Above, the late Miss Kerri-Anne Donaldson, who according to a Coroner’s inquest took her own life (https://metro.co.uk/2026/02/16/britains-got-talent-dancer-keri-anne-donaldson-died-3-days-arrest-sexual-offence-26933212/).
The case of the late Miss Donaldson brings up a very controversial and difficult aspect of the criminal justice system, in particular in Common Law jurisdictions (England & Wales, Scotland, Ireland [N & S], Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA).
In these jurisdictions we have a tradition of open justice. It’s laudable objective is to ensure that Justice is impartial and open to the public. The results include a situation where the popular press and the mainstream media publicise the details of what are often appalling crimes. This causes immense difficulty for the offenders upon their eventual release, and in the case of sexual offenders difficulties (for them and the prison staff) when in custody.
There will be those who will have no sympathy whatsoever for the predicament of these individuals and some would have a sense of schadenfreude were they to hear a report that such a prisoner had been attacked by other prisoners and even murdered.
In the fullness of time, I do not doubt that there will be numerous individuals in the aforementioned Common Law jurisdictions who will “have their collars felt” by the police for the actions perpetrated by those who chose to associate with the late Mr Jeffrey Epstein.
It is all very well for the editors of tabloid newspapers to chortle about the harsh, severe and tough justice they and many of their readers want to see handed out to sexual – and other serious – offenders. These people do not concern themselves with the families of these offenders, many of whom are targeted by enraged members of the public feeling that they are entitled to deliver their own perception of “justice”.
This is not new. Rome’s rulers understood this well, which is why they used the Colosseum as a public execution entertainment site.
For myself, I do not regard the attitudes typified by the UK tabloid press to be enlightened. I am not suggesting for one moment that serious offenders should not be properly dealt with. However, since the state – in civilised societies – abrogates the role of punishment and vengeance to itself rather than subordinating this to “the mob”, I feel that a radical set of reforms to the criminal justice system should be made to make the system more effective on all levels.
So, what do I suggest? This:
We radically reform the criminal justice system in England & Wales (it is for the Scots and the Irish to decide for themselves) to ensure that justice works more efficiently whilst retaining the essential rights enshrined in the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Rights 1688, ratified by Parliament in the Bill of Rights, 1689.
Parliament should legislate to reform the Crown Court system and to bring back as an addition, the historic and traditional Assize system.
I see the system working like this:
Take two persons, a Mr Archer and a Mr Baker.
Mr Archer is a man who sells cars. Other people’s cars – that he has no lawful title to sell!
Mr Baker on the other hand is a vegan peace protester who has managed to get himself arrested for disorderly behaviour at a public demonstration.
Both men are brought before the magistrates. Mr Archer is informed by the bench that he will be remanded to face trail as his offences are more serious than can be properly dealt with summarily. He is told that he can chose to be remanded until an Assize is called to try him or he can chose to be remanded to face trial at the Crown Court.
He is informed that if he choses trial at the Assize, he will face a jury of his peers, that the proceedings will be public and his name and details of the offences he is charged with will be reported by the press. He is also informed that along with adjudicating upon his guilt or innocence, the jury, will if they convict, be asked by the judge to adjudicate on the severity (or leniency) of the punishment range. That will not mean that the jury will suggest a punishment. It will mean that the jury will suggest a level of severity or leniency to the judge – who will be under an edict to follow same.
He is further informed that if he choses trail at the Crown Court, he will not face a jury but the case will be decided by a judge, who will be accompanied by two assessors. If found guilty, the judge will take into consideration the views of the two assessors (both lay magistrates) as to the severity (or leniency) of the sentence imposed. He is also informed that the proceedings will be held “in camera” (NOT made public and his name and details of the offences he is charged with will NOT be reported by the press). He is also informed that the public gallery will be closed and the press gallery will be occupied by Official Observers. These “Official Observers” will be local councilors who will be in attendance representing the interests of their constituents generally. They will be under an enforcable non disclosure mandate.
When informed of these choices, Mr Archer immediately opts for trail at the Crown Court! The justices then remand him – either on bail or in custody.
Now we come to the case of Mr Baker.
Unlike Mr Archer who preceded him, Mr Baker is advised that his case can be heard by the bench there and then as it is triable both ways. Mr Baker immediately informs the bench that he choses trail at a higher court. The bench then explains to Mr Baker the same choices that Mr Archer had: Assize or Crown Court. Mr Baker decided as speedily as Mr Archer. But in Mr Baker’s case it was trail at the Assize! This because Mr Baker wanted the publicity and his counsel was going to suggest – to the jury – that Mr Baker’s actions were lawful as he was acting in the public interest!
Going on from this, I consider that the prison service should be reformed and that offenders should be jailed by offence category. Burglars with burglars. Fraudsters with fraudsters and sex offenders with sex offenders. This will ease the security issues presented to the prison officers greatly.
Of course the UK’s tabloid editors will loathe these suggestions!