Something is wrong when the ‘independent’ CPS is swayed by a Twitter storm

If everything had gone according to the Met’s plan, three men would today go on trial for stealing food from a rubbish bin.

Clutching bags of out-of-date tomatoes, mushrooms and cheese – enough for a nice omelette if only they’d managed to find a box or two of cracked eggs – the three were arrested last October after climbing a wall to forage for waste food outside an Iceland store.

Originally detained on suspicion of burglary, the men were finally charged under the  arcane Vagrancy Act – a series of laws dating from 1824 for “the Punishment of idle and disorderly Persons and Rogues and Vagabonds in that Part of Great Britain called England” (Parliament’s capitals, not mine).

After a sympathetic online story in the Guardian last Tuesday night [www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jan/28/three-charged-vagrancy-act-food-skip-iceland] Twitter erupted into a spasm of apoplectic righteousness – aiming most of its ire (unfairly) at Iceland.

Early on Wednesday morning, Iceland boss Malcolm Walker issued an anxious tweet. “We did not call the police, did not seek prosecution and knew nothing before today’s Guardian!” he said.

A little over an hour later, the company put out a press statement. It was “trying to find out from the CPS why they believe that it is in the public interest to pursue a case against these three individuals… we sympathise with those who are struggling to meet their food bills.”

After that, it was pretty much over.

Within a few hours, despite previously telling the men’s lawyers the case would go ahead due to “significant public interest in prosecuting these three individuals”, the Crown Prosecution Service released a statement.

It was dropping the case.

“This case has been reviewed by a senior lawyer and it has been decided that a prosecution is not required in the public interest,” said Baljit Ubhey, London’s chief crown prosecutor.

“We hope this demonstrates our willingness to review decisions and take appropriate and swift action when necessary. The Crown Prosecution Service is committed to bringing the right charges to court when – and only when – it is proper to do so.”

Twitter erupted into a cheerful crowing of self-congratulation, virtual *fist bumps* and air-punches.

“AMAZING! CPS have dropped their case against the #Iceland3!! VICTORY!!” cheered one tweet from liberal commentator, Sunny Hundal. “That took less than 24 hours. Who says social media pressure doesn’t work?” he said in another. He wasn’t alone. The Twitter-waves were crowded. It was one of those rare occasions when Right and Left are united. 

Meanwhile, 3,500 miles away, I sat chewing my nails and worrying. Because to me, at least, the real point of this sad, sorry and stupid story is not whether supermarkets waste too much food (they do), or whether the cost of living in London is too high (it is), or whether the ‘Iceland Three’ should have been charged in the first place (well, no).

The real point is that the force of public opinion and pressure from social media outlets like Twitter swayed and ultimately toppled the CPS’s decision to prosecute.

But it shouldn’t have done, and the fact it did is not something to crow about, even while applauding the outcome.

Imagine a more sinister scenario. Imagine the police and the CPS bowing to pressure to drop assault or rape charges against a popular public figure because his famous friends put pressure on them to do so, or because his Twitter fans think he *must* be innocent.

It’s the job of politicians to listen to public sentiment, but your opinion and mine should have no influence over the CPS and its supposedly impartial decisions.

Did the decision to prosecute the Iceland Three worry me? Yes, terribly. But what worries me more is the admission from the CPS that it failed to properly apply the public interest test that determines whether or not a case proceeds.

How often does this happen? How many times does an unfair case reach court, unworthy of a story in a newspaper, unnoticed by Twitter? How often do the police and the CPS take forward a case that doesn’t stand up to the public interest test? How often do they drop one without explaining why? How often is pressure applied from behind the scenes?

The CPS should never have agreed to pursue a case against three men taking food from a skip. It was then, and still is, a gross error of judgment.

But by dropping its case in the face of a Twitter storm, the CPS hasn’t demonstrated a “willingness to review decisions” or a determination to “take appropriate action when necessary”. It has demonstrated that it is prepared to be swayed by public opinion, assuming the shouting is loud enough and the potential damage to its reputation is great enough.

That’s not impartial justice. It’s politics. And that’s what should really worry us.

This first appeared at www.speakerschair.com on 3rd February 2014