Together Gibraltar has not wanted to comment on this issue before it has had the  chance to reflect on it in depth. The public outcry, on social media and in  conversation with people on the street, is significant and highly emotionally charged.  It is important that politicians do not undermine public faith in the judiciary by  appearing to call into question their decisions, particularly when it is not open to  judges to defend themselves. 

While TG understands the outpouring of anger, upset and confusion at the outcome  of this case, it also notes that much of this anger appears to be misdirected at the  judges involved. Judges do not make our laws, they simply give effect to them. If we  are angry that a sentence is too lenient, that is not the fault of the judge that hands  down the sentence but of the government that has not revised sentencing laws. If we  are upset that our laws do not do enough to protect our women from violent crime,  that is not down to the judiciary but to the executive. For this reason, TG has been  reluctant to join in with general denouncements of the “justice system” due to a  concern that its comments will be misinterpreted as a populist attempt to echo the  public’s outrage or, worse still, further undermine public faith in the judiciary. 

While there are clear issues of concern on how this case has been handled, TG feels  it is important that politicians practice a responsible style of politics when  commenting on such sensitive issues. 

The specific concern of Together Gibraltar, and of many Gibraltarian citizens, relates  to how there can be such a glaring discrepancy between the DPP’s assertion that the  Crown’s willingness to accept a guilty plea to the reduced charge of manslaughter  was based on the wishes of Mrs Lishman’s family whereas, all the while, Mrs  Lishman’s family have maintained that this is entirely untrue. 

During the first trial of Mr Lishman, in which he was found guilty of murder and  sentenced to 18 years in prison, the DPP argued that there was no evidence that  supported the contention that Mr Lishman had lost self-control and that, therefore,  this partial defence to murder should not be available to him. The Judge in that trial  agreed with him and therefore did not direct the jury to consider this issue in their  deliberations. 

Mr Lishman’s legal team appealed the verdict and the sentence, and the Court of  Appeal went on to find that the Judge in Mr Lishman’s trial had made a mistake and  should have directed the jury to consider the partial defence of loss of self-control,  however unlikely he thought it would be that they might find that this loss of self control had indeed taken place. A retrial was ordered on this basis. However, this did  not mean that it was a given that Mr Lishman’s lawyers would be successful in  convincing the jury that he had indeed lost self-control when he stabbed Mrs  Lishman to death and that, therefore, he was guilty of manslaughter rather than  murder. 

In fact, given the Judge’s findings during the trial, one would imagine that the  evidence strongly pointed to there not having been a loss of self-control on the part  of Mr Lishman. This had certainly been the prosecution’s view at the time. 

What, then, led the prosecution to accept a guilty plea to the charge of manslaughter,  reducing the time Mr Lishman will have to spend in prison to a third of what he was  originally sentenced to serve? How is justice served if the same prosecution who  once fought passionately for a man to be found guilty of murder is suddenly satisfied  to charge him with manslaughter? How is it that the DPP claims that he was acting in  conjunction with the expressed wishes of the family, and the family claim that this  was never a wish that they had expressed? These are the questions that the  Gibraltarian public, and Mrs Lishman’s family and friends, deserve answers to. 

Together Gibraltar therefore welcomes the Attorney General’s announcement that  the complaint filed by Mrs Lishman’s family with the Admissions and Disciplinary  Committee will be dealt with and hopes that full details of any findings are shared  with the public. 

Similarly, TG expects that the full reasoning behind the Attorney General’s own  assessment that he was “satisfied” that the actions of the DPP in this matter were  entirely proper will also be shared with the public, including the advice provided by a  “leading English criminal practitioner” which led the investigation to conclude that the  allegations that the DPP had acted improperly were “unfounded”. 

Finally, TG hopes that the Government of Gibraltar is willing to look at what steps it  can take to ensure that victims of domestic violence are protected.