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. Bystander 9 May 2012 at 07:35

    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. The Justice of the Peace10 May 2012 at 13:02

    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. simple lady1 June 2012 at 07:26

    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. Anonymous1 June 2012 at 07:28

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

    ReplyDelete
  5. Defence Brief7 June 2012 at 11:19

    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. Anonymous8 June 2012 at 01:00

    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

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 ...
More gibberish >>

Is there twice as much violent crime in the UK versus the USA?

Image
The tweet from Charlie Kirk I came across a screenshot of a Twitter post while on Facebook this morning. The original post now has 11,000 retweets and 23,000 likes on Twitter. As you can see from the picture somebody called Charlie Kirk, who is a right-wing American commentator, claims that there are 933 violent crimes in the UK per 100,000 people. This is more than double the rate he claims for the USA where he says there are only 399 violent crimes per 100,000 people. The UK doesn’t feel that violent to me, so is it true? We’re all gonna die According to the FBI, in 2016 there were 1,248,185 violent crimes committed across the whole of the USA. That is an increase of 4.1% on the 2015 figure but still represented only 386.3 violent crimes per 100,000 people . So, Mr Kirk appears to be slightly overestimating the violent crime in the USA. I should say that I am using the 2016 figures as those are the latest available on the FBI website, so maybe he has slightly differe...
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 >>