Why I’m cheering on Andrew’s case against the police – and you should too: PETER HITCHENS
Peter Hitchens argues that Prince Andrew's court case against Thames Valley Police merits public support as a challenge to problematic state practices, particularly high-profile dawn raids and arrests that damage presumption of innocence. Despite Andrew's unpopularity, Hitchens contends he is the right person to challenge police tactics that have gone unchecked for years.
Hitchens outlines how protections within the criminal justice system have eroded since 1967: majority verdicts replaced unanimity, younger jurors diluted jury quality, and plea-bargaining pressure effectively pre-judges defendants. He criticises pre-trial publicity—including police raids broadcast to media—which prejudices cases before evidence is heard, comparing such practices to America's "perp walk" tactics.
- Hitchens backs Andrew's case against police as challenge to state overreach
- Criminal justice protections have weakened since 1967
- Pre-trial publicity unfairly prejudges defendants
New here? Start with this
Prince Andrew is suing Thames Valley Police over the way an arrest was conducted. The case examines police tactics, particularly how high-profile arrests and dawn raids are staged and publicised. Peter Hitchens argues the case matters to the broader public because it tests practices that affect how British policing operates.
The criminal justice system has undergone various changes over recent decades. Some protections for defendants have been removed or weakened, from changes to how juries work to alterations in how cases proceed before trial. Additionally, police arrests that are conducted in ways intended to attract media attention can influence how defendants are perceived before evidence is examined in court.
According to Hitchens, when arrests are staged for media purposes, this can prejudice the principle of presumption of innocence. He contends that such police practices have become routine without facing serious accountability, and that Andrew's case could test whether police can be challenged on these grounds.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Hitchens contends that criminal justice protections have systematically eroded—through majority verdicts, plea-bargaining pressure, and pre-trial publicity tactics including broadcasted arrests—undermining presumption of innocence for all defendants. He argues that challenging these practices matters fundamentally on principle: if protections can be suspended for unpopular defendants, they become privileges rather than rights. Andrew's case therefore serves a vital function regardless of his personal unpopularity or the severity of allegations, testing whether fair procedure remains universal or becomes conditional on public approval.
The case against
Defenders of current police practice would argue that dawn raids and media notification serve essential investigative functions—preventing evidence destruction, ensuring officer safety, and reflecting justified transparency—rather than representing arbitrary erosion of protections. They would question whether post-1967 changes constitute meaningful degradation or appropriate modernisation, and contend that procedural reform is best advanced through systemic advocacy rather than championing an unpopular defendant. They might argue that a successful challenge benefiting Andrew would actually undermine public confidence in procedural protections by appearing to prioritise the powerful defendant over victims and public safety.