Musings and Snippets from a recently retired JP. I served for 31 years, mostly in west London. I was Chairman of my Bench for some years, and a member of the National Bench Chairmen's Forum All cases are based on real ones, but anonymised and composited. All opinions are those of one or more individuals. JPs swear to enforce the law of the land, whether or not they approve of it. Nothing on here constitutes legal advice.
Wednesday, July 17, 2013
Talking Of Chiefs
I was interested to see that former Chief Magistrate Tim Workman was brought in to sit on the case of Ray Wilkins. Looking at Wilkins' previous there are those who would consider him fortunate to have gone home that night.
It always amazes me that everyone thinks they can get off drink-driving.It must have the tightest procedures of any arrest I make.The old line- "the policemans radio made me blow over" is a classic and I honestly have been told by someone that I can't arrest him as I wasn't wearing my hat! Jaded
"Wasn't wearing my hat" I think that is probably a reference to an old requirement that only a constable in uniform may cause a vehicle to stop. The absence of uniform headwear was, I believe, ruled as not being in uniform. The origins may go back to the days of the foot pad or highway robber. Only a uniformed constable could cause a vehicle to stop - anyone else was probably going to rob you!
Anyway, I am somewhat surprised and not a little dismayed that Mr Wilkins is not spending a little reflective time in chokey. He clearly has contempt for the law and the safety of his fellow citizens.
The golden rule is not to comment if you weren't there for the whole trial and haen't heard the advice from the legal advisor, especially if it was a 3-day trial (!) and especially especially if you are basing your comments on something you've read in the Sun. However. There are traffic benches before whom this would have been an outcome only a fanciful person would think possible. I always liked Ray as a football pundit, but as a human being . . .
And yet again the old chestnut, but why oh why was it thought necessary to bring in Tim Workman? A bench of 3 JPs would be perfectly capable of bringing in a fair verdict on a has been ex footballer.
A case that looks so straightforward on the face of it, but that involves three days of legal argument case managed by the man who together with John Thornhill of the MA invented the Stop Delaying Justice initiative, is one that has all the characteristics of the sort of case that ought properly be assigned to a DJ(MC) - ideally sitting with two lay justices to meet the Magna Carta requirement of "judgment by one's peers" and to satisfy the requirements of an ECHR complaint "fair trial" - according to the Venne criteria. This seems to have nothing to do with (almost vanished) "celebrity" and everything to do with effective use of court time. Kate Caveat
That may be something of a myth. It is common in the family proceedings court, where sittings of up to five days are routinely rota'ed to lay benches. Under the constraints of the new single family court, this may well become an even more regular occurrence.
He is the worst football pundit I have ever heard. He commentated on a Chelsea match once on TV and didn't mention the other side once! It was like sitting in the home stands at Chelsea.
Tim Workman is an excellent DJ but, in my view, trials in a Magistrates' Court should always be heard by three JPs rather than one person, This may have been an easy decision but many are not.
I like the idea of all trials being by a bench, where appropriate chaired by a DJ. They would benefit from the practice in facilitating a decision too.
I think if it became the practice that all trials were chaired by a DJ I'd go and find something else to do instead.
I have nothing to say about his football skills, but I was watching a game he was playing in. The ball went over the side line for a throw in to England. The ballboy picked the ball up and Ray Wilkins ran over to the ballboy and you could hear him plainly say GIVE ME THE FUCKING BALL.I do not think he is a nice man. John Gibson
In the light of such damning evidence, why plead not guilty? Would he have been given a lesser sentence had he admitted it from the start? The costs to him for hiring a defence brief must have been horrendous.
The cynic in me is tempted to reply that his brief, however expensive, earned every penny of his or her fee, to judge by the outcome. A good lawyer, who knows his/her stuff (as they tend to), can and does make a difference. I'd never consider defending myself, especially not when prison is on the cards.
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.
Honest guv, it was just a glass of wine...
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flickr.com/photos/victius/4612147559/
Is there a way to put a thumbnail image in the comments, rather than just a link. It's so much easier.
DeleteIt always amazes me that everyone thinks they can get off drink-driving.It must have the tightest procedures of any arrest I make.The old line- "the policemans radio made me blow over" is a classic and I honestly have been told by someone that I can't arrest him as I wasn't wearing my hat!
ReplyDeleteJaded
"Wasn't wearing my hat"
ReplyDeleteI think that is probably a reference to an old requirement that only a constable in uniform may cause a vehicle to stop. The absence of uniform headwear was, I believe, ruled as not being in uniform. The origins may go back to the days of the foot pad or highway robber. Only a uniformed constable could cause a vehicle to stop - anyone else was probably going to rob you!
Anyway, I am somewhat surprised and not a little dismayed that Mr Wilkins is not spending a little reflective time in chokey. He clearly has contempt for the law and the safety of his fellow citizens.
My recollection was that the appeal court had ruled that knocking the helmet off a policemen did *not* stop him being "a constable in uniform".
DeleteThe golden rule is not to comment if you weren't there for the whole trial and haen't heard the advice from the legal advisor, especially if it was a 3-day trial (!) and especially especially if you are basing your comments on something you've read in the Sun. However. There are traffic benches before whom this would have been an outcome only a fanciful person would think possible. I always liked Ray as a football pundit, but as a human being . . .
ReplyDeleteAnd yet again the old chestnut, but why oh why was it thought necessary to bring in Tim Workman? A bench of 3 JPs would be perfectly capable of bringing in a fair verdict on a has been ex footballer.
ReplyDeleteA case that looks so straightforward on the face of it, but that involves three days of legal argument case managed by the man who together with John Thornhill of the MA invented the Stop Delaying Justice initiative, is one that has all the characteristics of the sort of case that ought properly be assigned to a DJ(MC) - ideally sitting with two lay justices to meet the Magna Carta requirement of "judgment by one's peers" and to satisfy the requirements of an ECHR complaint "fair trial" - according to the Venne criteria. This seems to have nothing to do with (almost vanished) "celebrity" and everything to do with effective use of court time.
DeleteKate Caveat
It's not always easy to find a bench to sit for 3 days.
DeleteThat may be something of a myth. It is common in the family proceedings court, where sittings of up to five days are routinely rota'ed to lay benches. Under the constraints of the new single family court, this may well become an even more regular occurrence.
DeleteFor 'complaint', please read 'compliant'!
DeleteKate Caveat
Motvg- good point. I hadn't considered that.
DeleteHe is the worst football pundit I have ever heard. He commentated on a Chelsea match once on TV and didn't mention the other side once! It was like sitting in the home stands at Chelsea.
ReplyDeleteTim Workman is an excellent DJ but, in my view, trials in a Magistrates' Court should always be heard by three JPs rather than one person, This may have been an easy decision but many are not.
ReplyDeleteA quite recently issued document includes the possibility of DJ(MC) sitting with justices. Far more such benches could be convened.
ReplyDeleteWilkins was indeed lucky to 'walk'. We may not know all the detail so let's be careful.
I like the idea of all trials being by a bench, where appropriate chaired by a DJ. They would benefit from the practice in facilitating a decision too.
DeleteI think if it became the practice that all trials were chaired by a DJ I'd go and find something else to do instead.
I have nothing to say about his football skills, but I was watching a game he was playing in. The ball went over the side line for a throw in to England. The ballboy picked the ball up and Ray Wilkins ran over to the ballboy and you could hear him plainly say GIVE ME THE FUCKING BALL.I do not think he is a nice man.
ReplyDeleteJohn Gibson
In the light of such damning evidence, why plead not guilty?
ReplyDeleteWould he have been given a lesser sentence had he admitted it from the start?
The costs to him for hiring a defence brief must have been horrendous.
The cynic in me is tempted to reply that his brief, however expensive, earned every penny of his or her fee, to judge by the outcome. A good lawyer, who knows his/her stuff (as they tend to), can and does make a difference. I'd never consider defending myself, especially not when prison is on the cards.
DeleteIf he had been in my court he would have been enjoying the hospitality of Her Majesty for a spell.
ReplyDelete