Skip to main content

Justice does NOT move quickly

At the start of the year, I dealt with a client who was accused of an affray.  The case was considered too serious for the magistrates so the bench directed that it be committed for trial at the Crown Court.  The defendant was remanded in custody for his own protection (he was considered to be at high risk of self-harm).

For reasons known only to the CPS, they took the view that as the allegation was so serious they would reduce the charge to common assault thus reducing the maximum possible sentence and meaning that the case could now only be heard in the magistrates' court.  A trial date was set for the end of February.

Yesterday the case came before the court.  By now the client had been assessed by two psychiatrists and deemed to have no mental health problems.  Having calmed down a lot in three weeks since I last saw him he no longer appeared to be at risk of self-harm and was hoping to be released to await trial.

The judge spoke to the list office and we were offered a trial this morning - that is to say yesterday morning the court scheduled a trial to take place this morning so 24-hours later.  The prosecution were asked to confirm that they could proceed with 24-hours notice and they said that there would be no problems with such short notice.

This morning one of my colleagues arrived to conduct the trial only to find the CPS now complaining about the short notice.  Despite their assurances yesterday that they could definately go ahead, this morning they complain that 24-hours is insufficient time to get witnesses to travel the half-mile to court for a trial that will take less than 2-hours from start to finish - the key prosecution witness would probably be giving evidence for between 20 - 30 minutes, so would probably have been released by 10.45am at the latest.

Because of this the trial didn't go ahead and the defendant was again remanded into custody; I have to say I think incorrectly.

The sad truth is that once the case is over the defendant will be released immediately regardless of whether he is convicted or acquitted because of the time that has already been served!

Even when we try to move quickly things rarely work out.

Comments

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…