Conspiracies

I had an interesting s.51 hearing in the Magistrates' Court today- a chap charged with conspiracy to conceal criminal property, namely hundreds of thousands of pounds. The police investigation seems to have taken months although, notwithstanding that, the most the Crown could give me today was a charge sheet and case summary. Not that that bothered me particularly as the chap was on bail and thus there was nothing to achieve until the preliminary hearing in the Crown Court which, rather ambitiously, has been listed for next week. I doubt very much whether the Crown's case will be in order by then but we shall wait and see.

On another note, a point of interest arose today which is worthy of a mention. It concerns good old case management in the Magistrates' Court. Whilst I was waiting to get on today, a man pleaded not guilty to an offence of common assault. His advocate was asked by the Magistrates, at the instigation of the Legal Advisor, to agree the interview summary by way of section 10 admission. "I can't do that" said that advocate, "I haven't listened to the tape so don't know if it's accurate." The response from the Bench was truly bizarre- "well your client must know whether or not that was roughly what he said". "Roughly what he said"?! I mean, what is going on here? How negligent would you have to be to agree such an interview summary on the basis that it may 'roughly' reflect what your client said in interview? Police interviews are very important as everyone can appreciate- they are the first opportunity the suspect has to put forward an account if he or she wishes to do so and here we are, at court, being asked to agree a quarter of a page summary which may or may not accurately reflect what was said. For my part, I can say with certainty that I will never ever agree such an interview without first being sure that it is a true representation of what was said. I sincerely hope advocates don't find themselves in situations where they are being pressured into making admissions without first seeing or hearing the evidence. Don't allow yourselves to be bullied!

Psychiatrists and Paracetamol

What a start to the week it has been. I attended the Crown Court yesterday for what should have been a straightforward mention hearing. The Defence had, on an earlier occasion, raised issues concerning the Defendant's fitness to plead and, as a result, two psychiatric reports were obtained. One report concluded that the Defendant was certainly unfit to plead, the other was less conclusive and contained information about the Defendant which one certainly wouldn't want to put before a court. Accordingly, the first report was served and the second was not- the position was explained to the Judge at the PCMH and prior authority was granted by the LSC for a third psychiatrist to prepare a report and thus see where the balance of opinion lay. Judge 1 saw no problem with this approach and made directions accordingly. Today, however, the matter came before Judge 2 who took a quite contrary view. He opined that the Defence should serve the second report. This request was refused. Consequently, and some may think there was a bit of 'sour grapes' involved, the Judge purported to withdraw the LSC funding that had been previously granted for the third psychiatric report. As a result, the matter was put over to today for arraignment. As you can imagine, I was most upset by this turn of events and spent my Monday evening preparing a skeleton argument setting out why I believed that the Judge's direction was unlawful and why what had happened was tantamount to an abuse of process.  I don't usually get headaches but I had one last night. However, two paracetamol and a bottle of water later, I finished my skeleton argument and went to bed.

The Judge had thus far won the battle, but I was prepared to win the war. I went to court this morning ready for a showdown but I was to be disappointed (whilst at the same time being relieved). I served my skeleton argument first thing and gave the Judge time to consider it. When he came in to court he apologised for what had transpired the previous day and withdrew his order. He was extremely gracious about it and that made me feel much better. I had gone away from court the day before feeling pretty deflated and the rest of my Monday had been ruined as a result of having to consider and prepare for a further round the following day. However, the matter has now been resolved and I can move on. I have a sneaking suspicion that this particular case may yet cause further difficulties in the future but we'll wait and see.

On a brighter note, it's Shrove Tuesday today which means pancakes for dinner. Always a delight.

You have to laugh...

The end of the week is near. I started the day with a trial which didn't get off the ground- the Crown ended up offering no evidence on a charge which, if even it had gone to trial, they would never have been able to prove. I sometimes wonder who, if anyone, reviews these cases. Anyway, I got back to Chambers fairly early and was preparing for a trial coming up next week when I got a phone call at 3:30pm. It was my clerk. "Sir" he began. Now when your clerk calls you 'Sir', it usually means that they are about to ask you something which they know you're not going to be happy about. "Do you mind heading up to the Magistrates' Court. There's someone in custody and all the lawyers have gone." So off I go. I get there and speak with the prosecutor. The Defendant is facing an indictable only offence and so will be sent forthwith to the Crown Court. A cursory reading of the papers reveals, among other things, that he is said to have jumped from the top of  a three story building in an effort to make good his escape. I go down to the cells and spot him straight away sitting on a bench with his leg completely in plaster. I decide to avoid any questions about the leg. I take instructions regarding bail and head straight back up to court- it now being gone 5pm. The Crown, predictably, object to bail. I take one look at the Defendant and say "look at him- he's not going to commit further offences, he can hardly walk." This one-liner seems to do the trick and he was released with a stern warning from myself to behave. I never know if that has any effect at all but it's worth a go. Him and his family seemed to take a shine to me, so hopefully I'll see them all again in the Crown Court. Well it's late and I must go. Friday tomorrow which is always a bonus.

Valentines Day

Far from receiving a card with "I love you" emblazoned across it, this morning I was handed a glossy brochure which contained the names and photographs of two youths- underneath the pictures were the words "The Courts have issued them with an Interim Anti-Social Behaviour Order". Happy Valentines Day indeed. I wasn't sure what to make of said piece of literature. On the one hand, I don't care that these two boys have been given interim ASBOs, on the other I'm questioning whether or not it's right to send round the names and photographs of people who are under 18 and broadcasting to the public that they have been given interim ASBOs. I mean, quite apart from anything else, the court hasn't even made a final determination on the matter- it's an interim order and yet all and sundry in the local area are being told about it. Is this right? I'm debating whether to investigate the matter further. I mean it has nothing to do with me at all but that doesn't usually stop me from interfering. I think I had better investigate the legality of such distributions for my own peace of mind if nothing else. Sad really. Anyway, on a related point, my ASBO hearing today hasn't started owing to an overburdened list. Hopefully we'll get going this afternoon although it wouldn't surprise me if we end up being adjourned.

ASBOs

Well today was disappointingly dull. I attended the Crown Court for a PCMH but it had been taken out of the list at short notice and nobody had thought to notify the clerks or update the Daily Court List. Never mind. I had a lot to do in Chambers so was happy to spend the rest of the day preparing for the week ahead. I have a trial in the warned list (which hasn't come in yet) so tomorrow I have a contested ASBO application to deal with which is due to last all day. Sigh. I thought ASBOs were going out of fashion. I believe it was the 28th May 2010 that Theresa May gave her speech to the Coin Street Community Centre in London entitled 'Moving beyond the ASBO'. I recall one part of the speech as going-  "For 13 years, politicians told us that the government had the answer; that the ASBO was the silver bullet that would cure all society’s ills. It wasn’t." But what has been done about it? The lower courts regularly impose them upon applications being made- applications which are largely based on uncorroborated hearsay I hasten to add. The Crown Court usually (although not always) treats such applications with a little more circumspect. The High Court and the Court of Appeal have to mop up all the unlawful ASBOs and those which contain ludicrous terms. Take the proposed ASBO which I am dealing with tomorrow. It contains 10 prohibitions, 6 of which are already offences known to the criminal law. 3 of them are appallingly written - I can only just guess at what they are trying to prohibit so it is highly unlikely that the individual concerned will be able to comprehend them. The other hopes to prohibit him from "hanging around" with one or more of 20+ named individuals- all of whom are his friends. The most depressing part- the Magistrates' Court will probably grant it (unless perhaps it goes before a District Judge) and off I will have to trot to either the Crown Court or the Divisional Court to remedy the matter. I'll be sure to update you tomorrow to let you know. Sorry for the rant but I felt it was necessary. I hope everyone else has had a slightly more entertaining day.

Judicial Modes of Address and an Enthusiastic Usher

Well today has been a fun Friday. This morning I was before a High Court Judge who was sitting in the Crown Court. I'd been before the same Judge on a number of previous occasions. I went into court and shuffled my way along Counsels' row. I looked down and saw the following stuck to the inner side of the bench:  "REFER TO HIS LORDSHIP AS 'MY LORD". I had to laugh. You see you can spot a High Court Judge a mile off owing to the robes that he is wearing and that the list outside says 'Mr Justice X'.  Also, the reminder was potentially confusing as, depending on the context, you may wish to refer to 'my lord' as 'your lordship' or you may wish to refer to 'his lordship' as 'my lord'. You get the point. I've never seen a Judge get angry if you get his title wrong, although I have heard horror stories from other Counsel. If in doubt, go up I say. You often hear unrepresented defendants referring to District Judges as 'Your Honour' and the Judge never corrects them. They probably quite like it.

Anyway, having sped through my morning matters, I rushed off to the Youth Court for an afternoon trial. The Defendant had previously pleaded guilty to a number of matters and was standing trial on a single offence to which he maintained his innocence. We went into court and sat down. The usher announced the case and for reasons best known to herself told the Magistrates that Master X had previously pleaded guilty to offences A, B and C and was here in respect of offence D. All credit to the Chairman who said 'Well that's that- we can't hear the trial now. It wouldn't be fair on the Defendant.' And thus the matter was adjourned. It was so refreshing to hear the Chairman say that as you often get the line 'we can put that out of our minds'. What a load of old nonsense that is but I might return to that subject on another day.

Unrepresented Defendants

What a horrendous and tedious morning I am having. Whoever thinks that legal aid should be refused in summary non-imprisonable road traffic offences needs to witness what I am witnessing. A busy traffic court starts with an unrepresented defendant who is charged with leaving his vehicle in a dangerous position. The issue appears to be a simple one- yes the car was there, yes it was mine, but no it wasn't in a dangerous position. The examination in chief of the officer took about 10 minutes. The cross examination, however, went on for about 45 minutes. An advocate could have achieved the same net result in 5 minutes and would, quite probably, have ensured more helpful answers. The Defendant then proceeds with his defence- this lasts for just under 30mins. The magistrates retire for 10 minutes, return, and convict him. They observe, amongst other things, that the officer is credible and that the defendant is not and thus he is convicted. I did mention that the Defendant was unrepresented. Did I also mention that English clearly wasn't his first language and he didn't have an interpreter? Anyway, we then have to go through sentencing, with the defendant explaining in minute detail his daily outgoings etc. There then follows an enquiry as to whether or not the defendant has points on his licence- there being no up-to-date DVLA printout before the court. All in all, this sorry state of affairs goes on for just over 2 hours. It should have taken no more than 30 minutes, 45 at most. As a consequence, the court undoubtedly would not have finished its list- it having another 5 trials in the list plus two other matters. So, does refusing legal aid to people in situations such as the present, save the court service money? Answer- surely not.

Lead by example, or perhaps not...

I was in a mischievous mood today. I perhaps wouldn't have been but for what happened moments before my trial was due to start. It was about 9:15am and I was sitting in court on my own. A police officer walked in accompanied by a number of junior recruits. "Listen up" he said. "None of you have experience of giving evidence in court. I'm going to show you how it's done." My ears pricked up. "The thing to remember" he continued, "is to just stick to your statement. No matter what the defence lawyer says to you, just stick to your statement." Hmm, I thought to myself. And so the trial began- a simple matter of using a mobile phone whilst driving. Oblivious to the fact that I had been in court earlier, the officer gave his evidence in chief in accordance with his statement. I stood up to cross examine him. "According to your statement, you stopped Mr X on the 12th March, is that correct?" "Yes" he replied. "Are you 100% sure about that?" I pressed. "Of course, I recorded the date in my statement." he retorted. I passed him up the Fixed Penalty Notice which he had signed and dated the 12th May. "Look at this I said". He looked at it and then glared at me. "You see the problem." I queried. The officer simply nodded. "So in what month did you stop this vehicle- March or May?" He wasn't sure whether the mistake had been made in his statement or on the Fixed Penalty Notice. Knowing that it was game over for the Crown, I should have left it there. I couldn't help myself though. "You said that your police car was parked in the space directly outside the Co-op?" "Yes" he said. I handed up a photograph of said space which clearly had 'DISABLED BAY' marked across it in big capital letters. "Did you have your disabled badge on display?" I queried. The officer was not happy, particularly when I went on to point out which traffic regulation he was in breach of  and that he would do well to learn the rules of the road before handing out Fixed Penalty Notices to other motorists. You may think I was being childish and perhaps I was. But it serves him right as far as I am concerned. And it gave everyone in court a good laugh, junior recruits included.

Snow

I do like snow. However, I've come to beleive that the legal profession is perhaps one of the most affected professions when it comes to adverse weather. A strange claim to make you might think but consider the following in the context of a Crown Court trial which is well underway. To be effective, you need the following people- the Defendant (preferably!), the Judge, Defence Counsel, the Prosecutor, the 12 members of the Jury, the Witnesses in the case, the Court Clerk, and, ideally, the Usher, Officer in the Case and all the administrative support staff. Now, past experience has shown that when it snows, at the very least, one of the aformentioned people won't make it to court. And without that one person, it is unlikely that your trial will continue.

I remember the year before last I had travelled to Harwich Magistrates' Court. The weather was horrendous. It was a long trip to Dovercourt train station but I made it. The roads were too icy to call for a taxi so I had to walk (case in hand) up to the court which sits atop a fairly steep hill. I managed to get there only to be greeted by a security guard who said, and I quote, "oh, the local magistrates can't make it because of the weather". I shall not repeat my reply. Suffice it to say, I considered there to be no excuse for not making it when I, who was travelling the greatest distance, had managed to get there safely. It does, however, prove the point of this post- snow invariably prevents court cases from going ahead- at what cost to the taxpayer I'd be interested to know.

Axes, knuckle dusters, knives, but still an acquittal!

What a long day it has been today. Four allegations of common assault. Three civilian witnesses, a doctor and some police officers. Two defendants. If the Crown's case had been an accurate portrayal of events, this case would have been one of the most violent affrays going. Why then was it not charged as such? Who knows. One thing is for certain though, the Crown's witnesses were found to be neither credible nor consistent and both defendants were acquitted. A just result I thought. But then perhaps I would say that, wouldn't I?

"No car insurance? I'm wearing a Rolex for goodness sake!"

This is not the best way to endear yourself to the magistrates. I was sitting twiddling my thumbs, waiting for my trial to start, so thought I'd nip into court and see what was going on. The defendant had been charged with using a mobile phone whilst driving, a charge he strongly denied. It appeared as though officers had originally stopped him because they thought he was driving with no insurance. When asked, he replied "No car insurance. I'm wearing a Rolex for goodness sake!" Unsurprisingly, the officers were not impressed by this remark and low and behold the defendant was arrested- not for having no insurance but for using his mobile phone whilst at the wheel. Hmm- is that why the officers had stopped him in the first place? I don't think it was, was it? Anyhow, a not guilty plea was entered and I suspect I will never find out what happens to him. The lesson, however, is this- avoid making smart arse comments to police officers, it will NEVER help your case.

Wow, I finally did it!

"You must start a blog"- that's what people have been telling me for months. "Nobody will read it" I kept replying. "Yes they will" my friends and encouragers persist. Well here it goes. I have decided to dedicate a blog to my work- the work of a young criminal barrister trying to make it at the Bar in times when legal aid is being cut at a drastic rate and morale is at an all time low. But hey, you have to look at the positives and that is what this blog is all about. I plan to look on the bright side and blog about all that is good and humorous when it comes to the battles that take place inside (and sometimes outside) the courtroom. I hope you enjoy it.