A DORSET father whose son was killed by two local teenagers has welcomed government proposals to allow the families of murder and manslaughter victims to make a hard-hitting impact statement in court.

John Berry, whose son, Dave, died after being thrown into the River Stour at Sturminster Newton by two teenagers, believes that if he had been given this right during the trial last year, it may have resulted in far stiffer sentences than the eight and 18 months given to the two 17-year-olds who hurled his son from the Colber Bridge.

"I did make a request to the judge to be able to say something in court but it was refused," he says. "I asked if I could speak to the judge but they said no. I asked if I could just show a picture to the jury of Dave but they wouldn't allow that, either. And then they handed out these joke sentences.

"You have no voice in court at all; at the moment in British law, the criminals have all the rights."

Experiences like Mr Berry's were one of the crucial factors in persuading Constitutional Affairs Minister Harriet Harman to announce the law change. She said: "I was very struck by the sense among bereaved relatives that they were completely excluded from the system.

"It seemed to me an incredible paradox that the people for whom the case matters most are silent in court."

She said the scheme - which will allow victims' families to address the judge following a conviction - would be piloted in five areas and it would be monitored closely to see how it worked and how many relatives choose to take up their new right.

However, she did not believe it would introduce unwelcome influence into the judicial process, saying that if it meant judges could have a better understanding of crime on a family, "it could only be a good thing".

The proposals were described as "long overdue" by Dorset Victims' Support. Area manager Barry Shorto said: "We support this overwhelmingly because families tell us they feel distanced from the court process and they are extremely concerned that they don't really get a chance to make their feelings known."

He said the victim's family needed to have a part in the court process because "to put it crudely, they need to have their day in court. It's a chance for them to feel part of the process and for some, this will play a part in their recovery and ability to move on."

His views were echoed by spokesman for the Bournemouth and District Law Society, Alan Turle, who has worked as both a prosecutor and a defence solicitor in court. "My own opinion is that it's an extremely bold and innovative move," he said. "I think it's entirely right that the family members of a victim of murder or manslaughter should have the opportunity to make their feelings known to the court before sentencing begins."

He also did not believe it would have an undue or unwelcome influence on judges because, he said, they already receive written victim impact statements and he pointed out that if a defendant's team considered a tariff unduly harsh, they could take their complaint to the Court of Appeal.

OPINION

By Faith Eckersall

AT LAST - someone has decided to do the decent thing and allow the families of murder and manslaughter victims to be able to tell the world about the terrible effect the killing has had on them where it counts - in court.

Allowing the bereaved to speak, to try and get across in their own words the magnitude of what has happened to them is the giant missing piece in the judicial jigsaw. And it's way, way overdue.

Court cases can be a rough old business at any time. Sly barristers, eager to get their client off the rap, will often grasp at any detail they can to try and blacken a victim's name.

I've lost count of the calls I've received at this newspaper from people, bewildered and incandescent over what's been said in court about them or a relative who was the victim or witness to a crime. How much worse would that be if they were talking about your dead husband, your mum or your child?

Allowing families to make an impact statement in the face of the court will allow them to paint a true and vivid picture of all that they have lost.

For parents especially, who will inevitably be consumed with guilt for not protecting their child against his killer, it will give them the chance to finally stick up for them.

Certainly some of these poor people will take the stand and be unable to speak. Some will simply cry and cry and cry. But what's wrong with that? Those who criticise claim that the process will unfairly favour the articulate. They say it will introduce "unwelcome" emotion into the process.

But nothing speaks louder than genuine grief, that most human of emotions. And anything which brings more humanity into the justice system can only be a good thing.

First published: September 2, 2005