Tuesday, September 27, 2005

Pleasant Prosecutor

My afternoon today was spent down at a Youth Court for what should have been a trial. This was a trial where my Client had failed to provide any instructions and had a pretty poor defence anyway.

I had dealt with the Police Station investigation for this case and had been present when the Client had been interviewed. I had told him to answer questions and he had put forward a less than convincing defence as to why he was riding around on a £3,000 motorbike that had been stolen less than 24 hours before his arrest.

When I turned up to Court I had the usual chat with the Prosecutor who seemed to have his doubts about the case. He kept telling me that my Client sounded very credible in interview. Eventually the Prosecutor decided to offer no evidence against my Client on the basis of what he had said, and the manner in which he had said, in interview. This was a case where my Client was being prosecuted for want of a better phrase joy riding. His defence was that he paid money for the motorbike that he was on, and he had no suspicion or knowledge that the bike was stolen. All he had said in interview was that he had paid a guy on the street a few hundred pounds for the bike.

The Prosecutor did offer no evidence against my Client, which was a good result. I cannot decide why the experienced Prosecutor offered no evidence as his case was reasonably strong, perhaps he has a good trial record to protect and did not want to suffer a loss, perhaps he wanted a quick afternoon free of a trial so he could go home, or perhaps he actuallybelievedd what a Defendant had said!


Anonymous said...

So as the defendants case was "less than convincing", which one of the possibilities put forward do you feel makes him a "pleasant prosecutor"?

He is either lazy for wanting to go home or stupid for believing a less than convincing story.

Is he pleasant for agreeing with you and the criminal?

Gavin said...

"Is he pleasant for agreeing with you and the criminal?"

He was not convicted of a crime.

I used the title 'Pleasant Prosecutor' simply because he was a pleasant chap to deal with who actually took time to discuss the issues in the case rather than simply put on a prosecutor's hat and refuse to see anything from a defence perspective. There are many pleasant characters who disagree with me.

I was surprised when no evidence was offered because I expected the prosecution to at least test the case.