Gosling was arrested in a blaze of publicity after admitting (twice) that he had killed a former lover who was dying of Aids in order to end his suffering.
It reignited the debate about 'mercy killing', which hasn't been far from the headlines since the Swiss suicide clinic Dignitas opened its doors.
But last week came the announcement that Gosling had been charged not with murder or manslaughter, but with wasting police time.
The statement from the CPS reported that in the initial murder investigation - something that was inevitable once he has confessed to millions of people that he had killed someone - he had been interviewed by police several times and that 'detectives conducted an extensive investigation into the allegation'.
It is clear that the police now believe that the confession was false and that Gosling must now face charges as officers spent so much time investigating the allegation. Under British law, Gosling is currently innocent of any crime and the purpose of this blog is not to decide upon his guilt but to react to some of the coverage the fresh charge has inspired.
Jack of Kent - a superb campaigning lawyer who is on the the right side of nearly all debates (stupid scientology, Gillian McKeith, Singh v the chiropractors etc) - is clear in his stance. In his blog, he believes that the time wasters are clearly the police.
In Jack of Kent's blog, he highlights four areas of concern about the decision to prosecute:
First, a piece to camera which is subsequently broadcast does not seem to me to be a "report" within the meaning of the offence.
Although the 1967 Act does not require the report to be to a police officer, for the word "report" to be extended to include such a broadcast piece seems to stretch the word to the point of meaninglessness.
Second, it is not clear that the content of what Mr Gosling said was sufficiently precise for it to be a statement "tending to show that an offence has been committed".
In fact, it seems too vague to be a report of an offence, if it is even a report in the first place.
Third, the offence requires mens rea (a guilty intention) the time the "report" is made; there is no evidence available that such an intention was present at the time of the actus reus (culpable act).
And fourth, apart from all the above, one cannot easily see the public interest in prosecuting Mr Gosling.
But I take a different view. If Gosling did indeed falsely confess to the crime then the charge is inevitable. Who he confessed to is irrelevant as any one of the viewers of the original programme or the ensuing coverage could have reported to the police that they had evidence that a murder had been committed.
I am not going to debate mercy killings and whether it is right or wrong (mainly because I cannot make up my own mind) but under British law, the deliberate taking of someone's life is murder and the police have a duty to investigate.
I feel uneasy with the principle of the CPS or police interpreting the law as they go along. I am delighted when courts and juries challenge bad law but from my statutory bodies I want implementation not interpretation.
My main concern with the above four points is in point four however. "One cannot easily see the public interest in prosecuting Mr Gosling".
From a journalistic perspective I can see few greater wrongs than falsification and the police and CPS have alleged that Gosling has falsified a confession to a murder.
I abhor the kneejerk 'role model' accusation that is slung around these days to all and sundry when wrong doing occurs, whether it is England captain, Hollywood actors or top golfers.
But surely a respected, campaigning journalist presenting a 'factual' piece about such a deeply sensitive matter is indeed a role model. His word and his actions could have direct influence on the actions of others.
I will continue to follow this with interest but I have a feeling it could be a significant case for journalism and journalists.
I only wish, like Jack of Kent, that the CPS had applied the same strident approach to the decision on whether or not to prosecute PC Simon Harwood.
No comments:
Post a Comment