Jill Saward's Policy Launch

This is the text given by Jill Saward at the launch of her manifesto at the Willerby Manor Hotel, on Tuesday 1st July

 A by-election is not about forming a government. No candidate can bring about any change to government policy as a result of winning the election. And as an independent candidate I will have even less ability to make new laws or bring about change than a candidate from a political party.

By-elections are about sending messages. David Davis has already sent his message by resigning his seat. And he would achieve nothing by winning the election. Despite all his claims, this by-election is not a national referendum.

But we can still send a message - a message that the government should stand up for the victims of crime and protect ordinary British citizens - male or female, young or old, rich or poor from urban and rural areas.

So this manifesto is not a long list of undeliverable promises. It is a manifesto with a message - and the people of Haltemprice and Howden can help to deliver it by voting for me, Jill Saward, on 10th July.

Victims First!

I am not a politician. I do not represent a political party but I do seek to gain cross party trust and support. It is my hope that my campaign will attract support from people who would naturally be inclined to vote Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative.

My message is not an attack on the Government. Nor is it an attack on the opposition. It is not a negative message in any way, shape or form. It is a positive message that says put victims first.

Too often, the criminal justice system puts far more emphasis on the rights of defendants and the needs of offenders. Victims of crime are not even afforded the luxury of official recognition; but are mere witnesses – there to serve the court; when courts should be there to serve victims.

But my message is not about denying rights to defendants; nor is it about locking criminals up and throwing away the key. We do need balance in the criminal justice system – it’s just that the pendulum has swung too far in the favour of the wrong-doer.

Civil Liberties

In resigning his seat in protest at the decision by the House of Commons to support the proposed ability of the police to detain certain terrorist suspects in exceptional circumstances during times of attack, David Davis struck a chord with many people concerned to ensure the rights of the individual are protected from the state.

But the state is not the enemy. The enemy is those who would do us harm – whether they are terrorists, murderers, rapists, people who use violence in domestic situations or on the streets or other criminals. The state should protect us from these people.

Of course, no government can prevent such crimes from happening. But they can ensure that the police have all the resources available to catch those responsible, and then prosecute and punish them.

Two such tools have come under attack by David Davis – the national DNA database and CCTV.

In the past few days, David Davis has said I’ve got it wrong, that he isn’t attacking either of these things, he simply wants them to be used more effectively.

On CCTV he claims that his biggest concern is that 80 per cent of CCTV cameras are not up to standard. But he isn’t calling for this 80 per cent to be upgraded, he’s calling for them to removed – complaining about the high number of cameras covering Britain’s streets.

And on the national DNA database he says he wants to make it more effective by removing the details of those who are on it simply because they were arrested on suspicion of committing a crime but who were later cleared or not charged.

If Mr Davis has his way, 114 murders, 55 attempted murders, 116 rapes, 68 other sexual offences, 119 aggravated burglaries and 127 drugs offences would remain undetected. I’d say that was effective!

Mr Davis goes on to say that people who had been convicted previously of serious or violent crime – 10 or 20 years ago – should have their details added to the database. I agree with him.

But you can’t retrospectively act against people who have already served their sentence. Such a draconian measure would be a grave injustice. And on a practical level, we have no way of knowing where such people are. If only we had a national ID card scheme!

The way to add such people – and to remove the sense of injustice felt by innocent people who are included now having been cleared or acquitted – is to make the national DNA database just that – national. There can be no reason why everybody in the country should not be included. To do so would solve countless unsolved murders and violent crimes.

Care for victims

But these tools, useful as they are, will only help victims once they have called on the criminal justice system for help. All too often victims – not just of sexual violence, but also domestic violence and other violent crimes – are too ashamed or simply too frightened to report what has happened to them. And many victims feel the criminal justice system has let them down in the past and are unable to face the prospect of more humiliation.

Most government support for victims is channelled through the agencies working alongside or as part of the criminal justice system. This means that many victims who do not report their crimes can struggle to gain access to support services. And those charities and agencies which are able to support such victims are often small localised services and have to spend much of their time applying for more funding.

This burden would be removed if Government and other funders operated on a long term cycle – and by long term I’m talking at least three-years. This would free up staff and volunteers to do what they were called to do – support the victim.

And often, funding is geared towards “outcomes” – support staff have to ensure the right boxes have been ticked. There is a place for this clinical approach to care and support. And many victims would find it useful. But at the same time, many victims need a more human approach – a professional friend. The problem with ticking boxes is that in many cases, victims of crime – especially serious violent crime – do not fit into neat little boxes. People lead messy lives and the support they need has to be flexible to meet their needs.

The Solutions

I have already stated that I am not a politician. That means I don’t have to pretend to have all the answers! There are lots of things that could be done. For a start, as I have said, we can provide proper funding for victims, support groups and agencies; we can increase prison capacity so that violent criminals are not released simply to prevent overcrowding; we can enable easier access to housing transfer for victims of violence and sexual violence – in the same way that we do for victims of domestic violence; we can ensure those in the medical professions are adequately trained to handle victims sensitively; and we can ensure that the needs of victims – as well as those of the defendant and offender – are more equally balanced in the criminal justice system.

Of course, these are mere suggestions. And there are many more ideas out there.

One of the difficulties is that these issues are often tackled piecemeal. And when the government does change the law the courts don’t always respond in the way Parliament decides.

That’s why I’m calling for a national comprehensive review which brings together politicians from all parties, together with the police, judges, the probation service, healthcare professionals, support agencies and, most of all, victims, to find a way forward.

Such a review may actually reduce the number of laws we have. For example, it is illegal to endanger life on a railway. Fair enough, you might argue, and so it should be. But why only on a railway? Why not in a shopping centre, or in an office or anywhere?

Our criminal laws are too complex. And the more complex you make laws the easier it is for lawyers to find loopholes to acquit their clients.

Some people will argue that I am making dangerous suggestions in calling for the law to be rebalanced to take account of the needs of victims as well as defendants. But what I am suggesting should not lead to unfair trials.

For example, if the police have reason to believe that a person may have driven a few miles over the speed limit, that person is obliged to tell the police where they were at the time of the alleged offence. They have to assist the police; otherwise they can be punished to the same extent as if it were proved they were responsible.

But if that person was suspected of stabbing a young man to death; that person has the right to remain silent. He or she does not have to tell the police where they were – or even provide an alibi. They do not have to assist the police at all and they are not punished for not doing so.

The right not to incriminate yourself is treated by some as a sacrosanct part of our civil liberties. Why?

Why is that right more important than a victim’s right to see their attacker punished?

I am standing for “True Liberty” – the right to feel safe at home, safe at work and safe on the street.

That’s why I ask the people of Haltemprice and Howden to vote for me, Jill Saward, on 10th July.

Jill Saward