We heard a trial yesterday that took a good four hours to deal with, including three-quarters of an hour sitting out the back drinking coffee, while the CPS finally served the last of the required disclosure, and the defence read it. Each of the two defendants faced four charges, but by 10.30 the Crown had dropped all but one against each man.
The allegation was theft of goods worth ten to fifteen pounds from a garden shed, and the two men affirmed their pleas of not guilty. There was some identification evidence that contained enough inconsistencies to render it unreliable, and we were just left with the principle of Recent Possession to consider. Briefly, they had the stuff with them when arrested within half an hour of the theft, which creates a presumption that they were either the thieves or the handlers. So guilty it was. Neither had significant previous so the guidelines pointed to sentences at the bottom of the range. We laboriously wrote out our reasons, and went back in. The CPS asked for about £800 costs, plus a surcharge, so we were left with an impossible task to extract that kind of money from two men on benefits. On the whole, although we did it by the book, the case felt unsatisfactory. Realistically, the CPS should have dropped it, given the very low value involved but the stripped-down staff numbers that they now have do not allow for thorough reviews. Not a good omen for the future.
Not sure I agree.
ReplyDeleteDropping a theft-type case because of its low value might well be the correct course when the the low-value item was targeted, such as when someone takes a sandwich from a shop but does not try to take the nearby bottle of champagne. In this case though, it sounds more as though the two were out for whatever they could take and that it was down to circumstance rather than choice that their haul was in fact so paltry.
Of course value can be a consideration, but just as we don't let a man off because the gun he fires at someone misfires, I don't see that we should let thieves off because they have through bad luck or judgment chosen a duff target, limiting their swag. A shed may not be a house but I would be rather upset on principle about anyone breaking into mine.
Reduce the sentence by all means but the defendants deserved to be convicted and, ignoring the practicalities of enforcement, to pay every penny of the Crown's costs.
In other words, I think you should 'chillax' over the outcome: justice was served. Whether this country is prepared to finance such justice is a question for others to answer.
I hope you will guide us on the minimum value that in your mind justifies prosecution. You know, so we can all go out and keep the value of stuff we steal below that.
ReplyDeleteSo if it had been your items, from your shed, you'd have told the dishonest criminals not to worry?
ReplyDeleteOr waiting until they made clear they'd go NG before saying this?
Profoundly disappointing view
The CPS might have asked for £800 costs, but it is the Bench's decision how much of those to award. We had a similar request last week, and decided that £250 would be more appropriate given that the woman was on benefits and could pay back at only £5 week, plus she had to pay a £200 fine and £20 VS, so would be indebted to the cpourt for two years.
ReplyDeleteYes, I was puzzled - can you blog about costs. £800 does not seem right here, but I know nothing .....
DeleteI'm not sure I understand your point Bytander. I'm assuming for these men to have appeared before you with 'no significant previous' they had already exhausted the multitude of out of court disposals available to citizens these days? In which case what lesson do they learn by being told that when they now need to go to court a prosecution won't proceed because fortunately for them the value of their theft is not significant enough to concern the. Magistracy of this country.
ReplyDeleteNeither had 'significant' previous?
ReplyDeleteSo you think career criminals should be free to steal stuff, as long as they stick to things that are cheap?
Could you let us know the cutoff price? I could do with saving a few bob.
I agree with all the previous posts that a prosecution should not have been dropped because of the value of the goods taken. The £800 cost of the case of was but a fraction of the true cost. What is even more absurd in my opinion is giving defendants the right to elect a crown court trial for many offences, such as a theft from a shop, when the amount involved in the crime is very small.
ReplyDeleteScenario. CPS outlines the facts, the theft of a £5 bottle of wine taken on the spur of the moment, and tells the court that the case is suitable for summary trial. The bench agrees. The legal adviser tells the defendant it can be heard in the magistrates' court, but can still be sent to crown court for sentence, or the defendant can elect trial by jury at the crown court. That is what they elect.
Result. Thousands of pounds spent on a trial and twelve jurors wondering why the hell they have given up a day of work to deal with such a case. Some might even wonder why it wasn't dealt with in the lower court.
Your opinions astound and disappoint in equal measures. The police achieve a rare success of catching two burglar's red handed with stolen property yet they pled not guilty and you think justice and more importantly the victim would best be served by dropping the case because the value of the goods were low? This sums up the huge gap between the courts and public opinion.
ReplyDelete"This sums up the huge gap between the courts and public opinion."
DeleteNo it doesn't. It sums up a gap between the opinion of one person involved in the court system and at least one other, me, also involved in it. There is nothing to suggest that 'the courts' feel either way based on half a dozen posts on one blog.
Just what did the victim gain from this court case? He got his stuff back.
DeleteThe victim gained the opportunity to to see justice done in open court.
DeleteHe might have done, had he bothered to turn up. He didn't and I don't blame him.
DeleteBetter surely to have the opportunity and not to take it, than not to have had it at all.
DeleteSome 30-40 years past, my mother did her one and only jury service. The case was the defendant had stolen a joint of meat from a supermarket and chosen the crown court route. It emerged in the court that the defendant had been left alone with the evidence and had tried to eat it thinking if there was no physical evidence, there could be no case. Furthermore the meat had not been stored in a freezer so, when presented to the court, it was inside multiple polythene bags as it had now badly decomposed.
ReplyDeleteThe case lasted three days and the defence tried, unsuccessfully, to give a torrid story of a depraved life in the summing up to play on the jury's sentiment. It didn't work and a guilty verdict was passed. I can't recall the sentence, but she did say it was very minor and questioned the waste of time and money and condemned the matter as a total farce.
The thieves ended up with fewer consequences than the scores of MPs and peers who have stolen millions fro the public purse.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has ever heard an RSPCA prosecution will be familiar with applications for costs, in sums which would make your eyes water if the case was in the High Court over squillions of pounds, made against defendants who have not got a pot to piss in. They make the CPS look realistic.
ReplyDeleteThe thieves were unlucky - I'm sure they didn't set out to steal fifteen pounds worth, they were looking for a few hundred quids worth of power tools, or that expensive racing bike some people have. Should the CPS drop cases where thieves have had a bad night's work?
ReplyDeleteA previous poster referred to "the multitude of out of court disposals available to citizens these days". Perhaps if budding criminals were adequately punished much earlier in their careers, such as a short prison sentence on their 2nd or 3rd conviction more people would be deterred from a life of crime. Persistent offenders should receive longer sentences, or longer than at present anyway. This would give us a lower crime rate because there would be fewer criminal (deterrence) and the ones inside cannot commit crimes while serving their sentences.
ReplyDeleteAs it is, the people around these criminals see them appearing to get away with it time after time after time. The message goes out that crime goes unpunished. Not dealing effectively with crime early in the criminal's career is a false economy for society as a whole. Police time, repeated court cases and - when handed out - the short prison sentences, chasing unpaid fines (most never get paid so it's all a farce anyway) all cost money - as well as the high insurance premiums we all pay.
But I do have one question here. Bystander said the two had no significant previous. Do cautions handed out to offenders by the police count in court as "previous" ?
Not to me they don't. I look at previous convictions and a caution isn't a conviction. I don't ignore them though.
ReplyDeleteWhen a defence lawyer tells us that their client has no previous for, for example, offences of violence, and they are about to be sentenced for such an offence and have a caution/warning/reprimand etc. for similar, it should be pointed out that their client may well have a propensity for violence, even with no previous.