We saw a weary succession of the slow-witted, the difficult, and the confused today. One chap, who appeared by prison videolink, assisted by an interpreter, spent his 20 minutes on camera staring dully before him showing little reaction. He is charged with an offence that, with a guilty plea, is unlikely to attract more than a low-to-medium community penalty, but he has unresolved mental health problems, no fixed abode, no family in the UK, and refuses to speak to the mental health services.
Another fellow, who appears in the glass dock, is charged with an assault that mercifully caused negligible injury, but refuses the services of the duty solicitor because 'there is no justice in these courts' and the officers who arrested him are corrupt and will always lie, and by the way have stolen his house keys. He says that he will not attend his trial because he does not recognise the court. I resist the temptation to state the obvious, that the court recognises him, and we make arrangements for his trial next month. Another videolink case ends with the prisoner being led away sobbing by a prison officer. More and more of these people are now appearing without representation, and there will soon be visible consequences of that.
Going back some years a relative had to go to court for a motoring offence (the nature of which I cannot recall) but was minor. He only told the family of this matter the day before the case, so it meant a bit of running around the next morning.
ReplyDeleteArriving at the Mags court we managed to find a duty solicitor who would attend to the matter - relative hadn't even taken legal advice prior to this. In the court we discovered that there were two more offences committed on the same day and the solicitor managed to persuade the Mags to hear all three together.
Of course he gained a ton of points and was banned, but the sentence would probably have been a lot more severe had we not managed to get help from a pro. He learnt a valuable lesson that day, when you are in a drowning situation, make sure you take a lifebelt with you.
Very prescient comment, as yesterday, I visited St Georges Hall in Liverpool where there is a nice little museum about the law courts, complete with original law court, judges chambers, and cells. We were told that throughout Victorian times most of those accused did not get any legal representation, even for capital offences !! One has to ask if this Government are happy to regress to those times. I suppose it is better now, as transportation and hanging are no longer available as punishments !!
ReplyDeleteThe Victorian courts had a different function to those today, mostly in the interests of the upper classes. The upper classes wanted to keep the lower classes a) under control, and b) in their place (which might be Botany Bay); to these priorities, the courts applied a thin veneer of due process. Lawyers and politicians, being part of the upper classes, saw no need for legal representation of poor defendants who, in their view, were lucky enough to have a court hearing rather than receive summary treatment dished out by the local gentry, albeit the punishments might be similarly harsh and the gentry were also the Bench.
DeleteIt would seem that the reforms of the past hundred years have aimed to emphasize justice, remove class biases, and provide punishment proportionate to the offence when proven. Arguably, this has led to a pretty good reputation for the system among the large majority of the law-abiding British public (both upper and lower classes).
Generally, it takes much longer to build a good reputation than to destroy it. Some of the stories here seem to verge on the Victorian treatment of the as yet unconvicted. My own view is that the Court Service is now sailing pretty close to the wind in losing its reputation with a large fraction of the general public, well beyond the blips associated with cases celebrated by the Daily Wail. Many already view Parliament as disreputable, and the Government will have no qualms about taking the legal system down with it, unless the legal system fights back. Proper representation in court occurs in the USA and, evidently in Italy (see below); its absence is definitely a step backward to the Victorian philosophy. Although looking at some of the characters in Government, perhaps that is not surprising. Lay justices may be the only group who can do something about it.
Alas, I don't know about "proper" representation. A solicitor must attend, or the proceedings would be null and void. That is all our courts care about, and what too many defendats really get: the bare physical presence. Very little is done to ensure "proper" representation. A duty solicitor who really tackles the job is a cause of surprise, and often of annoyance, to the judge.
DeleteWhat do you do with a defendant who is unrepresented not because he means to represent himself, but just ..."because" ? Do you have the authority to appoint him a lawyer?
ReplyDeleteA good question, Italian Lawyer. The magistrates' courts have no powers to appoint a lawyer, and can only urge people to seek legal advice. The court's legal adviser, without stepping outside her/his duty to the court, will also seek to ensure that any 'defences' that arise out of what the unrepresented defendant may say are explored as far as possible, and will ask questions aimed at eliciting the information the court needs to reach a reasonably informed position. They are often the only qualified lawyers in court, as the prosecution is increasingly represented by associates who may have some legal training but are not fully fledged lawyers. Attempts have even been made to have unqualified court associates take on the role of legal adviser in some courts.
ReplyDeleteMan On The Village Green
One additional point. Courts have a duty solicitor and the defendant may be told that they should have a meeting with the duty before entering their plea. It always amazes me when a defendant declines the advice to seek free legal advice.
Deleteonly if charged with an imprisonable offense
ReplyDeleteLets face it quite a lot of those who appear in the lower court are either sad, mad , or sometimes well bad. Most fall into the first 2 categories. In nearly 30 years at this game you become good at spotting the different types. For the most part the unfortunates need help and direction. In old terms discipline in their life; the bad buggers need a good globbering. Neither happens these days due to the homogonizing of sentencing.
ReplyDeleteJustice is very thin on the ground for the sad and the mad whilst the bad can afford to have their day- look at the face just starying at the Old Bailey!!
I'm grateful for the clear responses.
ReplyDeleteThis is all very interesting to me, as our law on this point is very different, as probably you know. In our criminal courts representation by counsel is always mandatory, and therefore a duty solicitor is almost always appointed , usually by the prosecutor, at the outset of the criminal proceedings.
Does what you've been explaining apply in the Crown Court as well?
There is provision for the court to appoint a lawyer to cross-examine a vulnerable victim (known as a Section 36 order). This was brought in following a couple of cases in which cross-examination by the defendant in person was used to frighten and humiliate the witness. The irony is that lawyers can bill these at private client rates, so it pays better than legal aid, or so I am told.
ReplyDeleteThat is also the case with our duty solicitor, if the defendant doesn' t apply and /or qualify for legal aid. I believe, however, that a defendant who gets acquitted can claim some sort of compensation for costs incurred, in Britain. In Italy there's no such rule. Guilty or not guilty , being tried is a dead loss.
Delete