THE tragic death by suicide of Sarah Hankins (Salisbury Journal, November 26) brings into focus serious problems with the criminal justice system. In theory, the Crown Prosecution Service makes the decision to charge, but in practice they do not have the resources to do the job properly, so it simply wastes time, imposes delays, and in the end rubber-stamps the wishes of the police. Justice delayed is indeed justice denied, but this now is all too frequent.

Even before charge, the accused may face police bail, with draconian conditions attached, including for example removal from home, without any opportunity to make any representations on their own behalf. Once charged, the accused often comes under enormous blackmailing pressure to plead guilty. A guilty plea certainly improves the police’s clear-up rate.

They may be threatened with a stiffer sentence on conviction if they protest their innocence.

They also face a court charge of £900 if they plead not guilty but are subsequently convicted, a sum way beyond most people’s means, but only a sixth of that if they plead guilty in the first place. When they come to court, they will mostly find themselves on their own, and having to make their own defence, in a hostile and unfamiliar environment, without legal assistance, because legal aid has been abolished in most criminal cases. Even if acquitted, people who work with young or vulnerable people may lose their jobs and never get employed again, because an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check may report, at the discretion of the same police who sought the unfounded charge in the first place, any arrests and charges even when the accused was entirely acquitted. This is serious double jeopardy.

It is no wonder Sarah Hankins was overwhelmed with anxiety at the prospect of the delayed trial.

The Journal was absolutely right to assert that the public interest was not served by this. All the problems we have outlined arise from recent legislation, possibly from unintended consequences.

It is the job of parliamentarians to consider the consequences of legislation they are enacting, but they are clearly too busy playing politics to do the job properly.

The principle of presumption of innocence before proof of guilt, which has been the cornerstone of our liberty for more than 800 years, has been completely lost. Our liberties have been nibbled away piecemeal without most people noticing, and this has very serious implications for the survival of our freedom and democracy. This should matter greatly to people in Salisbury, with its strong associations with Magna Carta and the Constitutions of Clarendon.

PROFESSOR DEREK AND ANITA PHEBY Harnham