Friday, August 17, 2012

Simple, Speedy, Summary

A friend who is a retired defence lawyer has asked me to post the following:-

The so-called 'Pussy Riot' trial that is currently going on in Russia is being heard by Judge Marina Syrova, who was appointed by Vladimir Putin in 2008. Since then she has returned 177 verdicts of Guilty, and just one of Not Guilty (we can all have an off day, can't we?).  In my younger days I used to appear before a fearsome lady JP who had the well-earned nickname of "Lock-em-up-Lil". She was tough all right, but she can't begin to compete with Judge Syrova.

29 comments:

  1. Just curious, but does their system operate on the basis of innocent until proven guilty, or guilty until proven innocent?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The statistics are alarming. Whilst Russian jury trials (less than 1% of the total I think) acquit in 15-20% of cases, trials where judges sit alone acquit less than 1%.

      Of course these statistics could be a remarkable tribute to the Russian police force and prosecutors.

      But the Pussy Riot trial is shining a spotlight on the system, and rather shows that any such tribute would not be deserved.

      Delete
  2. Neither. Guilty if the state says so.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, as long as she's not doing anything disreputable like blogging....

    ReplyDelete
  4. My late sister was a probation officer in the Sixties. She said that the benches composed of "county" types (Landowners, farmers etc) were far more likely to be lenient than urban benches, composed of trade unionists and businessmen - except in one rural area where there was a long straight road and frequent problems of speeding. Errant motorists before that bench could expect no mercy!

    In most continental systems you are not actually "guilty until proved innocent" but the investigating magistrate or prosecutor can hold you without charge while he makes his inquisition. If he decides to charge you, the case then goes to court before a judge and it is usually pretty well tied up by that stage. "Juries" in Roman law systems (where they exist) are usually more like "lay assessors" and sometimes retire to consider their verdict with the judge.

    In most continental systems the university legal training for the equivalents of barristers and solicitors is completely separate to that for would-be prosecutors, examining magistrates and judges. Judges start out as minor officials and are promoted like civil servants.

    The key difference is that the Common Law system is ACCUSATORIAL ("He did on the night of.....") with the judge as a sort of umpire between defence and prosecutions whilst the Roman law system is INQUISITORIAL. Both types have their flaws and can produces miscarriages but the ROman law system puts very much more power in the hands of officialdom.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I always think there's a 'Court House Culture' with Magistrates and they act as their chairs act.

    Nowadays, you can't always play that game as they've mixed them all up. But I could still do the same trial in one particular Court and be acquitted and do it in another and be found guilty, won't name the Courts but most London lawyers can play the game..

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well if you won't substantiate the claim, it becomes yet another unverified 'fact' on the internet.

      I have sat at many courthouses, and yes some do have their own culture. But I have never sat in any where that culture extends to interpretation of the law.

      The stories suggest that the only differences that might exist are between urban and country benches; but I am not wholly convinced of that either.

      Delete
    2. the comment begins "I always think..." i.e. it's someone's opinion so you don't have to file it under 'unverified 'fact' on the internet'.

      Do they teach you guys about the distinction between "fact" and "opinion"?

      Delete
    3. Indeed.

      Which is why I was commenting on what was posited as fact - "I could still do the same trial in one particular Court and be acquitted and do it in another and be found guilty" - rather than the opening opinion.

      I trust that assists.

      Delete
    4. If we all thought the same and reacted the same we wouldn't need a bench of three. I have heard a case, gone to retire and listened to my two colleagues who have totally contrary views, having heard the same evidence. Of course different benches will come to different conclusions. So do different juries, as we know from re-trials. I see no problem with that. It's nothing to do with culture and, in my case for sure, nothing to do with what my chair thinks.

      Delete
    5. Too right.

      Although I suppose you can understand why a more junior lawyer might assume that the chair's voice was louder in the retiring room than those of his wingers.

      Delete
    6. Anonymous @ 15:45

      Sorry to come back but you're wrong to say it is "posited as fact"... the writer users a colloquial style and so doesn't insert the caveat "in my view" at the start of the comment. Even so, it's obvious that they're writing about their own own interpretation of their experiences.

      Delete
    7. If that was your impression it just goes to show (yet again) that appearances can be deceptive. I chaired many courts and whilst many trials were decided by unanimous decision, many were not. And on many of the majority verdicts I, the chairman on the day, was in the minority. Nevertheless my role was to deliver the verdict of the court as exactly that, without any indication that I did not share the views of my colleagues. I don't believe my experience in that respect was unusual.

      Delete
  6. Those expressing concern over the judge in the 'Pussy Riot' case would do well to remember that we have DJ(MC) over here who sit on their own deciding cases.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah... given the choice, i'd opt for a DJ to hear my case over a lay bench in a heart beat if i were ever in bother, though.

      Delete
  7. Am I alone in thinking the Pussy Rioters deserve punishment for their outrageous sacrilege - I am not a professing Christian but was not happy with their act within the Orthodox church or am I mistaken about the venue?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are not alone but the issue here is more to do with the fact that the verdict was a foregone conclusion.

      Delete
    2. also, 2 years in chokey seems like a bit of hefty kick in the knackers*.

      *metaphorical. them being chicks and all.

      Delete
    3. Putin gets what Putin wants - sadly.

      Delete
  8. Yes, you are alone.

    I am not a Christian professing either, but I seem to remember their is good precedent for a religious venue being used to make a societal point :

    And Jesus went into the temple of God, and cast out all them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves,

    And said unto them, It is written, My house shall be called the house of prayer; but ye have made it a den of thieves.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The verdict is despicable, but we can't be too smug. A year ago we locked two people up for four years for little more than writing the word 'riot' - and a lot of the same justifications were used for it.

    ReplyDelete
  10. In the UK they let everyone off dont they?

    ReplyDelete
  11. @Anonymous So you would rather have one man sitting judging you rather than be judged by 3 of your peers. Strange indeed how do you feel about juries then?

    ReplyDelete
  12. One thing that doesn't seem to be being said is that if they'd done it here, eg interrupted a service at St Paul's, then they'd probably still be arrested and convicted, albeit first time round not receive anything approaching a sentence.

    ReplyDelete
  13. 3 girls sang a song in a church without permission and got 5 months in prison and 2 years in a penal colony for it.

    "Outrageous sacrilege" OnlookerJP? Seriously??

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It is possible that he has seen and believed the suggestion of defecating in the church.
      There seems no objective back up for that accusation.

      Delete
    2. I'm with OnlookerJP here. "Singing a song without permission" is scarcely an adequate characterisation of what was done. I'd consider it impolite at least to even *step* onto the altar at an Orthodox Church, let alone swearing, blaspheming and with a film camera running.

      As The Defence Brief points out here http://defencebrief.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/pussy-riot.html
      this would probably be some sort of offence in England too, and I have no problem with the verdict in this case (subject of course to complete ignorance as to Russian law). Sure, the sentence seems harsh from over here - but then I don't know anything about their substantive law and guidelines about that either.

      Delete
  14. This case has given me a fair deal of cause for both concern and reflection. Why has it attracted such attention, and what are the chief differences between these circumstances and, say, the student who swung from the Cenotaph flag? It'd be hard to deny that anyone doing the same thing as Pussy Riot in St Paul's would probably be charged with a religiously aggravated public order offence, but the difference may lie in the motive for the demonstration, which apparently included a protest against the Orthodox Church's alleged support for Putin. The Occupy protestors, for example, were hardly contending that the CoE (which used to be called the Tory Party at prayer) were part of the global capitalist conspiracy. I simply don't know enough about young Gilmore's motives, or the details of that case, but don't believe it was essentially a principled and deliberate act of political protest, more it would appear a moment of considerable foolishness. I'm left with lots of questions, and few answers. The biggest questions for me are i) how (and indeed ii) whether I'd even have the courage) to stand up against an oppressive regime, and iii) to what extent, if at all, "outrage" is a legitimate means of political protest. It certainly seems preferable to any violent means. These three protestors have paid a high price in terms of loss of liberty for their actions, but it is just possible that they may consider that a price worth paying when weighed against the attention their actions have attracted and the focus of those who enjoy greater daily freedoms on the true situation in Russia today.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Try Japan. An accusation from an official such as a uniformed police officer is seen as conclusive proof of guilt, so the evidence is ignored. Doubly so if you're not Japanese, because the official government policy is "non-Japanese have no rights".
    But Asia remains impenetrable to most Westerners...

    ReplyDelete

Posts are pre-moderated. Please bear with us if this takes a little time, but the number of bores and obsessives was getting out of hand, as were the fake comments advertising rubbish.