There is another side to Ciaran Thapar’s article (What kind of society uses the lyrics of a song to jail you?, 31 January). Experts such as Mr Thapar are asked by the defence to comment on drill lyrics as part of a case – and asked to provide an opinion on their meanings and the artistic expression common in that genre of music. In the vast majority of proceedings, he would not have access to the other evidence in the case beyond the prosecution’s opening statement. He would be unable, therefore, to see the drill lyrics in the context of the case as a whole.
Mr Thapar alleges an unfairness that simply does not exist. The reality is that once the police become aware of an alleged offence, they investigate and pass the evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service. The CPS then must consider whether there is a realistic prospect of conviction and whether it is in the public interest to prosecute. A person would never be charged on the basis of drill lyrics alone. There would always be other evidence, whether that be CCTV, communications data, DNA or eyewitness evidence. Drill lyrics, which are often confessional, merely support other evidence in the case.
There are strict safeguards on whether the jury is allowed to hear drill evidence. Witnesses such as Mr Thapar can give their evidence on how the subject matter should not be taken literally. Conversely, the police only interpret the lyrics, they never give evidence on how they should be taken literally. I’m sure most readers would agree that if there was evidence against someone suggesting that they had committed a serious violent offence that they now denied, a jury should be able to hear that they have written and sung about that very offence in its aftermath.
Sam Trefgarne
Criminal barrister, London
