Injustice is here


Last year I talked about the coming changes to Defence Costs Orders, which are the Orders made by courts that allow an innocent defendant to claim the cost of his defence back from the authorities who wrongly accused him or her.  These changes are now in force.

At the start of this year I was contacted by a defendant via the London Drink Driving Solicitor website.  He had been accused of failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis but said he was not guilty because he suffers from severe asthma and was physically unable to provide the breath specimen.

I explained the costs and the new Defence Costs Order system, which means that even if acquitted he might not get back all of the money he pays out to defend himself.

Last week he told me that he had decided he could not see the point of fighting and winning only to have to pay out as much as the fine would be if he pleaded guilty.  For him, he couldn't afford the risk of winning and losing his money as well as lost income from time off work for the trial etc. 

He made a financial decision to cut his losses and plead guilty to an offence he said he was innocent of committing.

The overriding objective of the Criminal Procedure Rules and thus the court and everybody involved in the Criminal Justice System includes, "acquitting the innocent and convicting the guilty".  That's the top, number 1 point made in the CrPR.  It is important.  Nowhere that I can find does it say that people should be forced to make financial decisions about whether they falsely admit to being a criminal in order to avoid potentially harsher financial consequences of being found not guilty!

Comments

  1. Smoking Hot4 February 2013 at 12:47

    Finances forced my partner and myself to take the LIP approach. lt meant a great deal of studying online and to learn court procedures we attended court cases. l know this is frowned upon by the legal profession but for ourselves and many others it is the only avenue left open. The LIP approach has been successful for us.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bystander 5 February 2013 at 11:39

    Over the years, little by little, the goalposts have been moved to favour the prosecution over the defence, and the process continues.

    ReplyDelete
  3. jaded7 February 2013 at 21:17

    Did he give blood or was he allergic to needles as well?Did he try and give urine but was worried about the police taking the piss?
    More detail please.Every drink-driver I have ever arrested had asthma.Even the ones that iv'e chased down the street before-hand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Defence Brief11 February 2013 at 21:13

      He says he wasn't given the option of blood or urine.

      Some people are liars and will say anything to get off, but at the same time some people really are asthmatic and can't provide a sample of breath. Which was he? I don't know. All I know is that he chose not to defend himself because of the financial risk of winning. That's what this post is about.

      Delete
  4. Anonymous12 February 2013 at 18:44

    Oh come on DB you know full well he would have been offered blood or urine if he couldn't blow.It's a standard form and the custody Sergeant has to read it our verbatim.
    My custody has full CCTV audio and video so there's no tomfoolery from either side.
    Jaded

    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 >>