare casi istruiti dal lo stesso CPS, Lord Goldsmith ha respinto l'obiezione per cui gli avvocati del CPS potrebbero non essere visti come tribunali indipendenti e imparziali. L'Attorney General stava forse alludendo al fatto che all'attuale Direttore dell'Accusa, Sir David Calver Smith,QC,e' stata promessa una nomina a giudice per quando, in autunno, finira' il suo mandato? Potrebbe trattarsi di un chiaro cambio di ruolo: come l'Attorney ha indicato, sarebbe una sua speranza quella di reclutare un giudice come prossimo Direttore dell'Accusa

____________

TESTI ORIGINALI COMPLETI

CPS lawyers will be allowed to sit as magistrates By Joshua Rozenberg, Legal Editor (Filed: 03/06/2003)

Prosecuting lawyers will be allowed to sit as part-time magistrates under controversial reforms to be announced today by the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney General. Lawyers working for the Crown Prosecution Service will be able to spend 20 days a year as deputy district judges in magistrates' courts. Sitting alone and without a jury, they will soon have the power to pass 12-month prison sentences. However, CPS lawyers will not be able to hear prosecutions brought by the CPS. They will try cases brought by bodies such as councils, Customs and Excise, and the driving and television licensing authorities. The move is part of a wider plan to allow lawyers from throughout the Government Legal Service to sit as part-time judges, giving them the experience they need before they can be considered for full-time appointments. Sir David Calvert-Smith, the Director of Public Prosecutions, who heads the CPS, denied yesterday that his staff were likely to lack impartiality. "As prosecutors, they are required daily to assess the strength of the case for the Crown as well as the likely defence before taking a quasi-judicial decision on whether to bring proceedings," he said. They were used to acting impartially. Sir David said that before the requirement to sit part-time was introduced there were examples of lawyers who had moved direct from the DPP's office to the stipendiary bench. Since some part-time judges will be offered full-time appointments, the DPP accepted that he might lose some of his best people. "That is a risk," he said, "but it should be more than counterbalanced in the long term by a lot more 'best people' applying to join the service." He had asked his Chief Crown Prosecutors whether they were interested in judicial appointments, and a number said yes. Some sat on tribunals already. "I welcome this announcement because it will lead to a more representative judiciary," Sir David added. He thought it would also encourage able criminal lawyers to join the CPS. In planning for today's changes, the Government was anxious to ensure that defendants could not claim they had been denied their human right to be tried by an independent and impartial tribunal. Ministers believe that they have achieved this by ensuring that Government lawyers do not hear cases in which their own departments are involved.

____________

Has the DPP been told he can sit in judgment? (Filed: 05/06/2003)

Sir David may lead the way for prosecutors seeking a place on the bench. Joshua Rozenberg meets him "I don't think anyone should bat an eyelid if, as happens in other countries, a senior prosecutor - perhaps even a Director of Public Prosecutions - were to be appointed a judge," said the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, on Tuesday. He was explaining why the Government intends to let Crown Prosecution Service lawyers sit as part-time district judges in the magistrates' courts, an essential requirement before they can be considered for full-time judicial appointments. Stressing that they would not be allowed to try cases brought by the CPS itself, Lord Goldsmith dismissed suggestions that CPS lawyers might not be seen as independent and impartial tribunals. But was the Attorney General hinting that the present DPP, Sir David Calvert-Smith, QC, has been promised a judicial appointment when he retires as head of the CPS in the autumn? It might be a neat reversal of roles: as the Attorney pointed out, he is hoping to recruit a serving judge as the next DPP. When I asked Sir David this week what his next job was going to be, he told me, reasonably enough, that he didn't have one. "Except that," he added, "I do still have my place open in chambers, so I hope they'll have me back." With his experience he would be much in demand at the Bar, but there is every chance that Sir David, 58, will soon be appointed as a judge - possibly at the Old Bailey but more likely on the High Court bench. He would be the first former Director of Public Prosecutions since the post was created in 1880 to take a full-time judicial appointment - although he and six of his predecessors served part-time as Recorders, one of them after retirement. And if the DPP's post was seen as a stepping stone to the judiciary, it would be easier to attract recruits to this notorious bed of nails. "It's an enormous privilege and honour to be allowed to do the job," insists Sir David. "It is never boring. On the other side, it is extremely hard work: a 14- or 15-hour-a-day job, and often a seven-day-a-week one too. And it's true that there are bad days, which keep you awake at night." The criticisms that provoke insomnia are the ones he considers to be ill-informed and unfair. "They make me angry," he says. "We came under pretty heavy fire in some quarters for prosecuting Mr Shayler. In the cases of Mr Burrell and Mr Brown [the Royal butlers] we came under heavy fire for prosecuting and then for not prosecuting, sometimes in the same article." If people had studied the reasoning process in those cases, he believes, they would have understood what happened. "And it is frustrating not to be able to put right that sort of unfair criticism, either because I'm not a good enough communicator or, in other cases, because there are things I am not at liberty to reveal." Similarly, the Damilola Taylor trial last year, in which four teenagers were acquitted of murder, two by the judge and two after a three-day retirement by the jury, "seems to us in the CPS to have been an example of the criminal justice system at work" - although he accepts that more could have been done between arrest and trial to confirm the adequacy of the prosecution case. Sir David is less angry about genuine mistakes by CPS staff. In 2000, the CPS lost the chance to reinstate the conviction of Michael Weir, convicted of murdering a 79-year-old pensioner but cleared on a technicality, after lawyers missed the deadline for lodging appeal papers by one day. "That probably marked my worst day as DPP," he admitted frankly. Do heads roll? "They can do," he says. But it usually seems to be the most conscientious and devoted members of staff who make the inadvertent mistakes, which they live with for the rest of their working lives. "No company, no Government department, is ever going to be infallible," he says. "You feel dreadful about it at the time, you hold your inquiry, you make sure, so far as you can, that the person who made the mistake is not in a position to do so again and you treat it as a learning process to try to make sure that the service gets better as a result." It strikes me as a disarming way to deal with one's critics. )

___________

I CONTENUTI DEL SITO POSSONO ESSERE PRELEVATI CITANDO E LINKANDO LA FONTE