
Alexander Petrov and Ruslan Boshirov
I am currently away for a few days and so haven't been able to study the interview of Petrov and Boshirov in any great detail, though I have read the transcript and seen something of the reaction from a number of different quarters. I don't really want to comment much on the credibility or otherwise of their claims, but rather on something far more important, which seems - not for the first time in this case - to have been largely forgotten (please do forgive any rough formatting on this piece - I've had to do it on an iPhone as I don't have my laptop with me).
For some time now, I have been concerned that
our generation has been busy burying some of the most cherished legal concepts that many of our forebears seemed to instinctively understand, and which were enshrined into English Common Law.
Concepts such as innocent until proven guilty, and that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution to prove its case against the accused, rather than on the accused to prove his or her defense against the accusations.My biggest initial gripe in the Salisbury case was that
the British Government completely discarded these concepts and simply presented unsubstantiated accusations as if they were fact. Not only did this prejudice the investigation from the outset, but it went a long way towards poisoning the wells of justice. So much for their much vaunted "British Values".
More recently, the same has been done again. The Metropolitan Police, The Crown Prosecution Service and Her Majesty's Government (TMP/CPS/HMG) named two suspects in the case, stating that they had enough evidence to prosecute the men. They then presented at least some of that evidence, before - at least in the case of the Government and the media - then going on to treat the suspects
as if it had been proven that they had brought something called "Novichok" into the country and had carried out an assassination attempt on 4th March at the home of Sergei Skripal at 47 Christie Miller Road, Salisbury.
But it has not been proven. Very far from it. Accusations are not convictions. Suspects are not culprits. And if we are going to pretend that the extraordinarily flimsy evidence against the two men - at least that presented in public - is enough to claim "case closed; culprits caught", then we have basically torn up 1,000 years or so of legal history, and are pretty well lost as a nation.
Comment: A sorry sign of the times: