A Reply to Bridges and McConville on the Report of the Royal Commission

Abstract

A reader of a review article who has not read the text under review relies on the writer of the commentary not to give him a misleading account of its contents. If the article appears in an academic journal, he may also expect a minimum quotient of objectivity and balance. This is especially so if the journal is generalist since it can be assumed that many, indeed probably most, readers are non-experts who will not have read the original text. A non-expert reader might therefore assume that, in reading in the MLR1 a fifteen-page critique of the Royal Commission's Report by authors of good repute, he could rely on their commentary having that necessary minimum quotient of objectivity and balance required for a contribution to a scholarly generalist journal. In my view, in the case of the article by Dr Lee Bridges and Professor Mike McConville, such reliance would, sadly, have been misplaced. Their article raises a whole raft of detailed substantive issues on which we disagree. An adequate response on these issues would require much more space than is available here.2 This reply, however, is about something different, namely to suggest that the Bridges/McConville review demonstrates a mindset that, on this subject at least, is incapable of allowing a fair judgment. Needless to say, I have no objection (though naturally I regret) that their views about the Report are negative. Anyone is entitled to his or her views. But I do object to a commentary that presents a seriously distorted view. I regard it as a serious distortion that in a long review article on a Report that makes 352 recommendations there is hardly a sentence that suggests that the Report has any constructive value at all. Both tone and content are bleakly and consistently negative. Could a fair-minded person who had read the Report accept that view? The 352 recommendations are aimed at many different targets-Government, the Bar Council, the Law Society, the police, the courts and judges, etc. The Commission clearly takes the view that most parts of the system need reform and that the performance of all the actors in the system shows the need for higher standards. Large numbers of recommendations are directed to achieve such improvements. There is no recognition whatever of this from Bridges/McConville. On my count, around 90 recommendations are aimed specifically at strengthening the position of the suspect/defendant, about 25 are aimed at strengthening the position of the prosecution, whilst the rest are aimed at improving the system generally.3 The great majority of the recommendations of the Report have so far proved uncontroversial and I imagine that Bridges and McConville agree with most of them. But, again, there is not a word of this.