Wednesday, June 26, 2013

Satisfying

A few weeks ago I volunteered to chair a two-day trial. Now that will usually mean a case that dies on its feet sometime on the first morning, leaving us either to slink off home or spend the remaining day and a half dealing with work from other courtrooms. Not this time: we got off to a clean start not much after ten, the witnesses were all present, the interpreter there ready to go, and the prosecutor seemed to have all his ducks in a row. for once.  The defence lawyer was of decent calibre too, as he was being paid by the defendant's employers, a large company.

The charge was a not-too-serious assault matter, but a conviction might have had devastating consequences for the defendant by putting a decent job at risk.

Following recently introduced procedures, we applied a strict timetable to the case, allowing (say) 15 minutes per witness' evidence in chief and then another 15 minutes for cross-examination. This worked remarkably well.

As in so many assault cases, the evidence came down to one person's word against another, and although there were several witnesses, colleagues of both victim and accused, there was no reliable corroborated evidence one way or the other, so after going through the evidence we were each convinced that a doubt remained in our minds.

I wrote out our reasons and we went in to deliver the verdict. That is always a tense and dramatic moment, and when I got to the words "we find you not guilty" there was a palpable gasp of relief from the supporters of the defendant, and then hugs and handshakes all round. As the bench filed out, the defendant mouthed "thank you" in our direction.

Not the most momentous case, but desperately important to the person in the dock. We had the satisfaction of feeling that we had done justice, and that makes all the time that we regularly waste seem worthwhile.

13 comments:

  1. Justice is all that is asked and when given brings satisfaction (except to a loser of course). The public image is that 'justice' especially in sentencing is not being done, especially to the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bowstreetrunner27 June 2013 at 14:10

    That's what it's all about JUSTICE palin and simple. It's a pity the concept is often lost on politicians

    ReplyDelete
  3. Shouldn't the CPS have noticed there was insufficient evidence before moving the matter to court?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The CPS applies a judgement of probability of conviction - if it appears better than 50% then they go ahead.

      Delete
    2. No! Just because someone wasn't proven guilty doesn't mean it was a waste of time. The CPS ( and the police) should be putting cases before a ` competent legal authority' whenever there is a realistic prospect of a conviction. My personal opinion is that too many jobs are binned for the slightest imperfection instead of letting a court decide.

      Bill

      Delete
    3. If there was no reliable corroborated evidence either way, mustn't the probability of conviction have been close to zero?
      I suppose the answer to that must be that the CPS saw some of the evidence as reliable while the bench did not.

      Delete
    4. If the CPS were to lose in, say, 90% of trials there would rightly be an outcry of wasting public money on no hope cases. That's where the 50% rule comes in.
      However the CPS does proceed in cases of sexual offences where they judge the likelihood of conviction to be much lower than 50% because it is seen to be in the public interest. Hence the low conviction rate for rape and the tabloid protests about "Rapists getting away with it."

      Delete
    5. Sometimes there appears to be evidence from witness statements but under cross examination the credibility or reliability of the witnesses is reduced. Occasionally that happens after you have decided not to cite particular witnesses who may perhaps have added corroboration (but trials could take weeks if you used everything you could, and you would be citing witnesses who on paper before hand you don't need). Or sometimes the witness uses different words during evidence which are interpreted differently or even mean you don't call a witness who has appeared. I've also seen cases where there was never really any doubt that a crime took place, but the "victim" and his "supporters" are so keen to emphasise their version of events that it gets exaggerated and the evidence is no longer credible. It is difficult to second guess which way some cases will go depending on the particular nature of the witnesses. And then you never know till the day whether the defence will call the accused, which can have a significant effect either on suddenly landing themselves in it or turning a case from looking like guilty to reasonable doubt.

      I understand why it may be satisfying to see 'good people' who might suffer disproportionate disadvantage go free, but it may not be 'justice' that someone with less backing might not in the same situation. I certainly know which local defence lawyers I would want acting for me, and which I wouldn't!

      Delete
    6. The plain fact is that the prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. If, for whatever reason, the prosecution does not succeed in doing this, then the defendant should very properly be acquitted. What onlookers and the press often fail to appreciate is that a criminal trial is not an inquiry designed to establish the truth of the matter. It is not a question of 'Did he/she do it, or not?' The question for the jury (or the magistrates) is - 'Has the prosecution proved their case beyond reasonable doubt?' It is upon the answer to that question that a Guilty or Not Guilty verdict depends.

      Delete
  4. Italian Lawyer28 June 2013 at 15:15

    I can never make myself look up to the judge's face, at that dramatic and tense moment. I make a show of bending to write down the decision as it is read out, but these notes are hardly ever legible.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My notes are never legible whatever the occasion. I used to work in the public sector and FoI held no fears for me. If I couldn't read them, no other person could either.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps you could take a leaf out of Ilda Boccassini's book and go on holiday before the verdict is given :)

      Delete
  5. Hmm, yes, it was probably quite important to the victim of the assault as well. Certainly important enough for him or her to turn up to court (which they rarely do, in my experience). What did he or she think about the verdict ?

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.