Skip to main content

Go through with your threats

I was court duty today.  I was sat in court minding my own business when I heard the judge mention my name.  I hadn't been listening since I wasn't involved in the case and I'd decided to actually read at least one copy of the Guardian, which I subscribed to on a whim about a month ago and haven't accessed since.

Anyway, I somehow feel that I may be straying from the point.

Turned out that the judge was trying to fathom why the defendant hadn't attended either of his appointments with probation for a pre-sentence report to be prepared and she was asking me to speak to him.  The judge made it clear to the defendant that unless he could explain why he failed to attend to the appointments satisfactorily she would remand him in custody to allow the report to be prepared.

I took him outside and tried to explain the seriousness of the situation; however, he continually told me that he missed the appointments because a close relative went into hospital a week ago.  I asked how that could possibly be relevant since the missed appointments were long before the hospitalisation.  He tried to avoid the point by constantly talking about irrelevant things and claiming that he didn't understand etc etc.  It's worth noting that during the period he'd been unable to comply he'd managed to continue running his own business without a problem, so there's a limit to how far I can believe that all the problems he talked about really prevented him attending a one hour meeting.  The man refused to engage with me and ultimately there was nothing I could do to help him.

Back in court, the judge seemed to have forgotten all about what she had said before and released the defendant for a third probation appointment.

What happened to the threat of immediate imprisonment unless he explained himself?  I do think that defendants and toddlers have some similarities in that if a judge or a parent threatens a consequence if their orders are not obeyed then they should be ready to go through with their threat or risk losing the power of their threat.  If defendants know that they can openly disobey court orders with impunity then why would anybody bother complying?

Comments

  1. I quite agree. I often remind people who fail to attend for interview that :"reports impracticable on bail" is a valid reason for a remand I/C. And when the time comes. I will do it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I frequently [with the authority of my colleagues of course] put a compliance with probation condition on post conviction bail when a PSR is requested thus effectively increasing the deterrent effect.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Alas it is disappointing to see that the lack of follow through is not limited to parents that feel they should love their kids through it all or don't want to bother. I had hoped that this particular lapse was not expanding in this fashion.

    If you do not follow through with the threat once uttered, next time you can talk yourself blue in the face, they will naturally assume it will just be this episode repeated.

    Mores the pity, as then your into escalating consequences, because you have just cancelled out the power of just threatening next time.

    I fully realize people are busy, however, in the long run your going to be even further behind as next time, a mere talking to, will just be wasting your breath. Pity.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The arrogance of lawyers and judiciary may predispose them to the curse of some brain destroying virus yet to be isolated.
    MTG

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks Anon. At least us arrogant lawyers have the bottle to say what we think in public. Got a problem? Then stick your real name on your insults... coward.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well no need to worry soon we won't be arresting people committing crimes we will be too busy helping G4S share holders make profits.

    Winsor the independent review of the police services.

    So independent that Tom Winsor will be appointed the head of the HMIC.

    So independent that Winsor recommends privatising the police service.

    So independent that his law firm helped G4S acquire the pilot of privatised policing in Linconshire.

    Low and behold modern policing, the private security firms first. Profits before public service.

    By all means modernize our pay I like all the recommendations about our pay cinditions.

    But for the love of god keep policing public not private.

    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…