Over the course of the twelve or so months, following James’s murder, we took some very bitter lessons in the realities of our laws from within the criminal justice system, having witnessed the murder investigation, the crown court trial and the appeal of sentence in The Royal Courts of Justice, London. The foremost, is that ‘the system’ does not seek to uncover the truth, it merely takes available evidence gathered during the investigation, debates which bits are admissible in court, and prosecutes against that evidence; but only when the Crown Prosecution Service and their QC believe, that there is a ‘more than fifty percent chance’ of success.

This will always be an impossible pill to swallow, for any bereaved parent, as a result of violent crime, who needs to see that justice has been done for their loved one and to know the truth, above all else. This ‘revelation’ that was previously hidden to us prior to that period of time, appears to be due to a combination of how our laws were originally formulated and have evolved, (or otherwise) over time, as well as a lack of impetus for positive change and what appears to be significant under funding.

It is therefore naive to expect that the truth will be revealed, through prosecution of the law, as things stand. So, how can justice be expected to prevail in the absence of the truth and what, exactly, stands in the way of justice for victims and their families?