Skip to main content

Letting victims down

I spent yesterday conducting the defence in a magistrates' court trial.  This is something of a novelty for me as I rarely venture into mags court trials, although I do a lot of other hearings there.  I just don't like them, they can be very informal and law is often an irrelevancy if you happen to find yourself before an inexperienced bench/advisor.

Yesterdays trial was a long one and, contrary to what I have just said, very heavy on the law.  I have about 6 legal rulings noted in my book given by the magistrates at some point yesterday.  Even though I am contradicting what I said just a moment ago, each one of the legal arguments was complicated but each one of the rulings was detailed, to the point and correct (including the ones I lost).

In the end, I won the trial.  I shouldn't have won though.  At the start of the day the evidence against me was overwhelming, in my opinion.  However, the police and CPS seemed to be conspiring together to let the victims down as much as possible.

At the plea hearing, the CPS indicated they would ask for special measures to make giving evidence easier for the victims because they had said they were afraid of the defendant.  The CPS were also to apply to admit the defendant's bad character. 

Neither was done. 

Yesterday, the court received a message saying the witnesses would not be attending due to their fear of the defendant.  The police had been to take witness statements from the missing witnesses about their fear, which according to the evidence from the officer was mostly based on a claim that the defendant's five-year-old son had said something to the victim's five-year-old son.  I imagine these two normal healthy adults had other concerns but the officer didn't bother to ask about them.

Even though the CPS had known for a long time that neither witness wanted to attend, no effort was made to have their evidence read until the day of trial but which time the application was refused as a) coming far too late; and b) leaving the defendant with no way of putting his case to the witnesses.  Had the CPS bothered to make the special measures applications as they promised then this would have been avoided, they would have given live evidence and I fully expect they would have been believed.

Also, because the CPS didn't bother to make a bad character application, the bench did not hear about his previous convictions for similar offences.

The police who investigated the offence of criminal damage hadn't bothered to take any photographs of the damage or make a note of the damage.  This meant that by the time we got to trial without the missing witnesses the Crown were unable to prove that there was in fact any damage at all!

The officer in the case had attended the scene and taken some photographs, albeit a month after the incident by which time the damage had been repaired.  These photographs would have been very useful to the court, but he decided not to tell anybody about them until after the trial had ended.

The court clerk and I both agreed that it has been a while since either of us have seen a case where the police and CPS have failed so miserably to look out for victims of crime.

Comments

  1. A pity in so many way. There can be no winners here. But you can rest assured this is not untypical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Without wishing to excuse CPS incompetency, are you not an officer of the court?
    Do you nor wish to see justice done?
    Why not have your client tell the truth then?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ed (not Bystander)8 November 2010 at 03:45

    The court isn't on the Crown's side, it's impartial. The advocate for the defendant is there to put the defendant's case. That is what he is instructed that the truth is. "Oi", if you don't like people being acquitted, go to Japan. Or China. Or North Korea.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Oi, as usual my client instructed me that he was telling the truth.

    Contrary to your obvious believe I lack telepathic powers. If I had to guess whether he was guilty or not I would guess guilty, but that is not the same as my knowing it and it's not for me to make the decision until such time as I get called for jury service.

    I wonder, and please do tell us all, how you would feel if you found yourself wrongly accused of an offence; you told your solicitor that X, Y and Z happened and your solicitor replied along the lines of, "now be a good boy and just admit the offence would you.". I'm going to hazard a guess that you wouldn't be impressed at all.

    I have certainly told clients that their stories don't make sense and that they should plead guilty, but I cannot force them to plead and my professional obligations do not allow me to withdraw simply because I do not believe somebody.

    Ed, I have to ask - is Japan particularly well known for convicting people? I'm not being sarcastic, it's a genuine question - I always assumed their system was much like ours.

    ReplyDelete
  5. A little googling gives several hits claiming that the conviction rate in Japan is 99.7% or 99.8%.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Ed (not Bystander)8 November 2010 at 17:05

    TDB, Japan's criminal justice system has a conviction rate of around 99.9%: see article in the Economist. They are just trialling a jury system. I am fairly sure that China actually has a higher acquittal rate. It could hardly be lower.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Ed, Been to China. Lovely place - Lovely people.
    For some reason, I have not made it to Japan - Yet.... and have no burning ambition to go to North Korea.

    I guess they do have points in their favour - Theres not a lot of Johnathon Vass's there committing murder after walking free on bail

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ed (not Bystander)9 November 2010 at 04:41

    "Oi", get back in your box. You can come out when you're interesting and/or informed.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ed and anon, thanks for informing me about Japan. I had no idea their conviction rate was so high.

    Oi, I'm interested what you would do? It's easy to say lock up anyone accused of murder, in fact that's not far off what the Bail Act says for murder cases. But, I think they'll always be cases where bail is justified. For example, if a 50-year-old woman with no previous convictions gives her 88-year-old mother an overdose to kill her because the mother is suffering huge amounts of pain etc., should the daughter be held in custody until her case is decided? I'm not trying to be clever, I'm genuinely interested in what you think about this sort of case.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ched Evans

Before I begin, I will say that at around 4,500 words this is probably the longest blog I’ve ever posted but I think it’s all necessary to set the scene for this case and explain the background that has been largely ignored or airbrushed in the press. Despite its length, I have not attempted to include every little detail of either fact or law but have done my best to provide a balanced picture of the Ched Evans case, what happened and why the courts reached the decisions they did. There has been so much written about the Ched Evans case over the past weekend, much of it based on a very shaky grasp of the facts and law, that I decided I would read up about the case and weigh in (hopefully on a slightly firmer footing than most of the articles I’ve read so far).

Broadly speaking there seem to be three groups who have opinions on the case:
1.Sexual violence groups (including people describing themselves as “radical feminists”) who appear to take the view that the case is awful, the Court o…

How do the police decide whether to charge a suspect?

A question I’m often asked by clients (and in a roundabout way by people arriving at this blog using searches that ask the question in a variety of ways), is “how do the police decide whether to charge or take no further action (NFA)?”
What are the options?
Let’s have a quick think about what options are available to the police at the end of an investigation.
First, they can charge or report you for summons to attend court.  Charging means that you are given police bail and are required to attend court in person.  A summons is an order from the court for you to attend or for you to send a solicitor on your behalf.  In many cases where a person is summonsed, the court will allow you the option of entering a plea by post.
Second, you may be given a caution.  These can be a simple caution, which on the face of it is a warning not to be naughty in future, or it can be a conditional caution.  Conditions could include a requirement to pay for the cost of damage or compensation, etc.  Either…

Bid to prevent defendants knowing who accuses them of a crime

When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences.
The anonymity currently offered to victims of sexual offences is not total, the complainant…