We had to reshuffle our JPs between our five courtrooms today, two of which had to sit with a bench of just two.
My list featured three trials this morning and one in the afternoon. One defendant simply did not appear, so we issued a warrant without bail to get him in. In the next the defence put in a late Defence Case Statement that changed the whole basis of the defence, so in all fairness we had to allow an adjournment to give the prosecutor a chance to have a think about it. Two down, one to go.
Number three was actually effective:- a Domestic Violence case that turned on a row that ensued when the ex-boyfriend of the victim (and the father of her daughter) rang her up. The volume of threats increased and the victim rang the police. Lover boy threw the phone either to her or at her, and grabbed her, as he claimed, so that he could get past her to leave. The whole business came down to he-said/she-said, and we concluded that we could not convict beyond reasonable doubt. The protagonists left hand in hand, leaving me in little doubt that we shall see them again.
This afternoon's case was, incredibly, a simple possession of Class B but the papers hadn't been copied, and the CPS copier was hors de combat while there was a queue for the one upstairs in the office. We put the case off and called it a day, when I was happy to get my car heater blasting hot air, as the courtroom and retiring area were freezing. Oh yes, and the coffee machine has vanished, and we now have a cheapo kettle and sundry jars of instant coffee for our comfort.
on your first case, any reason why you didn't prove in absence and THEN issue the warrant? I assume D was warned this could happen so we would normally adopt this course... #justasking :-)
ReplyDeleteNo coffee!!! Seize the building
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely agree with SL JP - only this week we found two non-attenders guilty in absence and then put out warrants not backed for bail to bring them in for sentencing. They are indeed warned this can happen if they don't answer bail for their trial.
ReplyDeleteAs for the coffee...when I started as a JP we had filter coffee bubbling away in the kitchenette, with china cups and saucers, so there was no delay when retiring to consider cases. That all went five years ago, to be replaced by paper cups and unbranded 'coffee' granules and 'tea' bags, with electric kettles precariously perched at the entrance to each retiring room. The paper cups lasted all of a week after several were knocked over inundating court papers, and a new supply of china had to be purchased for the six retiring rooms. The kettles remained, however, which can take up to five minutes to boil, so where's the time-saving in that when we are being asked to be more efficient? Bean counters should get out more and see what actually goes on at the coal face.
"Bean counters should get out more". Coffee beans in this case.
DeleteI'll get my coat.
That all went five years ago, to be replaced by paper cups and unbranded 'coffee' granules and 'tea' bags, with electric kettles precariously perched at the entrance to each retiring room.
ReplyDeleteCheers mate.
You should be grateful. most coffee machine coffee is vile.. just hope you get Blend 37...
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that the subject that gets the most comments is Justice's Coffee. What next, an exclusive on the Biscuit Selection (and those that pick from the bottom layer).
ReplyDeleteThat's PFI cornyou, the biggest scandal never to make the headlines.
ReplyDeleteIn our old court building we had waitress-service lunch, with optional wine (!). After PFI, ever-decreasing facilities, eg cheap nasty caff and do-it-yourself coffee (no decaff or hot chocolate). Today's mags probably have to take in their own teabags.
"The whole business came down to he-said/she-said, and we concluded that we could not convict beyond reasonable doubt. The protagonists left hand in hand, leaving me in little doubt that we shall see them again."
ReplyDeleteWas the alleged victim compelled to testify? I know victims of domestic violence very often stay with their attacker, but it seems odd to me for the case to get to trial if they are still together.
It happens quite often that once the drink drugs and anger have worn off the warring couple stay together. In this latest case the victim was asked point blank if she still loved him, and she said "yes".
ReplyDeleteThomas Dalton:...CPS/Police are under an obligation to follow through on complaints and take it to trial using summonses and warrants to get non-willing victims to testify if necessary....
ReplyDeleteAs for no coffee machine!!...the world is surely collapsing around us..
Coffee IS important!
ReplyDeleteIn London witness summonses in DV cases are now "served" without conduct money because the Met refuse to handle and account for the small sums involved. That means that they are not served at all and there is no sanction for not turning up. I have suggested using one-day Travelcards to avoid handling cash - they could be bulk-bought - but I might as well p*ss into the wind.
The joy of living in the sticks......we don't necessarily like summons and warrants for DV victims if they have retracted or are not supporting the prosecution but a defendant should have the right to a examine the evidence against them via their solicitor....to this end I support summons/warrants.....
DeleteIn my, fairly recent, experience of investigating domestic violence, once a suspect had been charged, CPS would summons every victim, even when they had provided a withdrawal statement and had made it perfectly clear they did not want to give evidence. Then, because one of the local (London) courts had been closed, the victim would have to schlep halfway across south London, to an over-subscribed court to tell the prosecutor that they would not give evidence and the case would then be dropped. Complete waste of time and money. There really has to be a better way of helping victims of domestic violence than forcing them to go to court when they don't want to go ?
DeleteTime was that a prosecutor didn't need notice of the defence case. It was just dealt with on the day. More often than not justice was still done since a competent prosecutor should be able to anticipate any defences. It's little wonder that even summary justice is slow.
ReplyDeleteThe defence case is dealt with and recorded on the pre-trial preparation form at the 1st hearing when the not guilty plea is entered, normally the remand court hearing (ie, defendant is in custody); if not then, at the 1st hearing in the NGAP (not guilty trial preparation court). All direction are made at these courts and there should be no other hearing until the trial date. This has actually speeded up dealing with cases. Only if the defence files a defence case statement (rare in magistrates courts) might a further delay be introduced but that can often be dealt with at the same hearing.
DeleteSpecial measures and witness summons will be dealt with at the first hearing.
The whole process is much quicker than 18 months ago.
The Crown should arrive at court able to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. There is no reason for the Crown to have prior knowledge of the defence case therefore no reason to postpone if the defence case changes.
DeleteI believe the defence is entitled to ask the court to dismiss the case BEFORE presenting his or her case if s/he believes proof beyond reasonable doubt has not be demonstrated by the Crown.
"There is no reason for the Crown to have prior knowledge of the defence case therefore no reason to postpone if the defence case changes".
DeleteEh? How does that work, then? Suppose the defence is dependant on an alibi; are you suggesting that the Crown does not need to know this until the trial begins? How would any defence statement be verified if the law followed your bizarre notion? I don't think you have really thought this through.
That said, your second paragraph is almost correct : the Defence can ask the Bench to consider whether there is any case for the Defence to answer if the Prosecution case, even taken at its highest after cross-examination is potentially weak.
"The whole process is much quicker than 18 months ago." Yes it is, when it works.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is when things are not disclosed as the court has instructed. In the end there really is no sanction on the CPS. All we can do is insist the case goes ahead, at which point the CPS offers no evidence and the case is dismissed. It's hardly fair on the victim but it's the only way we have to make it clear to the CPS that they have to get their act together. Being short of money or people simply will not do as a reason for failing to disclose.
Though, very commonly, the Crown’s own case is ready and its failure is in disclosing things to which the defence is entitled. Which situation removes the option of insisting the case goes ahead. The defence finds itself forced to apply for an adjournment, which the court has to grant in the interests of justice. So absolutely no sanction on the CPS at all.
DeleteHold on, let's get things straight here: The CPS didn't 'fail to disclose' anything and whilst I respect ObiterJ immensely his post about competent prosecutors anticipating defences also misses the point.
ReplyDeleteWhilst I am certain most prosecutors could anticipate most, if not all, lines of argument defence would run in a given case, the truly operative bit of a defence statement is the shopping list of disclosure requests, often of the most tenuous kind, that it contains.
If, as in this case, a defence statement is lodged late and/or on the day of trial, then the likelihood will be that any such requests cannot be dealt with there & then and so an adjournment has to be granted.
That decision to adjourn is not by dint of any CPS failing, but by operation of R -v- Chorley Justices ex parte Forrest [2006] and the fact that the days of ambush defences are gone.
Hardly new law and not down to the CPS.