Wednesday, November 06, 2013

Penny Wise Pound Foolish

I sat on a couple of trials yesterday, prosecuted by a dreadful Crown Prosecutor who is slow-thinking and long winded. We found both defendants not guilty, because the cases both came down to 'he said, she said' conflicts of evidence. An allegation of breach of a restraining order was based on the making of one call between a bitterly estranged couple, but presumably for reasons of cost no arrangements had been made to download the defendant's phone. Hence we could not be sure, as we are required to be, so not guilty it was. I don't know what a download costs, but this case wasted half a day of court time, and that isn't cheap either.  The other case was a workplace spat between two people; the only independent witness didn't turn up so once again we could not be sure to the very high standard of Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
It must be a horrible experience to sit in court while the magistrates are outside deliberating, and the tension rises before our verdict.

7 comments:

  1. Two neatly joined gobbets to make a series of telling points both about the nature of the decisions brought before magistrates, and about the pernicious effect of cost-cutting not just on the administration of the judicial system but on the dispensing of justice itself. These verdicts were surely the right ones, but was justice done? We shall never know.
    Kate Caveat

    ReplyDelete
  2. Justice was done according to law and that's all we can do and it's what we should do.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is horrible enough, but in the long run simpler and easier to outlive, than having some such incident haunting your life for years in the quest for perfect justice, as happens with us. I'm now doing a similar case at our Giudice di Pace. A spat alleged to have happened on July 19, 2009. First hearing was 18 months ago, the second last week, the next and , hopefully , last one will be in May 2014. It's intolerable under every respect, and incurably injust to all the people involved, both laypersons and professionals. The italian trial pursues justice and truth, not a merely right result.

    ReplyDelete
  4. So how come motorists never get the benefit of "beyond reasonable doubt" ? There is speed camera equipment in use that the manufacturers have sold and which is use to prosecute people for speeding where the software will not be released to the court so that the defence may validate its integrity. Just have a look at what is going on on the M42. People adhere to the limit when they see it, but it changes as they are passing under the gantry, so get prosecuted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We have the same in my town. A road sided by high bushes has a 40 limit approaching a bend. Directly after this the limit drops to 30 and there's a speed camera present to catch the unknowing.

      Delete
    2. Regarding speed signs around corners: you are required by law to drive such that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear. If you do this you will always be able to see a speed sign in time to reduce speed to whatever it says no matter how close to a blind bend it is.

      Of course if the sign were obscured, for example by an overgrowth of foliage, then you would have a defence.

      Delete
  5. The cost varies between providers, and I'm only approximately sure, but around £20-£50, and certainly never as much as £100 unless you need cell-site information (which you mostly only need for geolocation). So really no good reason to impair even a low level case; I'd put this down to CPS incompetence not anything special about the phone evidence

    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.