I spent this morning in what used to be called an 'occasional court', it being a Bank Holiday. Quite a few of our dozen or so cases resulted from the police clearing out their in-tray of arrest warrants for such things as breaching community penalties or failing to surrender to bail; a Bank Holiday being a perfect opportunity to dig a few PCs out of the canteen, at a time when the cells were unlikely to be too busy.
One character came into the dock with his hands firmly in his pockets. I heard the Serco guard mutter for him to take them out, and so he did, at which point his trousers fell down to his knees. The bench then invited him to keep his hands in his pockets, and thus preserve his decency.
On to more serious matters including an allegation of rape, in which the duty solicitor had a brave try at applying for bail, but the man's previous convictions for indecent assault on a minor and for exposing what used to be called his 'person' but is now called his genitals did for him and we sent him to the Crown Court in custody.
His mother and sister were in the gallery, wearing that look of shock and disbelief that is so common when a decent family has to see a member hauled before a court
Speaking of bail, if the amount set is so high that it cannot be provided, what then is the situation vis-à-vis a presumption of entitlement to bail, etc.
ReplyDeleteIt is highly unusual for magistrates to impose a surety or security as a bail condition. My court does this more than some because we see quite a few foreign defendants.
DeleteThat's not really an answer.
DeleteThere are a number of exceptions to the right to bail, notably the fear that the def will fail to appear, commit further offences, or interfere with witnesses. Hence bail may be refused, or conditions imposed, Those conditions might include a tag, or a surety or security. The judge clearly thought the latter appropriate, but sadly for the def his cash has been frozen by another court. , so he stays inside.
Delete"Has to see a member hauled before the court"
ReplyDeleteNot the happiest choice of phrase for this case.
It is now common if not universal practice for SERCO etc to remove any belt from those in custody, so I am surprised the guard told him to remove his hands from his pockets, that being the fairly normal way to keep them up! Perhaps it was a deliberate humiliation. I hope not. One used to hear magistrates tell the defendant to take his hands out of his pockets - not so wise these days!
ReplyDeleteNo criticism of Servo re the belt. Better that than a dead prisoner.
DeleteNo argument there, but it's the instruction to take his hands out of his pockets that makes no sense other than deliberate humiliation.
Delete"it's the instruction to take his hands out of his pockets that makes no sense other than deliberate humiliation."
DeleteIt makes perfect sense to me. Speaking to someone with hands in pockets is disrespectful.
I think what you mean is that the person with his/her hands in pockets is being disrespectful? In our core judicial training all those years ago we were warned to make sure that there was no reason before asking someone (defendant or witness) to remove hands from pockets or remove headgear. In the one case, because of exactly the beltless scenario above, in the other because of religious belief (eg Sikh, Rasta etc). It was good training in those days.
Deletewhat used to be called his 'person'
ReplyDeleteIs that the word that was used in the past?
http://magistratesblog.blogspot.co.uk/2005/07/disappointingly-prosaic.html
Delete