A man accused of domestic violence comes up into the secure dock - the one with the armoured glass. As the basic formalities take place, I wonder where I have seen him before. Then it clicks; he was in the same seat three weeks ago charged with aggressive and threatening behaviour towards a bus conductor, whom he addressed as a 'Paki cunt'.
He is a solidly built man, with the lowering eyebrows that he has in common with his numerous cousins. On this occasion he has allegedly assaulted his wife. Any magistrate will recognise the weary familiarity of the Crown's case summary. This is the twenty-somethingth time that the police have been called to the home that he shares with his wife and children, but on every single occasion she has withdrawn her complaint, as she is doing now. But enough is enough, and the CPS are going ahead with what they have got, and apply for a witness summons for the wife, together with Special Measures (such as screens) to minimise her stress in court.
We carefully consider his bail application, but we cannot avoid the conclusion that he can't be trusted not to intimidate his wife or reoffend against someone else, so I tell him that we are refusing bail until the trial (he has of course gone not-guilty). I am half expecting a reaction, but instead he sits in the dock snivelling like a child. I tell the usher to pass some tissues into the dock before we dismiss our man downstairs.
As he shuffles off to the steel staircase, one of my colleagues whispers "not so tough now, is he?"
Talking with a PC a while past it's the same with these teens in their little 'gangs'. They're all bravado in front of their mates, but get them back to the station where they're split up and they're crying for mummy.
ReplyDeleteYet another example of someone with an 'anger management' problem.
ReplyDeleteBut what can you do with them? (Frontal lobotomy or compulsory doses of vallium are not practicable options.)
I don't know whether I am alone in feeling somewhat uneasy at the hint of biological determinism or anthropological criminology à la Cesare Lombroso given by the description of lowering eyebrows shared with this man's cousins. Bystander should be very careful indeed to avoid any suggestion that he aligns himself with discredited notions of the "born criminal" being identifiable by his facial and other physical characteristics.
ReplyDeleteKate Caveat
Sounds of jerking knee and halo burnishing? The face our man has now is a meld of what he was born with and how he habitually uses it. If that use tends towards a scowl rather than a smile the face will sooner or later set in menacing lines. But assume that a harsh face means he done it? No mag worth his salt should fall into that trap: after all the accused might just have been born with it.
DeleteOf course
DeleteThere’s no art
To find the mind’s construction in the face
and I, along with my colleagues, reach my conclusions based on evidence and structured reasoning. My piece was observational, but it is fair to say that this particular man comes from a very large family, many members of which are habitual offenders, and who share strong similarities of physiognomy.
I doubt his name really was Duncan!
Deleteflat brow and eyebros that meet in the middle
ReplyDeleteYou're right Kate, but admit that the image projected by Bystander is one that any of us might recognise!
ReplyDeleteFrom Me 2 EU
I suspect that this breakdown also happens at Crown Court too.
ReplyDeleteBut he is a good actor who can frame his face to all occaisions. Cowardly and not defiant for the magistrate.
ReplyDeleteAnd sometime nice and sometime nasty to others as he thinks fit.
So far quite succesful too.
He to will live to frown another day.
I had someone givng the contrite, its all a mistake , floods of tears act up before me the other day. Conditional bail was granted just before the lunch break. As I strolled up the main street to my horror the Defenant was F***ing and blinding at tw o lady police officers in a very disgusting way. He clearly had recovered from the stressful court appearance.
ReplyDeleteWere the provisions of LASPO 2012 Schedule 11 considered in reaching the bail decision ?
ReplyDeleteA defendant may not be remanded to custody "if it appears to the justice of the peace that there is no real prospect that the person will be sentenced to a custodial sentence in the proceedings."
Of course. Even if we had overlooked LASPO our legal adviser would have picked it up.
DeleteOf course they were, otherwise Bystander's wingers would have called him to order, the legal adviser would have publicly checked that the bench had duly considered this element, and his defence would have appealed instantly.
DeleteThere is an exception to the "real prospect of custody" clause in LASPO whereby bail can be refused in Domestic Violence cases "if there is the likelihood of physical or mental injury or fear of injury to an associated person"
ReplyDelete1. If she turns up, she turns up. If not? If the witness summons has been served by the Met, that is the end of the road. They have stopped offering conduct money (I think because of the cost of accounting for small amounts of cash) which means that if the witness does not show there is nothing to be done about it. Straight from the You Couldn't Make It Up Department.
ReplyDelete2. Don't kid yourself that banging him up protects the complainant. His cousins are at liberty - and the very fact that he is banged up would make it difficult to establish that any contact they made was on his behalf, not all their own work. In any event even if he gets immediate custody he will have served most or all of it and be out in short order, with (as he will see it) an account to settle.
3. But watch the special measures. I once sat on a d.v. (in a courthouse with no video) where the prosecutor submitted that even to be in the same courtroom as the defendant would be too much for the complainant and could we please pack him off to the cells while she gave evidence? No we could not, he had the right as well as the duty to be at his trial, and that meant in court. She refused to budge, there was no application to read her statement (which would probably have failed) and the prosecutor offered no evidence. I thought we were right then and I think we were right now.
Are there still courts that have no facility for video-links? Not been in one in ages. Assuming that the application for special measures was made in good time, wouldn't it have been appropriate to adjourn the case to a court with the necessary facilities?
DeleteThe court in question has since closed. It was small and ill-equipped - I could not get enthusiastic about the attempts to save it, although of course closing it was a blow to local justice.
DeleteMy recollection is that a previous bench had directed "screens" - which meant a curtain in front of the witness-box blocking eye-contact between the witness and the defendant. We did not think of adjourning - interests of justice and all that - and took the view that he had the right to be there unless he misbehaved, and just being in the dock unable to see the witness could not constitute misbehaviour. Apart from anything else, his counsel might want to take brief instructions after examination in chief and before cross-examination, which the defendant could not give unless he had heard the evidence.
Perhaps after all this case was just another proof that the criminal law does not have all the answers. He could not be convicted without her evidence; she could not give evidence in his presence; he could not be denied his presence in court.
Ppleased to see a real case with issues surroundng it rather than the usual stuff of late..
ReplyDelete10/10
"not so tough now" would this not cause a mis trial?
ReplyDeleteNo, this was purely a decision on bail. The eventual trial would be before a separate bench.
DeleteThis is indeed getting us back to the sort of post that used to attract people in such numbers to The Magistrate's Blog. Well written and wry aperçus of life in the magistrates' courts, with enough detail to give a true flavour of the sort of case that comes before us, the issues we have to deal with (ail applications, for example, as here), and how justices approach the decision-making process. Throw in some really constructive and informed comments, such as those on the new LASPO provisions (Legal Aid, Sentencing and the Punishment of Offenders Act - such as release on bail unless there is a real prospect of custody, with a slight exception for domestic violence cases), and you have a really readable and useful resource that adds to the public's understanding of the operation of the criminal justice system at its most raw and elementary but endlessly fascinating. Keep up the good work!
ReplyDeleteKate Caveat
"...or reoffend against someone else."
ReplyDelete"re"-offend. Impliedly meaning this offence is already made out. Well, with those "lowering eyebrows" he's bang to rights innit?
Guilty until he 'gets off scott free' as some hacks might put it.
I was on the wrong side of a debate on this blog a few years ago. Some ruffian who everybody (including Bystander) just KNEW was the perp walked free. Bystander interpreted the law - I bayed from the gallery.
ReplyDeleteBystander pointed out that even though we were just SURE that he was our man, the state had to prove that he was - beyond reasonable doubt. The state couldn't meet that burden of proof and - even though he was (in just everybody's opinion) the Wanted Man - the state had to allow him to leave the court with as much innocence (not just a 'bit of innocence' but the total, absolute, irrefutable innocence) he arrive at court with.
With something this important I won't worry about mixing metaphors so, while at first it stuck in my craw it later became a breath of fresh air.
Innocent until proven guilty. Pure. Beautiful. Sacred.
This Team-Bystander poster would do well to scour the archive for that discussion (I sought in vain) and to embrace one of the most precious tenets of anti-totalitarianism in our culture. Innocent. Not just a bit innocent. But totally. Until the state can prove otherwise. Beyond reasonable doubt.