We sat on a simple little trial the other day. I usually sit in the middle chair, but this was one of my chances to sit as a winger. We heard the crown's case, and its only witness, who was not shaken in cross examination. The unrepresented defendant, a young woman only just old enough to vote, admitted her presence at the scene, and to being upset and angry, but she staunchly denied that her anger was expressed outside the house concerned - so the issue was whether this all happened 'in a public place' . We heard from her, and we retired to think about it. To be frank, we were convinced that she had been in a temper, and that her language was to say the least indelicate, but the case boiled down to whether the incident happened in a public place. Of that we could not be sure to the (very high) criminal standard of proof, so we agreed to acquit her. Did she do it? Probably. Did the prosecution prove it to the required standard? No they did not, so off she went.
Call me an old softy if you must, but I found it satisfying to find a not-very-bright young woman who lives near the bottom of the heap not guilty, despite her not having legal assistance.
Excellent.
ReplyDeleteThe prosecution did not keep their eye on the ball, probably expected it to be a walkover against an unrepresented, and possibly not too well educated, girl.
The prosecution ignored the oldest known fact in law and war. The easiest way to lose a conflict is to underestimate your opponent.
DeleteThis is precisely the sort of post that I used to love in the old Bystander's blog, not the sanitised cop-outs of recent times (viz the question posed about Damian Green's little bit of puffery: What do we think? No! We want to know what BS thinks, otherwise we'd do better to read Frances Gibb in The Times). At his best, BS has an almost Hogarthian ability to sketch out a scene that encapsulates a whole range of issues and realities of "life in the raw" as seen through the lense of the lay magistrate and to draw out a few unexpected strands before weaving them into a neat knot in his unusually compelling (if not always strictly grammatical) brand of English. It is in large measure because he writes so well that I continue to return. But I had begun to despair of the chilling effect of the SPJ's injunction on his willingness to express any sort of personal view. Perhaps he has drawn courage and inspiration from Sir Alan Moses's recent wonderful example of judicial irreverence. Whatever the reason (an extra tumbler of his favourite malt?), I rejoice in it. Welcome back, Bystander!
ReplyDeleteKate Caveat
I agree. Whilst I, without any sarcasm, enjoy reading about varous peoples speeches and gauging readers opionons about this that and the other, I do miss the old 'I was sat on the bench the other day when...' posts, and I hope that the bystander team can write more of these types of posts.
DeleteThis must have been written by the original Bystander, judging by the content. Since this blog became a team there are is more variety of styles and subjects, some worth reading, others not so interesting to the majority of readers.
DeleteBut that makes the writings more diverse and we see the world of the Magistrate through different eyes, all with their own viewpoints and that can only make this more interesting and thought provoking.
Hear Hear !!
DeleteReminds me of another such spirited defense:
ReplyDeleteEliza Doolittle: I ain't done nothin' wrong by speaking to the gentleman. I've a right to sell flowers if I keep off the kerb. I'm a respectable girl: so help me, I never spoke to him 'cept so far as to buy a flower off me.
In my view, from a different perspective, the bottom line is to apply the law as it is, not as any interested person might like it to be, especially in cases where people are unrepresented. If Bystander is able to do that conscientiously, given that we are all fallible, he should be satisfied.
ReplyDeleteA similar "debate" took place recently concerning sexual conduct with minors - nasty all round, plenty of shouting from all sides - both in tabloids and broader sheets which should know better - but precious little reference to the appropriate law. It's amazing, and rather worrying, how views and (non-legal) judgments can alter when the law is explained. It doesn't make decision making much easier, but at least it's consistent and mitigates against judgmentalism, I hope.
Kate Caveat - I agree. I really don't care about the bitter internal politics and wranglings of the Magistrates Association, the Department of Justice or the incompetence of the court staff in BS's particular court. I do find his insights into the actual work of the Magistracy interesting though - it is interesting to reflect on my own experience that the most rewarding of cases (whether guilty or not) are those where justice can be seen to be done.
ReplyDeleteOld softy...
ReplyDeleteQuote:- 'not-very-bright young woman who lives near the bottom of the heap not guilty, despite her not having legal assistance.'
ReplyDeleteInteresting. What happened to all those professional people arrayed against her? Did they 'forget' or 'not notice' this particular point?. Or was it ‘not their job’
At what point was Justice, rather than Judicial procedure, expected to raise its ugly head and be noticed?
I was going to write "Old Softy!", but I see that I have been beaten to it, not unexpected given that the post is about 3 weeks old. Instead I will simply call you "Old Lefty!" as the satisfaction you took at acquitting smacks more of liberalism that softness. Maybe they're synonymous, I don't know..
ReplyDelete