Youth Offending Team

In January I dealt with a 17-year-old girl who had been arrested for something she hadn't done but then proceeded to write her name several times on the cell walls in pencil.  Her mother attended, told her off and offered to make her rub off the pencil marks.  The original reason for her arrest was dropped by the police but she was charged with criminal damage as the Youth Offending Team (YOT) would not authorise a reprimand.

In December 2010, a colleague asked the YOT to review this again with a view to giving a warning or reprimand as it seemed like over-kill to give somebody who had never been in contact with the police let alone the courts a criminal record for such a minor offence.

Unfortunately, the YOT didn't seem to want to do anything.  So, when I went back in January it was adjourned again to give them some more time.  I've just looked at the file.  It was finally resolved at the end of February after five adjournments for the YOT to make a decision!  At the final hearing they still hadn't made up their minds but the client entered a guilty plea and received an absolute discharge - which is the lowest "sentence" a court can impose and means that the case is over and the court recognises that the defendant does not deserve punishment for the offence!

A reprimand could have been issued in December, to all intents and purposes it would have been the same thing as an absolute discharge but would have saved the lawyers fees on both the defence and prosecution sides as well as a lot of court time (six hearings in total) as well as the time of the police and others.

Given that this is how that particular YOT office handle a kid who isn't a real trouble-maker I think it's no surprise that you see the same kids in that court week-in, week-out.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Are items referred to in s.9’s as exhibits bound to be served?

  Background - CPS served a witness statement on me that exhibited two BWV clips that are potentially relevant to the Crown’s case and may have some relevance to the defence case insofar as they are likely to show the lighting and weather at the time events happened. Somebody has listed the clips as unused material rather than putting them in the exhibits folder that accompanies the served evidence. This raised an interesting (to me anyway) question about whether a party who exhibits an item in a statement is bound to serve it on their opponent. At court the judge took the view that the Crown were at liberty to classify items exhibited in s9s as unused material if they chose not to rely upon them in evidence. I took the view that if they are exhibited then they must be served along with the witness statement that exhibits the item and that the solution to a situation where the Crown say they are now unused is to edit the witness statement to remove the reference, by agreement with the
More gibberish >>

Driving without insurance

Image
Insurance is a contract that remains in force until it expires or is cancelled As you may, or may not, know I specialise in motoring law and most of my work involves defending people accused of drink driving . With the drink driving often come other road traffic offences such as driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. It’s driving without insurance I want to talk about today because I think far too many police officers, solicitors, barristers and judges miss a key legal point when looking at these cases. I’ve received prosecution papers today for somebody accused of driving while disqualified and driving without insurance. The no insurance element is claim that the suspect did not tell the insurer about the disqualification. In his statement, the police officers says, “ [I] contacted [the insurer] who called me back informing me they would not consider the insurance policy valid as there were no convictions disclosed.” Looks like an open an
More gibberish >>

National Identity Cards

Image
A mock up of a British National Identity Card Following the Second World War, Britain called for help from the people of the Commonwealth to come and fill thousands of job vacancies. Many answered the call and came to be known as the Windrush Generation after named the MV Empire Windrush, which docked in Tilbury on the 22 nd June 1948 bringing the first workers from Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago. The Home Office inevitably screwed up and caused a huge number of problems for members of the Windrush Generation. But their story is not the subject of this blog. Instead, I want to look at a side issue that has raised its weary head once again: ID cards. Alan Johnson and Charles Clarke, both former Home Secretaries, have begun a call for ID cards as the solution to the troubles of undocumented British citizens who have not had their status regularised. ID cards pop up every few years and I’ve no doubt that eventually we’ll have a compulsory piece of plastic foisted upon us that
More gibberish >>