Letters and emails: July 3

The conclusion in your editorial (“No justice for Milly’s grieving family”) that the Dowler case is unlikely to “mark a watershed” and will not stop the same thing happening again is true, but is a damning indictment of our justice system and the “second class” status conferred on victims and witnesses.
Crawford Chalmers, Weybridge, Surrey

Under instruction
I was quite frankly amazed at your editorial. While we all no doubt have sympathy for the grieving Dowler family, to launch a personal attack on the defence barrister and suggest that “many would find it hard to sleep at night” is wrong. At the Criminal Bar Association we operate a cab-rank principle that means we have to accept whatever instructions come along.

I do not know Jeffrey Samuels QC, but a brief perusal of his website shows that he both prosecutes and defends. He would have had to accept the instructions to defend Levi Bellfield, regardless of any personal feelings.

Everyone in this country is entitled to be defended, however heinous the crime alleged, and it will be a sad day for justice if people are denied representation because the press has whipped up some hate campaign.
Richard Atkins QC, Birmingham

To the victor the spoils
As expected, the legal profession was quick to defend its position, but the point is not so much about what it has to do but the way it is done. If a client’s right to be defended cannot be exercised without due regard for the rights of others, with measured discretion to what is relevant, we should change the system.

There is a lot of folklore about duty to the client. More often it is about winning: the advocate who enjoys a reputation as a winner gets the work and the baubles of success that follow. I have been on both sides — prosecution and defence — and remain convinced the fault lies with the adversarial system: justice would be better served if the gladiatorial contest was replaced by the inquisitorial system.
Frank Lockyer, Salisbury, Wiltshire

Scales of justice
After the Dowler case, various legal luminaries are trotting out the old platitude, “We have to behave like this in order to present a fair trial and arrive at the truth.” Really? In all cases? These are probably the same people who would argue that torturing terrorists is an unreliable route to the truth, and no doubt they would argue there is no inconsistency. For my part, I just smell fish.
Mike Weston, Burnopfield, Co Durham

Further questioning
The police investigated Milly’s father and he was shown not to be the murderer. This makes the questioning by Samuels even more offensive. If there was some doubt, it would have been understandable. The questioning of Mrs Dowler was nauseous. Is this defence by trickery or arrogance?
Tom Cullen, Ardfern, Argyll and Bute

One for old timers’ sake

Minette Marrin (“Look out, Dr Bully wants to snatch granny’s sip of sherry”, Comment, last week) is right that geriatric binge drinking occurs in only a tiny fraction of the oldie population. The reason is because the severity of hangovers bears a linear relationship to the number of years spent on earth.

I practised medicine for 44 years. Geriatric binge boozing does not include throwing up in city centres, date rape or random aggression; boring a companion to somnolence or falling down stairs are more likely. Cirrhosis is uncommon, too — they get knocked off before the three score and 10.

In A&E units the PAFO syndrome (“pissed and fell over”) is well recognised and it’s this problem we must address. My solution is simple: drink in bed — it’s not far to fall. Toulouse-Lautrec, who favoured mixing brandy with his absinthe, had short legs — it’s the same with beds.

The only snag I can see is that drinking is generally a social phenomenon, and with this safe approach we might risk ad hoc sexual misbehaviour. There are also the extreme dangers of smoking in bed, of course.
Dr William Larkworthy, Routes des Vins, Malaucène, Provence, France

China’s rhino law failure

Your article “China breeds rhinos for their horns” (News, June 19) highlights an alarming inconsistency in China’s policy on the trade in rhinoceros horn that is fuelling the poaching crisis. Under China’s 1993 state council order on rhino horn and tiger bone, their use, sale, manufacture, import and export is banned.

However, the fact that big business is already engaged in developing rhino farming and new rhino horn products undermines not only the law but also the government’s commitment to end the trade, and the efforts of Chinese doctors and academics who have been working to promote the use of remedies that are not based on rhino horn.

This pattern of policy abuse combined with a lack of enforcement in China is constantly repeated in relation to tiger farming and the ivory trade. While laudable promises are made in Beijing, the provinces and private sector are dancing to a different tune. As they say in China: “The mountains are high and the emperor is far away.”

Debbie Banks, Environmental Investigation Agency; Mark Jones, Humane Society International

Circus supporting act

Thank you, Dominic Lawson, for bringing some sanity to a rather hysterical debate (“A Commons circus of animals and clowns”, Comment, last week). I have been involved in the care of animals for more than 40 years in zoos and wildlife parks, and am also a fellow of the Zoological Society of London. I am similarly familiar with the trainers and owners of animals in various circuses here and in Europe.

It has always been my contention that circuses with animals should have regulation of their care and handling — as is the case with Britain’s zoological collections, and circuses in Germany, France and other European Union countries — and I welcome the decision of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) to introduce such measures. From scientific evidence, a ban on animals in circuses seems unnecessary and unfair to responsible troupes that take their animal-welfare obligations seriously.
John Dineley, London E11

Fair hearing
As a former chairman of a circus group, I found the Defra report treats us fairly rather than dismissing our ideas, as many journalists and politicians do. The only aspect of the issue not mentioned by Lawson is the influence of animal rights groups whose anti-circus mantra many Commons speakers repeated.

I am sure that those of us who commit a good deal of our time to trying to get people to look at the actual conditions for circus animals rather than swallowing propaganda will keep Lawson’s article to show to doubters.
Chris Barltrop, Hereford

Recovery of stolen Turners was mishandled

In his account of the theft and recovery of two Turners, Waldemar Januszczak misses the key issues, dodged no doubt by Sandy Nairne, the author of the book about them (“Curator of the Lost Art”, Magazine, last week). The pictures should never have been lent to Frankfurt in the first place in contravention of Turner’s wish for them to be part of a permanent display in London. When lent, more consideration should have been given by the Tate to the security issues, and the insurance money paid out for them to the Tate should have been used for Turneresque purposes, as the Charity Commission originally opined, subsequently changing its mind after confidential exchanges between itself and the Tate. These remain secret in disregard of the requirement that justice should be seen to be done, and of the fact that the Turner bequest is the property of the public and not the Tate or National Gallery.
Dr Selby Whittingham, The Independent Turner Society

Points

Easy option
Eleanor Mills (“Confucius, he say: no dole for idle Brits”, News Review, last week) hit the spot. We did not need the immigration that allowed able workers to sit at home and watch television. Maybe one day the government might take action.
John Biggin, Stowmarket, Suffolk

Out of court
Why has the International Criminal Court not announced a list of people to be investigated for crimes against humanity in Syria (“Syria caught in crossfire of extremists”, World News, last week)?
Peter Rutherford, London NW6

Sticky situation
Geoff Cowling mentions “normal” cars taking up disability parking slots (“Bay bandits”, Letters, last week). The Disabled Drivers Association used to issue a sticky strip (not easy to remove) to put on the offending driver’s windscreen that read: “You have my disability parking place. Would you like my disability too?”
Carolann Martys, Haslemere, Surrey

Euro saver
Rod Liddle (“Got a few quid to help the Greeks? No, neither have I”, News, last week) was excellent as always, but I cannot accept his comment that “it was not the euro which caused the Greek crisis — it merely greatly exacerbated it”. Without the euro, Greece’s borrowing costs would have gone through the roof long before it had borrowed 10% of what it actually did.
Richard Fulford, London W8

Complaints about inaccuracies in stories in all sections of The Sunday Times, including online, should be addressed to editor@sunday-times.co.uk or The Editor, The Sunday Times, 3 Thomas More Square, London E98 1ST. In addition, the Press Complaints Commission (complaints@pcc.org.uk or 020 7831 0022) examines formal complaints about the editorial content of UK newspapers and magazines (and their websites).

Letters should arrive by midday Thursday and include the full address and a daytime and an evening telephone number. Please quote date, section and page number. We may edit letters, which must be exclusive to The Sunday Times.

Send your letters to: The Sunday Times, 3 Thomas More Square, E98 1ST
email letters@sunday-times.co.uk
Fax 020 7782 5454