Paying for what you want to hear
I refer to the letter by Director of Public Prosecutions Kevin Zervos ('Prosecution processes accountable', May 9), in reply to the article by Grenville Cross ('Too hot to handle', May 4).
The Department of Justice claims that prosecution decisions on people with whom there are 'sensitivities' are made fairly and impartially. By 'sensitivities', I take it to mean cases involving the rich and famous, senior civil servants and relatives of senior judiciary, based on recent precedents.
It is worrying that this assessment is made not only based on whether the evidence is sufficient for a prosecution but also whether the 'public interest' warrants such action.
How does the department decide on this subjective question? I don't recall in the past the public being consulted on whether such people should face the courts like most of us ordinary mortals.
Zervos tries to put our minds at ease by informing us that on certain occasions, independent advice from outside counsel is obtained. This is very troublesome for us laymen to comprehend. When you 'brief' (that is, pay) a top barrister, you have an intention definitely in mind.
You pay the barrister to pull the stops out to defend you. Or, if it is the department paying him to prosecute, he will likewise do his utmost to secure a conviction. Are these lawyers really going to tell clients they don't have any realistic chance of winning their case and shouldn't waste any more money on hiring them?