Diary of a Criminal Solicitor

Why The CPS Is Not Delivering Justice

2010-03-18T23:45:00.001Z

Question: why is the CPS not delivering justice?

Answer: Read this.

Conflict of Interest

2010-03-17T21:35:00.002Z

I spent seven hours yesterday afternoon and evening at a Police Station dealing with a Client. The case I dealt with was really quite serious and the evidence against my Client was pretty poor - the case needed a positive identification in a video identification procedure before the Police would have enough evidence to go to the CPS for the CPS to authorise a charge.

I got to the Police Station just after 4pm. After a short interview the Police announced that they were going to carry out a video identification procedure. The identification procedures took from 6pm through until 10.30pm to be completed. During that time my Client's video image was captured, eight "stooges" from a Police database of several thousand people were selected. Some video editing was undertaken by the Police Identification Officer to pixelate out my Client's tattoos. I then previewed the video parade and ultimately I was present when the two witnesses viewed the video identification parades.

I was tired yesterday. The fact that I was at the Police Station from 4pm until after 11pm made me grumpy - especially as it was not my turn to be on call. I could have phoned my colleague who was on call yesterday and told them to get down to the Police Station but I did not think it was appropriate to just leave the Client - I generally do not like to leave Client's in the middle of a case.

Whilst I sat observing the two witnesses view my Client in the video identification parade I had a sudden conflict between my urge to see the Client released from the Police Station and the thought that if he was not identified it was likely that the case against him would be dropped. This was a horrible thought as it was a conflict between my natural desire to do my best and achieve the best possible result for my Clients, and, the business instinct that a Police Station case that turns in to a Crown Court trial can be a case that generates a reasonable fee. Thankfully when the second witness identified my Client I felt a sense of disappointment that my Client was going to be charged with an offence and was quite likely to be kept in custody for the foreseeable future.

HCA - Finally

2010-03-12T21:50:00.002Z

Today I received a certificate in the post from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This certificate approved me as a Higher Courts Advocate for criminal proceedings giving me the ability to appear in all criminal cases before a Crown Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.

Although it is rather pleasing to have finally obtained the title of Higher Courts Advocate or Solicitor Advocate it is rather daunting knowing that at some point in the future I am going to be thrust in to the Crown Court for a trial in front of a Judge and Jury. I regularly deal with trials in the Magistrates and Youth Courts and it has been may years since I felt out of my comfort zone in a summary trial.

I have done work in the Crown Court as an advocate using what rights of audience a "normal" solicitor has - those being Crown Court bail applications, committals for sentence from the Magistrates Court, appeals against sentence and even appeals against conviction.

My career has spanned some 12 years in criminal law now. The first few years were filled with a burst of activity in obtaining new qualifications. First of all I became a trainee solicitor, then I obtained accreditation as a Police Station representative. I then qualified as a solicitor and subsequently became a "Duty Solicitor". I have waited about nine years for my next qualification - my status as a Solicitor Advocate. I am not sure that there are any further professional qualifications a criminal solicitor can obtain that would of any real use in a career in criminal defence work.

Now I am just waiting for my first proper brief to appear in the Crown Court.

Can I Complain Please?

2008-03-17T19:30:00.000Z

I attended at my local Police Station today to assist a Client who was attending at the Police Station on bail to be reinterviewed. As I was waiting for the Officer to collect my Client and myself I stood listening to a conversation that a member of the public was having with one of the Station's civilian station office staff.

The member of the public wanted to report a number of crimes. He said words to the effect of, "A person I work with has been defrauding a large number of companies out of thousands of pounds by using a false identity." The station officer replied, "Are you the victim?" The member of the public then explained that he felt it was his civic duty to report the matter to the Police, but no, he was not the victim.

The conversation then consisted of a five minute dialogue where the member of the public was told that because he was not the victim of the fraud he was not entitled to make a complaint, and that he should tell the victims of the fraud what was going on so that they could then decide whether or not to prosecute the matter. It was quite clear that the member of the public was unhappy with the advice as he repeatedly explained that he was a witness to several of the frauds and only wanted to help.

The member of the public was finally turned away, he walked past muttering, "Why do I bother to pay my council tax?" I did speak to the member of the public, as I knew him, and told him that if he did want to make the complaint he would be able to speak to someone that was interested in taking the complaint - he just needed to get past the barrier that the current station officer had created. He told me he would try again another time.I was somewhat surprised by the attitude of the station officer - they are the point of contact between the public and the police and she had given blatantly bad advice. The member of the public was entitled to make a complaint and the Police should have acted pro-actively in taking the information and then deciding what to do with that information when in possession of it.

The suggestion that only the victim could decide whether or not a prosecution should follow on from the complaint was completely wrong. I deal with many cases of domestic violence where the complainant withdraws their complaint but the prosecution continues on the say-so of the Crown Prosecution Service.It must be terribly demoralising for someone to make the effort to report a suspected crime to the Police to be told to go away. How would the station officer deal with a call from a member of the public who said, "I am witnessing a nasty assault, the man has just hit the other man round the head with a hammer?" Perhaps they might reply, "Sorry, sir. You are not the victim of an assault - perhaps you could get the victim to give us a call... What did you say? Well, when they get up off the floor out of their pool of blood could ask them to call us."

What this comes down to is sheer laziness on the part of the station officer.

How Odd

2008-03-14T19:46:00.003Z

I read most of the media headlines published each day. there are a few stories every now and then that stick out. An article from the Times caught my attention today. Apparently a jury acquitted a man of murder and then some of the members of jury waited to see the Defendant to hug him!?

A pensioner who was accused of killing his partner and then confessing to his pet cats was cleared of murder and manslaughter today – and then hugged by members of the jury before leaving the courtroom.

Mr Henton, 73, from Neath, South Wales, was accused of brutally bludgeoning his long-term partner, Joyce Sutton, to death after "snapping" in January 2006.

There were gasps from the public gallery at Swansea Crown Court as the forewoman of the jury declared Mr Henton not guilty of either murder or the alternative charge of manslaughter.

I have not heard of jury members hugging a defendant before. I have had a few hugs before when I have managed to get Client's acquitted of matters.

The jury system seems to be breaking down as jurors are either speaking out about decisions they did not agree with, or they seek some kind of fame from the trial that they were involved in. As an advocate who regularly appears at the Magistrates Courts I am used to the bench making decisions and then giving reasons for those decisions. A lot of the time the reasoning for the decision appears to be based on a 'stock' answer - but nonetheless they give a reason for their decision. Juries do not give reasons for their decisions, and in fact, that is the great mystery of the jury system. The deliberations in the jury room are matters that are not subject to any scrutiny, because the deliberations are confidential.

What will a jury member do next? Perhaps they can disagree with the majority verdict given and assist a defendant appeal against conviction based on their knowledge of the reasoning behind the decision?

Dropped Cases

2008-03-11T09:26:00.003Z

The Times has published an article setting out that last year more than 2,000 cases were thrown out of Court as the case was not ready:

More than 2,000 cases that should have gone to trial in the Crown Court were thrown out last year because they were not ready, a watchdog says today.
The cases involve serious offences including burglary, theft, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, possession of drugs and possession with intent
to supply drugs.
The inspectors of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) say today in their report on the performance of the service that even though this throw-out rate is better than it was, it remains poor. In total 2,325 cases were lost because prosecutors were not ready to proceed.
The cases come before magistrates, who decide if the cases should be sent to the Crown Court for trial. Under pressure not to grant repeated adjournments for prosecutors, magistrates are increasingly taking a tough line and discharging cases when papers are not ready, evidence not complete or witnesses not lined up.

I am not sure why this has become a news story because this has been happening for years. The full text of the report is an interesting read for a laymans view on the sheer number of cases that are dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service.

The Times article starts off by referring to what is known as committal proceedings. That is where the Client has elected to have his trial in the Crown Court, or the Court had stated that the Client's case is too serious to be dealt with in a Magistrates Court. The whole purpose of committal proceedings was originally to test the evidence in a case to ensure that was a prima facie case to be moved to the Crown Court. If the case was lacking in evidence then the case would be dropped, usually with a warning that the case may be revived if the evidential defects could be corrected. Before I started my job committal proceedings would involve all of the witnesses coming to Court and giving their evidence orally to Court in a mini trial, and submissions would be made to the Court on the basis of the evidence. If those submissions were accepted the case would be dismissed, if the submissions were not accepted the case would be moved to the Crown Court. The procedure was changed over time so that witnesses did not have to give oral evidence at committal hearings and that written statements could be relied upon instead. Now committal proceedings are simple:

The Client pleads not guilty to an either way offence and either the Court declines to deal with his case at the Magistrates Court, or the Client elects to have his case dealt with at the Crown Court;
The case is adjourned to allow the Prosecution time to prepare a bundle of papers containing statements setting out the evidence against the Client;
That paper bundle is served on the Court and the Defence Solicitor. The Defence Solicitor then informs the Court and the CPS whether or not the Client consents to the case being moved to the Crown Court on the basis of the strength of the evidence in the papers;
If the CPS do not prepare the evidential papers in time the Court will usually allow an adjournment for the CPS to have extra time to prepare their papers. But, if the case is not ready on the next hearing date the Court will usually refuse a further adjournment unless the case is of a more serious nature;
If the Defence Solicitor does not consent to the case being committed to the Crown Court a further hearing takes place where submissions are made to the Court that the papers do not establish a case against the Client - if this submission is successful the case is dismissed by the Court. If the submissions are unsuccessful the case is moved to the Crown Court.

Schedule 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 contains provisions to do away with committal proceedings. There were widespread rumours a few years ago that the government were going bring in to force the new provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to abolish committal proceedings but so far these provisions have just remained on the statute book without coming in to force.

There really is no excuse for the CPS not to be ready for committal proceedings on time - and in my experience the vast majority of the cases that are not ready for committal are due to the Police not providing evidence that the CPS had previously asked for.

Waste of Time

2008-03-11T09:12:00.003Z

When I was on call recently I received a call from the Defence Solicitor Call centre informing me that one of my firm's Clients had been arrested and detained for breaching his bail conditions. When a person is arrested for breaching their Court bail conditions the Police have to produce the Client before a Court within 24 hours of the arrest, or 48 hours if the arrest if a Court is not sitting within the next 24 hours. If the time limit is exceeded the Client must be released without any action being taken.

I telephoned the Police Station and spoke with one of the helpful Custody Sergeants. He told me that the Client had been arrested at 9.50 am that day but the local Court had refused to accept the Client at Court as his paperwork had not been completed by the Police. This meant that at 9.50 am on a Saturday morning the clock had started to tick and the Police and Court had to work together in order to get the Client before the Court on Monday morning at 9.50 am to ensure they were within the 48 hour time limit. At this point both the Custody Sergeant and I agreed that it was pointless to detain the client because it was extremely unlikely that the Client would get before a Court within the 48 hour time limit simply because the 'system' does not work efficiently. I did suggest that my Client should be released but the Custody Sergeant stated he must at least try to get the Client before the Court.

The 48 hour time limit approached and one of my colleagues went over to Court to deal with the matter. He arrived in the Court building at 9.15 am. The Client was moved from the Police Station to the Court and arrived around 9.30 am. The Prosecutor came in to Court on time and had the papers. The Court Clerk came in to Court at 10.05 am. As a result of the case not being called on by the Court Clerk at 9.50 am the Court had to release the Client.

Although the minor breach of bail had rightly resulted in the Client being detained it was foreseen at the start of the 48 hour period that his detention was probably going to be pointless, and in fact it was.

Poor Advocates

2008-03-05T22:47:00.002Z

Advocacy is one part of the job of being a criminal solicitor. I have worked with people in the past who shy away from representing Clients in Court, as they prefer to work in the office or at the Police Station. I have never understood why a litigator would not enjoy standing up in Court and making their points to the tribunal. I personally think that advocacy is the best part of my job.

Yesterday I sat wearily in Court waiting for one of my cases to be called on. When you are waiting for cases to be called on in Court you can pass the time by doing a number of things. You can sit and chat about local issues with other professionals. You can try to get work done on other files. You can go and find refreshments and have a cup of tea. There are endless possibilities that you can involve yourself in to fill the time until your case is called on. I prefer to sit and watch what is going on in Court. Whilst watching the other cases in Court I saw a young advocate get to her feet, and immediately she started doing things wrong.

An advocate is the voice of the Client, if the advocate is not going to stand up and do a job good the Client might as well do it themself. If an advocate does a poor job then they have done a dis-service to the Client.

The particular advocate that I was watching was quite clearly young, and new to the job. They stood up and started to address the Court with a quiet voice. A quiet voice is never a good thing because you cannot be sure that the tribunal can hear what you are saying, and if they cannot hear you they will not understand what you are saying. The young advocate was asked to speak up within seconds of her addressing the bench.

The advocates Client had pleaded guilty to an offence, and the Prosecutor had given the facts of the case to the Court. When the advocate stood up she said words to the effect of, "I would request that this case be adjourned for the preparation of pre-sentence reports." That phrase was widely used a few years ago in any case where the advocate was of the view that the Client was likely to get either a community penalty or be sent to prison - it would trigger an adjournment because the Probation Service were not geared up for providing Courts with almost immediate reports. With the advent of a government programme called 'Speedy Summary Justice' the Probation Service can usually provide a Court with a pre-sentence report on the same day as it is asked for. The advocate had probably been told by a colleague or her boss just go and ask for an adjournment, it'll be alright.

The advocate was quickly told that her request would be refused by the Bench. She then stood there in silence not knowing what to say next. Thankfully the Court Clerk then suggested the case should be put back for a short period whilst the Probation Service prepared a short pre-sentence report that day.

Fortunately I left Court after my hearing and did not see the advocate on her feet again. She will have learnt a valuable lesson in advocacy by her experience at Court: "Know your tribunal". As an advocate you should never ask the tribunal to do something that you know 100% they will not do. Although the advocate may have been new on her feet her current advocacy skills certainly need a great deal of work.

Free CPD

2008-03-02T23:39:00.002Z

The Solicitors Regulation Authority is responsible for making sure that solicitors ensure that they keep up to date with changes in law and procedure. This is done by requiring that solicitors obtain 16 Continuing Professional Development (otherwise known as CPD) credits each year. Generally speaking 1 hour of study or attendance is equal to 1 CPD credit.

Solicitors have to obtain at least four CPD credits a year from having attended at external courses, the other 12 CPD credits can be obtained by a variety of other means. Courses offered to train solicitors in order to provide CPD credits are usually quite expensive. Some of the courses are very good because the speaker is knowledgeable and actually provides a genuinely interesting format of information.

It is possible to obtain CPD credits at no cost. Solicitors can record the fact that they have read or studied a subject for a period of time and self certify that they have qualified for a CPD credit. In house training is another source of free CPD credits.

I have recently set up a free CPD scheme on the Criminal Solicitor Dot Net web site. This project was funded by donations from members of the Criminal Solicitor Dot Net web site and does offer genuinely free CPD credits. If you are a solicitor working within the criminal justice system you might want to have a look at the free CPD scheme as it can provide up to 12 CPD credits per year at no charge.

Private Investigator

2008-01-05T22:54:00.000Z

Criminal defence firms are getting jumpy as 14th January 2008 approaches. On 14th January 2008 new General Criminal Contracts begin for firms who are still undertaking legal aid criminal defence work. On 30th November 2007 firms had to declare how many duty solicitors they employed as of 30th November 2007 in order to be awarded rota slots on duty solicitor rotas for police station work and magistrates court work. So if you had more duty solicitors declared for your firm on 30th November 2007 than you had previously you would be awarded additional rota slots. Although rota slots do not always generate masses of work they are always a good opportunity to pick up extra work, and every now and then you can pick up a good case from being a duty solicitor.

What I am about to describe has come from a series of Chinese whispers and could be entirely false - even if it is rubbish it is entertaining rubbish. A firm in Basildon also has other offices, and it is rumoured in order to get more slots on the Basildon rotas the firm pretended that some of it's solicitors based in other offices had moved to their Basildon office. This was interpreted to be a scam by another firm in Basildon who decided to hire a private investigator to follow the newly proposed solicitors to the Basildon rotas and the private investigator discovered that the newly proposed solicitors were in fact based in a London office. So, the other firm in Basildon made a complaint to the Law Society that the first firm was not "playing by the rules". The firm that was running the scam has now started legal proceedings against the other firm for defamation!

The above story shows how desperate some firms are getting in the new age of criminal legal aid.

Weird Stories in the Media

2007-11-28T21:57:00.000Z

Whilst browsing through news stories today I came across two distinctly odd news reports.

The first news report was about a prisoner who decided to cut his penis off with a razor blade.

The second news report was about a defence that a Defendant ran at Court when prosecuted for various things including indecent exposure. His defence was that he had a very small and underdeveloped penis so therefore he would not go out in public flashing it about.

Christmas List

2007-11-25T16:36:00.000Z

I went out over the weekend with the wife and did some Christmas shopping. My wife is very organised and I suspect that by next weekend she will have dragged me around all of the local shops and will have finished off our Christmas shopping for 2007. Whilst I was out I was with my two kids and we were looking at the Nintendo DS games. I have seen that another Ace Attorney game has been produced. I have not had the pleasure of playing any of the Ace Attorney games yet but I might just send Santa a letter asking if he would be so kind as to get me Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney Justice For All as a Christmas present.

A book that has been recommended to me is The Criminal Advocate's Survival Guide. This book has been recommended on the basis that it provides a light hearted look at the work I am involved in and provides helpful tips to improve an advocates skills.

I shall put both of these items on my Christmas list and see if anyone is kind enough to buy them for me.

Send Him Down

2007-11-22T00:27:00.000Z

I went to a Youth Court recently to represent a young man where he was due to be sentenced for an offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. ABH is an offence that can span a wide range of injuries from the fairly trivial to the rather serious. This particular case involved my Client stamping on an individuals head with one blow.

The case was always going to be a difficult one to deal with as the offence was nasty, and sentencing guidelines suggest that for such an assault prison, or in this case youth detention, should be considered as the sentencing starting point. On the last Court hearing the Court had ordered that a pre-sentence report be prepared to assist the Court in sentencing my Client. The report produced was very positive and made particular reference to the fact that my Client had an excellent record of attendance and compliance with the Youth Offending Service when he had been sentenced for other matters.

I informed my Client before the Court hearing that if he got lucky he would not be sent to prison, and if the Youth Court adopted the standard sentencing guidelines he could expect at least a four month detention and training order (i.e. the youth equivalent of prison). The hearing went well, my mitigation came out as I had planned with the usual speech of, "He should be given one last chance before you consider sending him to prison." I could see that the Bench were nodding their heads at the right parts of my speech. Once I had finished addressing the Bench they turned their attention to my Client and asked him what he had to say about matters - thankfully my Client had the sense to say that he was sorry. The Bench then asked my Client's father what he wanted to say, unfortunately he said something like this, "Send him to prison, it is the only way he is going to learn". That was exactly the kind of parental comment that an advocate dreads.

My Client was lucky enough to avoid being sent to prison, despite the seriousness of the offence, and despite his father's unhelpful comments.

Would You Like A Bind Over for £50,000 Worth Of Criminal Damage?

2007-11-09T10:34:00.000Z

The Crown Prosecution Service web site gives guidance on bind overs:

If circumstances justify, a prosecutor may invite the court to consider exercising its power to bind a defendant over as an alternative to prosecution for a criminal offence. The prosecutor should only invite the court to exercise this power once he has made a firm and settled decision to offer no evidence in the criminal proceedings.
In some courts this proposal is treated as an invitation for the court to act of its own motion. In other courts it is treated as a complaint laid under S115 MCA.

If treated as a S115 MCA complaint (which can be written or usually oral) the court may wish to hear evidence or require some proof of complaint. It is therefore in such circumstances necessary to ensure that some admissible evidence sufficient to prove the complaint is available.

Prosecutors should never invite the court to bind over anybody other than the defendant.

Do you think that a bind over would be an appropriate way to deal with £50,000 worth of criminal damage? Probably not.

I had the joy of dealing with an odd case recently. A family left their home to go away on a holiday, they left behind their son who is a teenager. The son has a party one night, and the following night some people went to the same address and have their own party. At the party £50,000 worth of damage was caused to the property as the vast majority of the furniture in the property was smashed up and thrown around.

I represented a number of people accused of criminally damaging the property. The evidence in this case consisted of forensic evidence that established that a number of people were at the address, but unfortunately the Crown Prosecution Service had no evidence that any individual who could be placed at the scene had actually damaged anything - mere presence in this case was not enough to prove the crime.

The Crown Prosecution Service wasted thousands of pounds on this case. They attempted to have this case sent for trial in the Crown Court by initially charging the defendants with burglary and criminal damage. The Crown Prosecution Service accepted after a few weeks that the evidence in their case was weak as it relied upon one witness. That witness was a person who went to the 'party' and said words to the effect that, "I was there but I didn't do anything. I left before anyone damaged anything, and when I got back the place was a mess." The Crown Prosecution Service dropped the case and after several months revived the case with the same weak evidence.

This case got all the way to a trial where two weeks had been set aside for the trial. The Crown Prosecution Service had clearly been concerned about the weakness in their evidence and instructed a barrister with 25 years experience to prosecute their case. Surprise, surprise their main witness who said, "I was there but I didn't do anything. I left before anyone damaged anything, and when I got back the place was a mess," did not turn up to give evidence. It was clear that the witness for the prosecution had not told the truth and that vast sums of money had been wasted preparing and prosecuting this case. Although the started it came grinding to a halt when the prosecution requested a short adjournment to find their witness.

Once the prosecution confirmed that they would not be in a position to locate their witness they asked if all the defendants in the case would like a bind over. Although there was some reluctance to accept bind overs where some defendants denied committing a crime, all defendants saw the logic in accepting a bind over which is not considered to be the same as a criminal conviction, rather than run the risk of a Magistrates Court convicting the defendants on the basis of mere presence at the scene.

Appropriate Adults

2007-11-09T09:48:00.000Z

If a person under the age of 17 is arrested and detained at the Police Station they must have an appropriate adult attend at the Police Station to act as a parent or guardian to ensure they understand the Police procedures, and their rights and entitlements. I often come across appropriate adults when it comes to the interviewing young defendants.

Professional solicitors rules prevent me from acting in a dual capacity as a solicitor and an appropriate adult for a young suspect.

In my experience there are a number of different types of appropriate adults:

Inappropriate appropriate adults - these are usually parents who act very calmly before they get in to a private room with their child, but when in the room they let rip with either a torrent of abuse against their child for dragging them to the Police Station or even sometimes physical chastisement.
Co-defendant appropriate adults - there are occasions when parents go offending and they drag their child with them, and sometimes the Police arrest the child not knowing that the parent was in fact involved in the offence.
"Don't care" appropriate adults - in this category you often find that a parent has not attended but some close family relative or family friend. These appropriate adults are just at the Police Station for the purposes of being there and have no interest in the young suspect at all.
Vocal appropriate adults - these appropriate adults tend to take over the interview procedure. Although appropriate adults are told that they are not expected to sit merely as an observer in an interview the level of interruption caused by a vocal appropriate adult can sometimes get so much that the young suspect does not get a chance to properly answer questions because the appropriate adult keep interrupting.
Social worker appropriate adults - some young suspects that I deal with have their own social worker and on occasion these poor souls get dragged down to the Police Station to deal with their 'wards'. Nine times out of ten social workers are very good appropriate adults as they rarely disrupt the procedures unless they have a genuine concern for the young suspect.
Volunteer appropriate adults - this group of appropriate adults deserve some kind of reward for the thankless work they provide. Volunteer appropriate adults are not paid but give up their time to attend at Police Stations to assist young suspects who do not have an adult to call upon to help them out at the Police Station.

I recently dealt with a young suspect at the Police Station, and the whole case should have probably lasted one hour from the time I arrived until the time I left the Police Station, the delay in dealing with the case was down to the appropriate adult. I arrived at the Police Station and was given disclosure by the Police suggesting that a push bike had been stolen, that they had arrested a 'usual suspect' but he had denied the offence, and then my Client had walked through the door of the Police Station with a note from the 'usual suspects mother' saying that her son was innocent and that my Client would admit to the offence!

I discussed the matter with my Client and his father who had attended at the Police Station as the appropriate adult. The father fell in to the category of a vocal appropriate adult. Before I had a chance to discuss the offence I had been given my Client's life story with precise detail on his current schooling circumstances. My consultation was interrupted by the Police on at least three occasions because of the length of time it took. I eventually gave my advice, dealt with the interview and left the Police Station after three and a half hours. The father took a lot of convincing and felt that his son had a moral duty to admit to anything that he had done wrong - it took a long time to convince the father that with a lack of evidence his son's case would be dropped if he went "no comment" in the interview, and that it was probably for his sons best welfare that he did not go to Youth Court and start associating with young people who regularly commit crime and have no intention of changing their ways. On this occasion my efforts to convince the appropriate adult to act in a 'non-vocal' way reaped rewards for his son.

When I am told that a Police Station matter is ready to interview and an appropriate adult has been arranged I am always curious to see what kind of appropriate adult has attended.

Video Recording of Interviews

2007-11-07T22:09:00.000Z

This is an amusing video of a 'mock' Police video with a suspect:

The Police did trial video interviews a number of years ago to see whether playing a video of an interview at trial would have any impact on a Court or jury. When I used to work in North London there was a particular Police Station that was part of the Home Office pilot to test video interviews. The Police still have a code of practice governing how video interviews should be conducted, but, to my knowledge the Police rarely video interview suspects, if at all. The interviews that I dealt with that were video recorded were fairly useless - they consisted of drug addicts admitting to shoplifting matters, or youths denying being carried in stolen cars. I cannot recall a person being interviewed for a mildly serious offence. Each video would capture a view of the entire room, and a close up shot of the Client.

Most people assume that Police interviews are very exciting. They are not, they are usually very dull, unless you have either a very clever Police Officer of a very stupid Police Officer. The clever Police Officer will keep a solicitor on his toes by asking questions that are well thought out and are based on matters that have not really been disclosed in full before the interview started. The stupid Police Officer will ask repetitive questions that even the dimmest Client can answer with ease, or ask questions that are just so stupid that they become amusing. Over the past weekend I encountered a 'stupid' Police Officer:

Q: When you fell asleep how long were you asleep for?
A: I don't know. I was asleep.
Q: Did you look at the clock?
A: I fell asleep outside, there wasn't a clock.
Q: What happened when you were asleep?
A: I don't know as I was asleep.
Q: Were you aware of anything happening when you were asleep?
A: Jesus! I was asleep man! Why do you keep asking me questions about when I was asleep!?

I did watch a number of the video interviews that I had been present in. They were just as boring to watch as they were to be present in. I cannot see how anyone thought that these interviews would be good for a Court or jury to watch. I can understand the logic behind the idea of a Court or jury being able to see the reaction of a Defendant when answering a question, or how a Defendant answered a question in interview but the reality is that most defendants sit calmly in their interview and act rather calmly. It is rare for a defendant to do anything of note in interview such as say, "I'm bored of your questions, no comment," then pull their jumper over their head and say nothing more.

In the vast majority of cases the actual audio tapes of the interview are not played back to a Court anyway. The CPS will prepare a summary of what was said in the interview, that summary is served on the defence, and the defence agree the contents of the summary. When a case then goes to trial the summary of the interview is read by the Court so they do not have to sit through an entire interview from start to finish. In recent years I have not heard an interview tape played to a Court, and that is probably for several reasons:

Most interviews have to be edited because the interview contains details that the Court should not know about. For example the defendant may have been arrested for multiple offences but is only being put on trial for one offence, or the defendant mentions the facts that they have been arrested before implying that they have previous convictions.

Interviews can go on unnecessarily for a long time and it is easier to read an interview summary than hear the whole tape.

A trial can be heard in a shorter period of time if the bench can simply read the interview instead of having to hear it.

Video interviews of suspects in my opinion were useless and will continue to be useless.

DJ Cooper

2007-11-07T21:51:00.000Z

District Judge Cooper has been visiting my local Court this week. He is a famous character who has a 'street name' of Custody Cooper because of his unusual style of locking people up to get them to change their plea, or as a sentence. I have encountered Mr. Cooper in the past and have always found him to be a very pleasant man.

Today I appeared in front of District Judge Cooper representing a Client who was in custody, and had pleaded not guilty to an assault charge. When the Court case was called on after lunch Mr. Cooper strolled in to Court, sat down and said, "What's this all about then?" The Clerk explained that the Client had pleaded not guilty to an assault and that a trial was going to take place in a few weeks time. Mr. Cooper then said, "Does he really want to plead not guilty? Let's have a look at the papers." He was then passed the case summary from the prosecution and said to the Client, "Why have you hit this man? That's an awfully silly thing to do. You have been in custody for a week. Let's see if we can sort this out." Mr. Cooper then looked at the Client's previous convictions and said, "He is on a community order, he will never finish that will he? Does your Client really want to stay in custody until his trial date? He will probably get convicted." At this point Mr. Cooper was using his distinctive charm and style to get my Client to change his plea. I took the opportunity to seize the moment and asked Mr. Cooper what he would give my Client if he did change his plea - to my surprise Mr. Cooper suggested he would revoke my Client's existing sentences for community service and let him walk out of Court with a Home Detention Curfew Order (otherwise known as a tag). At this point my Client summonsed me over and said that he wanted to change his plea. After a brief discussion my Client stated he was more than happy to accept responsibility for the assault if he would be released immediately and that he would not have to continue with his community service.

The end result of the hearing was Mr. Cooper cracked the trial, the Client walked out of Court after regaining his liberty, and there were smiles all round. Personally I was happy that the Client had decided to change his plea because the evidence against him was overwhelming and very likely to result in a conviction had the matter gone to trial and the witnesses had attended.

Bangin'

2007-11-07T21:31:00.000Z

It is common practice for some prisoners to bang on their cell doors. It is unusual to spend any length of time in either a Police Station or Court cells and not to hear banging on the cell doors accompanied by some form of shouting.

About a week ago I went to a local Police Station and arrived about 4.00 pm. When I arrived there was a rather jolly chap who could be heard banging on his cell door with a certain rhythm. He would bang on the cell door twice and then shout, "Solicitor," then he would bang twice again and shout, "Cigarette," and he kept banging twice and shouting words such as, "Medication", "Food", "Inspector". It was quite clear from the tone of voice used by the detained person that he was not being aggressive but was eager to get some attention and have his various needs dealt with. I did enquire with the custody staff at the Police Station and they told me that the man had indeed had access to legal advice and that he simply would not accept the fact he had been refused bail and had to stay the night at the Police Station. I was at the Police Station for about 2 and a half hours and during this entire time the man in the cell continued with his banging. I left the Police Station and came back some three hours later and still the man was banging on the cell door in his rhythmic fashion.

Today I went to the cells of my local Court and it was rather busy. All of the cells were occupied and before I got in to the cells I could hear that someone was banging loudly on their cell door and shouting aggressively. When I got in to the cells I realised that it was three men who had all been sentenced to prison terms that day, and they were banging together to vent their frustration at being in custody. The difference between the man at the Police Station and the three men at Court was the man at the Police Station was pleasant with his banging whereas the three men were just objectionable - their style of banging and shouting simply annoyed those who could hear it.

I have never understood why people bang on their cell doors as it usually means that whoever is looking after that person, whether it be Police, or Court staff, immediately turn against the person and decide that if they are banging then they will be the last person to get any form of service. I have yet to see a person bang on his cell door and get what he wants.

If you do decide to bang on your cell door adopt the style of banging that the man at the Police Station did - it is far easier on the ear and is rather amusing, even when it is performed for several hours.

CJSSS

2007-11-05T19:38:00.000Z

CJSSS is an acronym for Criminal Justice Speedy Summary Justice. Last week my local Magistrates Court had its first hearings under the CJSSS banner. The theory behind CJSSS is that the whole criminal justice system in the Magistrates Court will suddenly speed up.

It is planned that when people plead guilty to offences that would normally require an adjournment for a pre-sentence report to be produced by the Probation Service of about three weeks that the report will simply be done on the same day that the person pleaded guilty. This is fine by me, provided that the reports will actually be produced and will be of some use to the Court. I am quite happy to deal with a case in one hearing rather than several. An example of how the system does not work is when an HGV driver appeared in Court, pleaded guilty to being three times over the drink drive limit when driving his HGV. The Court asked for a new style Fast Delivery Report from the Probation Service. The Probation Service did not have enough staff to prepare the report within a 'fast' period and the case simply got put in at the back of the Court list. The report did nothing more than confirm what the HGV driver said in his interview with the Police, it did not look at any background issues, and most importantly it made no reference to the underlying issue as to why the HGV driver was in Court - his alcohol problem. When the case came back in to Court the HGV driver was sent to prison for three months - why you may ask? Because is was obvious any person who was drink driving whilst in control of a large articulated lorry should be sent to prison for public policy reasons! The report should not have been asked for because it was obvious only custody would be imposed. The Probation Service were lacking suitable staff to complete the report anyway.

Another example of the failing system is that for the system to speed up all parties have got to move up a gear. In one case a solicitor could not advice his Client on the evidence because the main evidence was CCTV footage in a public order incident. The CPS had statements referring to the CCTV and presented their case on the basis of the CCTV - but the CCTV was not on the CPS file, it was still in the hands of the Police who had not provided it to the CPS! The Court did comment that they were well aware that the Police had been given substantial funding to provide CCTV at first hearings and told the Prosecutor to go across the road at lunchtime to collect the CCTV!

These might seem like small points but the real thrust of CJSSS is that you can get from the start of a case to the end of a case far quicker than you can currently. In my local area if you plead guilty and have a Magistrates Court trial it will take between four to six months for your case to be concluded. Under CJSSS it is expected that cases will be concluded between six to ten weeks from the first date of hearing. I am comfortably predicting that I will see a return to the bad old days when cases were listed for trial so quickly that there was insufficient time to deal with real legal issues such as disclosure. I am of the firm opinion that with fast trials the Police will not be in a position to deal with all of their evidential and disclosure duties and turn up to trials more regularly with new evidence that has not seen the light of day before.

The idea behind CJSSS is very good, cut delays and waste out of the system. Defence solicitors are usually fairly small organisations that can adapt well to change. Unfortunately organisations like the Police, Probation and Her Majesty's Court Service are unlikely to be in a position to adapt so fast even though CJSSS has been planned for many months.

It has been suggested to me that there is a different meaning to CJSSS - Criminal Justice Same Stupid Sh*t. I think that the person who came up with that definition has got it right.

Abuse

2007-01-22T00:04:00.000Z

Last week I received a leaflet from the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association advertising one of it's new training courses. I probably receive one of these leaflets a week and usually I briefly look at the leaflet and throw it away. The only reason for me to actually read the leaflet that I received was because I had been told that I needed some training so I should attend the training course that this particular leaflet was advertising.

I was somewhat amused by the leaflet's description of the individual who was going to be speaking at the training seminar. I have set out below the exact text from the leaflet on the speaker (apart from his identity and the name of the firm he works for):

Mr. Solicitor is a solicitor at Solicitor & Partners and a regular lecturer for the LCCSA. The 2004 Chambers Guide to the Legal Profession described him having a "pedigree which stands out by itself". The 2005 edition as "tremendously bright", the 2006 edition as a "business crime legend" and the 2007 edition as having made a "massive academic contribution due to his involvement on the lecture circuit". Colleagues have described him as a 'complete wanker'.

I am pretty sure that the last sentence was not supposed to be published and circulated to every member of the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association!

Marketing

2007-01-16T00:18:00.000Z

Marketing for criminal clients has always been a problem. Advertising to the general public about a firms criminal department never usually works as the people you are trying to reach often fail to respond to such adverts. Word of mouth is king, and reputations are very important.

If a person is arrested on a regular basis it is likely that they will have had contact with solicitors before - it is also likely that they will fit in to a stereotypical social group i.e. they have a low income and have some form of addiction (either drug or alcohol related). Trying to advertise services to this social group is pointless, particularly as they are usually going to be entitled to legal aid and therefore there is no price competition in the market. Word of mouth for these Clients works on this basis:

Mr. A: The Police want to arrest me, they came round to my house last night when I was out.
Mr. B: Who is your solicitor?
Mr. A: Joe Bloggs and Co. But last time I didn't get bail.
Mr. B: Nah, don't use them. My mate was arrested the other day and he got bail. Use Smith and Partners.
Mr. A: But I heard they work with the Police.
Mr. B: Really? Oh, use my solicitors then.

Clients rarely judge solicitors on a variety of performance factors, they usually judge whether or not they are going to get bail and whether or not they will be locked up for long. The more regular Clients will often build up a relationship with one particular firm or solicitor so that marketing criminal defence services becomes even more difficult.

The other night I was at a Police Station and I saw that a local firm was handing out key rings to it's criminal clients. The key rings had the firms name on it and the emergency contact telephone number. It is a simple idea, but unlikely to set the world on fire. I once worked for a firm that sent out key rings to Clients. The firm advertised that it worked in the area of 'public law' by proclaiming to have expertise in 'pubic law'. A few years ago a trend was set by firms creating plastic business cards that were effectively indestructible. These plastic cards were handed out to clients and they did not fall apart like business cards made from card - the only problem with plastic business cards was that the Police would take them away from Clients at the Police Station because some Clients would use the card to self harm and try to slit their own wrists! Imagine that, finding out that a Client had killed himself using your business card!

I sat discussing marketing ideas with a colleague today. We drew up a shortlist of marketing ideas that are unlikely to succeed, but are likely to prove popular in the short term:

Branded alcohol or cigarettes. The cause for getting in to trouble could be getting drunk. Everyone remembers what they were drinking before their memory fades, a branded bottle of drink would remind Clients to give you a call. Also every Client wants a cigarette at the Police Station, regardless of whether or not they smoke. Branded cigarettes would remind the Clients who to call when arrested.
Advertising space on Police Cell ceilings. What can you do when you have been arrested and placed in to a cell? Not a lot. Many Police Cells have the crime stoppers telephone number printed/sprayed on the ceiling. That ceiling is valuable advertising space. When a Client is detained at the Police Station 9 times out of 10 they will got to sleep and look at the ceiling.

Doomed

2007-01-09T23:05:00.000Z

I went to my local Magistrates Court today. A man was in the cells as it was alleged that he had breached his bail conditions. I spoke with the Prosecutor and obtained some papers on the case before going down to the cells to visit the man. When I spoke to the Serco Custody Staff I was told that the man had his own solicitor and that that firm of solicitors had asked if I could phone them. I was later instructed to act on their behalf.

I spoke with the man and asked him a few questions:

Q: It is alleged that you breached your bail because you had a condition not to sit in the front seat of a car, and you were arrested sitting in the front seat of a car?
A: [Low grumbling noise, then man lifts his head off of the interview room table] No! They is lying. I was standing outside the car. They is lying. I'm not havin' that. They is lying.
Q: So you disagree.
A: [Low grumbling noise, then man lifts his head off of the interview room table again] Yes, I want bail man. I 'aint stayin here again. I want bail.

We did not really get off to a good start, the man even sucked air through his front teeth - and that really gets on my nerves. After explaining that if the man wanted to contest the allegation of breach of bail he would have to go through a mini trial today and challenge the evidence of the Police he instructed me to tell the CPS Prosecutor that he did not accept the breach of bail. As this man had presented himself as being unpleasant and clearly thought that I was his skivvy I was happy to act upon his instructions that were doomed to result in failure. I warned the man that he was more likely to be given bail again if he were to accept the overwhelming evidence that he had breached his bail as the Prosecutor had already given me an indication that he would not ask for a remand in to custody if the breach of bail was accepted. Despite my warning I was again instructed to pursue the breach of bail hearing as the man's instructions were that he was not going to accept the alleged breach.

When the man's case was called on the evidence of the Police Officer who spoke with the Client whilst he was sat in the front seat of a car was read to the Court. The man gave oral evidence and disputed that he was ever sat in the front seats of the car. He looked at some still pictures taken from CCTV footage produced by the Prosecutor and simply sucked air through his teeth. It was a complete shambles. I used the phrase, "I am instructed to..." on a number of occasions to make it known that I thought the man's case had no merit but I was told by the man to make the application anyway. Eventually the Magistrates decided that the breach of bail had been proved and they then decided to remand the man in to custody.

Following the hearing I saw the man in the cells and explained why he had been remanded in to custody. He then asked if I would take his car keys and get someone to pick up his car as he did not want it to get clamped. I told the man that I was going to have nothing to do with his car and that his usual solicitors would see him very soon.

I left Court feeling somewhat smug that this man had failed to listen to me warn him that the evidence was overwhelming, and that as a consequence of his refusal to listen to me (and probably everybody who he came in to contact with) that he had remanded himself in to custody.

Utter Rubbish

2007-01-08T22:47:00.000Z

The Legal Services Commission has finally published an evaluation report of the Public Defender Service. The Public Defender Service was an experiment set up by the Legal Services Commission in 2000 to see what running a criminal defence practice was actually like. A number of annual reports have been published over the years about the Public Defender Service, and each report confirmed that the Public Defender Service is not an economically viable alternative to private solicitors firms doing criminal defence work under legal aid schemes.

A press release was issued by the Legal Services Commission to announce the publication of the final evaluation report:

The Public Defender Service (PDS) provides a better quality of service than private practice according to independent research published today. This finding is based on one of the largest and most detailed peer review evaluations of criminal defence services ever conducted.

In addition the research states that providing criminal advice services through an organisation directly employed by the state has no negative impact on the independence of the advice and representation provided to clients

The research was carried out by a team headed by Professors Lee Bridges of the University of Warwick and Avrom Sherr of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in London. It was based on an analysis of the PDS during its first three years of operation, from 2001 to 2004. It showed that during this start-up period, when the PDS was building up its caseload, it had higher costs than other criminal defence providers in the same areas.

The PDS annual report 2005/06 also published today shows that the service has become more efficient since the research was carried out. It also shows the most successful PDS offices are in areas such as Cheltenham with limited supply and can add value by filling gaps in the market.

Gaynor Ogden, Head of Employed Services at the Legal Services Commission said:

"I welcome the findings of the research which shows that Public Defender Service has become an example of a good quality criminal defence supplier and has a lot to offer the Legal Services Commission as a test bed of service delivery and a role in informing policy.

"The research report is based on data collected early in the life of the PDS and we have come a long way since then in terms of growth, quality and cost. We have introduced a new management structure which has bought focus to performance and we have introduced innovative methods of delivery including developing our in-house higher court advocates.

"We now have an opportunity to make firm plans about the future of the PDS and how we can best offer quality, value-for-money services to clients. We expect to make an announcement about the future shape of the PDS soon."

Legal Aid Minister, Vera Baird added:

"This research shows very clearly that the PDS is independent and gives robust advice: public defenders advise people not to speak in police station interviews more frequently than private solicitors; and more PDS defendants than private solicitor defendants enter early guilty pleas, yet the PDS has an equivalent client conviction rate, thus sparing their victims further trauma. Clearly the PDS has a future."

It is the comments in bold type that has inspired me to give this blog post the title 'Utter rubbish'. The PDS does not provide value for money, it is a vastly more expensive service to fund when compared to solicitors in private practice. My understanding is that the costs per case for the PDS is some three times higher than a solicitors firm in private practice. Yes, the PDS may have a future if it is going to provide services in areas where private solicitors have stopped providing criminal defence services because the income they generated by legal aid fees was so small. Yes, the PDS may provide a quality service to defendants - and that may well be down to the fact that they have fewer cases to deal with than solicitors firms in private practice.

The Public Defender Service was an expensive project funded by government money. The government is currently telling solicitors like me that the legal aid budget cannot accommodate any more increases and that we will all have to do the same (or more) work for less money in the future. The government is also trying to force upon solicitors smaller fees for work at the Police Station and Magistrates Court (this is a slight generalisation, but an accurate one) whilst it is suggesting the expensive PDS should continue to grow. The government is being somewhat hypocritical with the press release.

Wanted: For Crimes Against Common Sense

2007-01-05T22:34:00.000Z

The Daily Mail is a newspaper that publishes a lot of amusing stories. The articles are usually amusing for the content published or the viewpoint that the paper takes. The article with the headline, "Wanted: for crimes against common sense," caught my eye:

A Chief constable was accused of 'madness' last night after refusing to release pictures of two escaped murderers amid fears it might breach their human rights.

Derbyshire's top policeman David Coleman claimed the killers posed 'no risk' to locals, while the force said it had to consider the Human Rights Act and data protection laws when asked to publish 'wanted' photographs of the two men.

Mr Coleman's attitude towards murderers Jason Croft and Michael Nixon contrasts sharply with his ruthless crackdown on speeding drivers in recent years - including a 62-year-old who was jailed after being caught doing 38mph in a 30mph zone.

You can read the rest of this article by following this link.

Good Planning

2007-01-05T22:16:00.000Z

Here is a true story of how badly most Clients will plan their offending. Over the Christmas period a few people got together and dreamt up a scheme to make some fast money. You would think that if they actually put some thought in to it that the plan would be reasonable and that they would probably get away with the crime.

The crime that was planned was a robbery of a petrol station. The robbery was to be an inside job as one of the people making the plan was one of the employees of the petrol station. The appointed night came and the group of criminals made their way to the crime scene. The CCTV camera was moved so that it was looking at a wall, and not at the door of till area, by the petrol station employee. The other people involved in the crime came in to the petrol station and with the help of the employee emptied out the cash from the till - this should not have been caught on camera but unfortunately the CCTV camera had been pushed so that it's new viewpoint was looking at a mirrored/reflective surface that gave a very good view of what was going on at the till.

Before the criminals left the premises they decided to make the robbery look real and with the consent of the employee beat him up. Unfortunately some members of the public saw the employee being beaten up and called the Police.

As the 'robbers' were leaving the petrol station dressed in balaclavas the Police arrived in a car with the lights and siren going. The 'robbers' jumped in to their getaway car and started to drive away at speed. Unfortunately the view of the driver was obscured because his windscreen had steamed up and he simply could not see out of the balaclava as it kept slipping down his head. Eventually the 'robbers' crashed their vehicle and were arrested and detained by the Police.

Emmerdale

2006-11-08T22:37:00.000Z

My wife likes to watch Emmerdale on the television and from time to time, when I am not working late, I will sometimes see programmes like Emmerdale on the television.

I watched Emmerdale last night and got rather angry. I am not a good person to sit with when there is some kind of legal drama on the television as I shout out when they have got something wrong.

Last night I chuckled when I saw the Clerk of the Crown Court was wearing a wig like a barrister. Then I chuckled when I saw that the Prosecution barrister was wearing a solicitors robe and not one for Counsel. I then started shouting about the procedures and how the jury had not been sworn. I got angry when the rules of evidence were completely ignored.

My wife does not like watching legal dramas with me. She tells me to, "Be quiet," or from time to time after an outburst I get, "Oh, shut up!"

The Bill is one of the worst culprits for getting it wrong. I cannot recall ever seeing an episode where a defence solicitor was portrayed in a positive light.

Means Tested Legal Aid

2006-10-06T00:10:00.000+01:00

A new legal aid system has been introduced, and as from 2nd October 2006 criminal legal aid has reverted to means testing. To get legal aid for a criminal case you now need to pass the interests of justice test and the means test. For the past seven or eight years you simply had to pass the interests of justice test.

What is the interests of justice test? It is simply qualifying the need for a solicitor. For example if you apply for legal aid and there is a pretty good chance you could go to prison due to the seriousness of the case you would usually be given legal aid. Also if your case involved a complex area of law then you may meet the interests of justice test.

The means test is back, but in a new way. Means testing used to exist, but it was abolished because it was believed that means testing was too expensive to actually collect in money that people had to contribute to their legal aid if their income fell between certain levels. I like the idea of means testing, those defendants who can afford to pay for legal services should pay for them. Those Defendants who cannot afford to pay for legal services should qualify for legal aid. The Legal Services Commission has been behind the reintroduction of means testing and they have made a right pigs ear of it.

Here some examples of why applications have been rejected recently:

The form had been filled out in blue ink and not black ink.

The ethnicity part of the form had not been completed to specify the applicants ethnicity

The application of a 12 year old youth had not specified whether or not he had a marital partner

The application submitted before the first hearing did not contain a copy of the applicants previous convictions even though these are not available to defence solicitors until the first hearing

Many defence solicitors, including myself, are aggrieved by the attitude of the Legal services Commission over means testing. They have somehow managed to move the job of processing legal aid applications from experienced Court staff to administration staff who have had no experience of the interests of justice test, or have any practical experience of Court work to know how to apply the interests of justice test.

The real problem with the new means testing scheme is that applications for legal aid cannot always be processed on the first hearing when the Defendant appears in Court. For example, my local Court is served by a central administration office. If I want to lodge a legal aid application it has to be sent through the post or document exchange to an office, I then have to wait two days to find out if the application has been granted. Now this all sounds fine until you realise that there are Defendants in Court without time to make an application for legal aid. If I represent a Client for a matter at the Police Station they might appear in Court within 24 hours having been refused bail by the Police - and in these circumstances I cannot ensure that legal aid is in place before the Client appears in Court wanting to be represented. In reality the Legal Services Commission want solicitors to gamble and to guess when legal aid will be granted. There is no way for me to recoup losses (other than ridiculously small fees) if I have spent the vast majority of my time at Court for a Defendant who has been refused bail by the Police and is also refused legal aid several days later!

The Derek Hills of the Legal Services Commission, and Vera Baird QC of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, have shown utter contempt for legally aided defendants over means testing. There are some very real issues such as young defendants remaining in custody for longer than is necessary whilst legal aid applications are resolved. The UK has a record of locking up a higher percentage of the population than other European countries, we also lock up more of our youths. Means testing is adding to this issue. At a meeting on 2nd October 2006 I was told by the head Clerk that if Defendants have to remain locked up in order to process legal aid applications then so be it.

2nd October 2006 was the date for the reintroduction of means testing, it will go down in my diary as Black Monday.

Where Have I Been?

2006-10-06T00:03:00.000+01:00

Apologies to my loyal readers for the lack of posts recently but I have found that my time has been taken up racing all over the place with work, I have been left with little time to tap away at my keyboard to post messages on this blog.

Where have I been in the past two weeks then? I have made three trips to Ipswich Crown court to get a difficult rape trial off the ground. It is often good practice for solicitors who have conduct of serious cases to attend at the first day of a trial to ensure that any pre-trial issues such as disclosure, or last minute conferences between the Client and defence barrister, go smootly. I have been to two very long conferences with Clients and their barristers in London for impending trials. I have visited the Police Station on various occasions. I have been to various local Magistrates Courts defending the innocent and the needy. I am now in the position where I actually want to be in my office for a period of time to finish of administrative paperwork. Today I went off to my local Magistrates Court and dealt with four cases before lunch, I then went to my local prison and spent the afternoon taking instructions from two Clients. I then went directly from the prison to a Police Station and I got home about 9.00 pm.

Victims Advisory Panel - Why?

2006-10-05T23:42:00.000+01:00

The Home Office has announced the creation of the Victims Advisory Panel:

The new panel will include people who have suffered from crimes such as burglary, anti-social behavior and hate crime, or who are survivors of victims of serious violent crime.

It will examine the way victims and witnesses are treated and the way their experiences are handled by the criminal justice system, and then make formal recommendations for changes directly to Ministers.

The panel is a critical part of the government's commitment to put victims at the heart of the criminal justice system.

Emotional and practical support
Home Office Minister Gerry Sutcliffe said that, while crime is at record low levels, people are still victimised and their rights must be protected. 'Being a victim or witness of a crime can have a severe and damaging effect. We will ensure that victims have the emotional and practical support they need.'

The panel will work to ensure that victims feel the system is on their side as they go through the difficult process of giving evidence and working with police and prosecutors to ensure that criminals are brought to justice, he said.

Constitutional Affairs Minister Rt Hon Harriet Harman agreed adding, 'Crime victims must get the support they need from the criminal justice system.' The advisory panel, she said, 'will represent the needs of victims, whatever their circumstances.'

Hearing their voices
Kathryn Stone, the panel's spokesperson, is also the chief executive of Voice UK, a national charity for people with learning difficulties who have been victims of crime. She said the panel will provide a critical service.

'Too often the voice of the victim is not heard properly, or not heard early enough. We are looking forward to being the voice of victims of crime at a crucial stage - when policy is first being developed.'

My question is why create such a body? I realise that this post is likely to provoke a nasty reaction from some of the readers of this blog, but I do not understand what our government beleives it will achieve by setting up such a panel. I have read through the proposals that victims should be able to address Courts upon the impact of a defendant's behaviour if convicted, I have also read the proposals that victims should form part of the Parole Board panel that decides if a convicted prisoner can be released from prison. I have yet to see the results of the victims advocate pilot.

The judicial system that exists in the UK has been developed over centuries. One of the key parts to the judicial system is that both the defence and prosecution are adequately represented, and that their submissions to a Court are judged by appropriately trained and qualified judicial office holders. If victims are to be given control of our criminal justice system why have a Court in the first place? Bring back public floggings and hanging. There will be no need for a trial!

Victims of crime deserve to have their voice heard, that is why the Prosecution exists, to put forward the victim's case in Court.

Arghhh!!!

2006-09-26T22:56:00.000+01:00

One of my worst nightmares became a reality this week. I had been preparing a matter for a Crown Court trial over the past six months. I had briefed experienced Counsel to deal with the trial. My Client had met the barrister a number of times and was very happy with their service. Everything was looking well prepared and ready for trial.

I got out of my bed and started getting myself ready on the first day of the trial when I received a telephone call from the barrister's clerk. I knew that something would be wrong if I was receiving a call this early in the morning. I was told that the barrister had been injured in an accident and that they were unable to attend Court due to the extent of their injuries. I then said the words, "What are we going to do then?" The clerk said, "I don't know, what do you want to do?" I thought for a short while and then said, "Don't worry, leave it to me".

The case was not the kind of matter where a new barrister could read the papers and be up to speed within a few hours. There was no point trying to get a new barrister to the Court to deal with the matter. I took the matter in to my own hands and traveled to the Court knowing that there would not be a barrister to represent the interests of my Client. On my arrival at Court I spoke with the Clerk who was kind enough to seek the permission of the trial Judge who granted me rights of audience to appear in the Crown Court and represent my Client.

At no stage did I ever think that I should step in the breach and take the case on by actually doing the trial - my point of view was that provided the Judge would give me rights of audience I could then make an application to adjourn the trial in order to arrange new Counsel, allow time for new Counsel to prepare for the matter, and then have a conference with my Client and his new Counsel.

All went well in Court and my trial was adjourned despite the Prosecution barrister being a pedant suggesting that my Client's case could start in the afternoon with a new barrister! I quite enjoyed the experience of exchanging blows with the Prosecution barrister during the course of my application as he had been particularly difficult in pre-trial hearings regarding disclosure.

Once the case had been adjourned I let out a sigh of relief. The nightmare scenario that I had thought about on many occasions had been simple enough to solve. I have now made a mental note that I really should pull my finger out and put the finishing touches to my solicitor advocates portfolio so that I can actually obtain rights of audience to appear in the Crown Court to deal with hearings such as mentions, plea and case management hearings, and trials.

More Doom and Gloom

2006-09-26T22:47:00.000+01:00

The Law Society has published a report on the impact that the Carter reforms are going to have on criminal defence work. The Solicitors Journal has published a good article on the bad news that this report delivers:

A report commissioned by the Law Society and published this morning predicts that over 800 legal aid firms could be forced out of business if the reform proposed by Lord Carter goes through as it is. This is twice as many firms as anticipated by Lord Carter.

The report, prepared by LECG, an offshoot of the University of California at Berkeley, warns that typical profits, allowing for all costs, would range from only 2 per cent down to about -6 per cent. By contrast, 'comparative industries' such as financial advisor services, typically expect a ten to 15 per cent profit.

The Law Society states that without higher fees and a rethink of the Carter implementation timetable, the consequences for legal aid will be “disastrous”.

“The Government is trying to make efficiency savings too soon, firms must be allowed to restructure first,” said Law Society Chief Executive Desmond Hudson. “The over-hasty imposition of this change programme on a very fragile supplier base could prove to be disastrous.”

One of the Law Society's biggest fears, backed up by the LECG research, is that no new solicitors will want to practice legal aid work, leading to the reversing of the ageing supplier base. The research highlights a recent survey which found that whilst 60 per cent of student solicitors said they would like to do publicly-funded work, only 21 per cent actually do, due to “perceived low salaries, limited career prospects and poor working conditions.”

Andrew Holroyd, Law Society Vice President, said: “There has been an alarming reduction in the number of law firms doing legal aid work in recent years and there are few incentives for the legal aid lawyers of tomorrow. We will be pressing the government for increases in rates that allow viable businesses to develop and the entire sector to return to health.”

The Law Society is pointing to the recent increase in pay rates for the junior criminal bar and Scottish legal aid practitioners, as evidence there are funds available. It also highlights that the administrative costs for the Legal Services Commission has risen from £62.4m in 1999/2000 to £96.4m in 2004/2005 – including a spend of £605,000 on stationary alone last year.

“The Government’s pledge to provide a ten million pound transition fund to help firms adapt to the new environment is a step in the right direction but given the scale of the change much more support will be needed,” said Holroyd.

The Legal Aid Practitioners Group welcomed the LECG research. Chairman Richard Miller said: ”The legal aid supplier base is very fragile, and needs support if clients are not to lose the services they need. It is in danger of being significantly damaged by the Carter reforms: even treatment aimed at saving the patient may kill if the patient is not strong enough.”

I am keeping my fingers crossed that I do not work for one of those 800 firms mentioned in the report! The reality is that the firm I work for is unlikely in the short term to stop doing legally aided criminal defence work, but in the long term who knows what is going to happen? Oh, I forgot, Lord Carter knows what will happen, perhaps I should ask him if I will still have a job in 10 years time?

Phew

2006-09-24T13:02:00.000+01:00

I recently represented a Client for a matter of driving without due care and attention. As the Client's case did not qualify for legal aid they funded their case on a private basis.

The case took about six months to deal with from start to finish. The trial took place recently and I am pleased to report that I secured another acquittal. Before my critics start jumping up and down suggesting that private money has been the root cause for the acquittal let me explain that this is a case that should not have been prosecuted from the start.

My Client was alleged to have been the cause of a road traffic accident. There were two prosecution witnesses who claimed to have seen the accident. The first witness said that a lorry had crossed through a junction and that because of this lorry the 'other' driver was responsible for the crash. The second witness said that no lorry had been at the junction and she had not seen my Client cause the accident anyway.

At the half way point in the trial when the Prosecution had completed their evidence I made a submission of 'no case to answer'. The Magistrates decided that the Prosecution evidence taken at its highest was such that a Court could not properly convict. At hearing this news my Client began to cry at the sheer joy of being acquitted.

I escorted my Client out of Court as the trial for the 'other' driver continued. Most Clients are fairly unresponsive to being found guilty, being found not guilty, or even being sentenced to prison. Many of my repeat Clients do not consider being sent to prison as something that will overly concern them, and therefore they show very little emotion if sentenced to prison. This particular Client explained that they had been so worried over this case that they had lost sleep and appeared to have genuinely suffered emotionally in the time it took the case to come to trial.

I was rather pleased to see that the result I had secured actually meant something to this Client. What was even better was the fact that the Client had thanked me for the work that I had undertaken on her behalf. Clients rarely say thank you.

Can't You Just Make It Up?

2006-09-19T23:28:00.000+01:00

I spent most of my day today at my local Magistrates Court. I dealt with a variety of cases including one matter where my Client had previously pleaded guilty to driving without insurance and his case had been adjourned until today for him to argue that despite being a potential totter he should not be disqualified from driving due to 'exceptional hardship'.

Unfortunately this Client had only contacted my office yesterday and everything today was rushed as a result of there being very little time to prepare the case. My Client went in to the dock and during a series of preliminary questions asked by the Magistrates I had to keep asking the Client for the answers because of the lack of time that I had had with the Client prior to his case being called on. During these questions I was approaching my Client in the dock and asking him in a quiet voice the questions in order to get a response to give to the Court. My Client would then reply in an equally quiet voice that the Magistrates could not hear, and then I would pass that answer on to the Magistrates. When I asked my Client one particular question he responded, "Can't you just make it up?" I was somewhat surprised at this response. Many people will suggest that I am morally corrupt doing criminal defence work, but, one thing that I will not do is make up stories for my Clients. I replied, "No, tell the Court the truth." My Client then came up with the answer after some considerable thought.

The case continued for some time and after my Client had given evidence under oath the Magistrates announced that they were satisfied with My Client's evidence and despite imposing 6 penalty points on his driving record when he already had 6 penalty points they did not disqualify him from driving as a result of being a 'totter'.

After the hearing my Client commented that the private fee that he had paid my firm to represent him had been the best money he had ever spent. He then went on to say that he had now understood that to succeed in Court you needed to know what not to say rather than what to say. This was a fairly good observation to be made by a lay person, but he was correct. Advocacy is the art of persuasion, and usually the most persuasive argument is one that ensures nasty facts are not made known to the Court.

Re-re-balancing The Criminal Justice System

2006-09-17T12:49:00.000+01:00

The BBC has reported that the Home Secretary is going to issue another consultation paper where he seeks to re-balance the Criminal Justice System again:

Judges could be stopped from freeing criminals on legal technicalities under government plans. Home Secretary John Reid, who says he wants to "rebalance criminal justice in favour of victims", will launch a consultation on how to achieve his aim.

The consultation paper states that it "should not be possible to quash" a conviction that is considered "safe".

The move follows a police crackdown on reckless or drunk drivers escaping conviction through legal "loopholes".

Writing in the foreword to the paper, Mr Reid said new laws would be required.

"Whilst the government is open to suggestions about how we achieve the aims, we are not consulting on the aims themselves or on whether the law should be changed," he said.

"It is our firm view that the present system risks outcomes which are unacceptable to the law-abiding majority."

Common examples of so-called loopholes include the police failing to properly read suspects their rights, or searching homes with out-of-date warrants.

The Home Office consultation paper states: "The government acknowledges that the Court of Appeal are not in the same position as the jury and may not always be able to form a view on whether the appellant committed the offence.

"However, where they have formed such a view the government believes they should not be empowered to allow the appeal."

To read the BBC article follow this link.

Is it me or does Dr. John Reid simply not understand the rule of law? We have over centuries developed a legal system that is designed to allow both the Prosecution and Defence to give evidence in Court to decide which side is correct - it seems to me that Dr. John Reid does not like the idea of a not guilty verdict! The conviction rate in this country is something like 97% in the Magistrates Court. What more does he want?

If he looking to prevent people having convictions quashed by the Court of Appeal on technicalities then he wasting his time - the Court of Appeal has said in many judgments over the past few years that technicalities will not prevent an otherwise safe conviction from being quashed.

Okay, rant over...

Drunken Solicitors

2006-09-01T00:13:00.000+01:00

I stumbled across this piece written in the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association publication, The Advocate, this evening and I thought that I would share it with the general public:

This piece was prompted by a letter of concern which I wrote to the Association following the Grosvenor House dinner. I have been attending the dinners for many years; my first memories are of its being at the Savoy. The Association was then very small (about 250 or so members); the original aim of the dinner was to provide an opportunity for London solicitors to entertain the stipes. Even as late as the seventies, solicitors (particularly those in crime), were thought to be a little below stairs, and this was a chance to raise their profile.

Over the years, the occasion has grown in size and has changed in other ways. In recent years it has come to be known as the “touts” ball. I never quite understood who was supposed to be doing the touting, but assumed the reference was to the Bar. However, as it is the solicitors who shell out quite generously to entertain the Bar at their tables, the jibe appears misdirected. Perhaps the label is one which is in fact applied by the disappointed barristers who don’t secure an invitation.

Of course, the other big change in the last couple of years has been that stipes are now not formally entertained at Grosvenor House by the Association. Sensibly, that evening has been moved to a biannual event, in the more intimate surroundings of the Savoy. However, many judges are still invited to the dinner by members.

The dinner, like LCCSA itself, has been a runaway success over the last few years. It is a landmark in the legal calendar, a great opportunity for firms to entertain their staff, their friends and colleagues at the Bar, and some judges. It is moving towards looking more like a ball than a legal dinner. Some of us are concerned by this drift but the truth is that it is popular and well attended, and therefore seems to suit the membership.

One thing, however, is not working well and that is the conduct at the tables during the keynote speech. The letter I wrote to the Association expressed my grave concern about the treatment of speakers. I am a long-standing friend and honorary member of the Association and I feel strongly that there should never again be a situation such as occurred this year. The Association invited Sir David Calvert-Smith to give the keynote address. He graciously agreed, and as a regular attender, he would have known what a challenge it is.

Anyone agreeing to make the speech is signing up to a great deal of thought, sweat and preparation and is generously giving that time and effort to the Association and its guests. Sir David has experience of every aspect of the legal landscape. He had prepared an important and interesting “state of the nation” address which deserved our undivided and respectful attention.

As those present will know, Sir David was subjected to a barrage of drunken noise; despite efforts to quieten the tables, a good proportion of those who were present continued to talk loudly among themselves while the speaker struggled through. The whole episode was unprofessional and highly embarrassing, and, in my view, did the Association a great deal of damage.

The problem is simply drink. It is quite clear that, by the end of the dinner, many in the room are beyond the point of being able to control themselves and are certainly in no condition to listen to a thoughtful legal speech.

Although this year was the worst I have encountered, the problem is not new and I believe has been ignored for too long. I have therefore urged the Association not to ask any more senior judges or lawyers to speak after this dinner.

What are the alternatives? We know that the “Gilly Gray” type of speech – a series of wonderful jokes and stories – will work, but Gilly Grays are few and far between. A professional paid speaker would offer a similar service and would “hold” a boozy audience, but this option would move so far from the legal dinner model that it may be defeating the entire object of the exercise.

I am told that in Holland speeches are made at the beginning of a dinner before the drinking begins; this would be novel and could work. Otherwise, it may be best to abandon the keynote speech altogether, have a short morale boosting speech from the current President, and leave it at that.

The decision is one for the committee, assisted by sensible representations from the membership. I know that the committee would value responses from members to this piece to enable its members to find a way to ensure that the success of the dinner continues but to guard against any possibility of the good name of the Association being brought into disrepute as a result of boorish behaviour.

– Stephen Dawson, district judge (magistrates’ courts)

Some of the comments made in this piece are entirely true. Solicitors do look forward to attending at this event, and some do get terribly drunk. But, this years speech was bloody awful. I was present at the event mentioned in the article and my table held a sweepstake to guess the length of the DPP's speech. I thought that my estimate of 18 minutes was pretty good, but if memory serves me right the speech went on for some 27 minutes. The speech did not deserve the heckling that it received from one drunken man who decided to shout, "Disclosure!", at inappropriate moments. By the end of the speech my table had lost interest in what the DPP was saying simply because he was talking for too long, in fact my table may have been one of the tables talking too loudly!

Ouch

2006-08-21T22:11:00.000+01:00

A murder took place in my local area recently. The man charged with the murder had been arrested on a weekend day for a matter of domestic violence. He was then interviewed, he made full admissions, and then it was decided that it was appropriate to caution him for the assault and release him. The man then went home and killed his wife.

The reality is that whoever the unfortunate soul was within the Police who authorised this man to be cautioned cannot be criticised. I would imagine that if the man had been legally represented the solicitor would have pushed for a caution, and the Police would have probably been satisfied to give a caution provided that there had been no previous incidents of domestic violence and the man appeared to show some remorse.

Meet Vera Baird QC

2006-08-14T22:42:00.000+01:00

I went to a meeting today in Cambridge to meet the Legal Aid Minister Vera Baird QC. The meeting was attended by about 40 to 50 other solicitors in order to discuss the Carter Report. The meeting consisted of the Minister and Derek Hill of the Legal Services Commission taking for about 30 minutes about the implementation of Carter, and then they answered questions for the next 90 minutes.

I had been looking forward to this meeting as I had a number of questions to put to the Minister. I was somewhat, selfishly, disappointed when most of the time was taken up by answering questions on the civil implications of Carter. When the subject turned to crime a local solicitor started to exaggerate the circumstances of waiting around at the Police Station claiming that he had been called to the Police Station four times in the past ten days and made to wait for three hours. I have no doubt that he did have to wait but not for three hours, four times, in the past ten days. This exaggeration detracted from the seriousness of the crime reforms, and the true impact they are going to have.

When I was able to get myself heard in the room I asked the Legal Aid Minister if any exceptions would be made to fixed fees for waiting in the Magistrates Courts allowing solicitors to claim for time wasted that was not their fault. During my exchange I was told that solicitors would have to alert the Department for Constitutional Affairs about delays caused by third parties so that the DCA could resolve the problems in the future in order to make fixed fee payments work. I replied by quoting examples of waiting that was caused by the fault of others, and then pointed out that a report produced by Professors Cape and Moorehead a few years ago alerted the legal world to the fact that waiting was a part of solicitors work and that the waiting was generally the fault of other parties. Unfortunately my exchange with the Minister broke down, she talked over me, and when I tried to talk over her she replied in a Question Time like manner, "Will you let me finish please." The verbal traffic was very one way in that I was talked at. Eventually the Legal Aid Minister decided that I was not being courteous enough as I was taking up too much of the question and answer session time. She made us all raise our hands and we had to wait to be selected before we put further questions to her, unfortunately she decided not to pick me for any further questions so I grew tired of trying to ask questions and put my hand down.

From this meeting I have gleaned that the basic principles of the Carter reforms are going to be brought in by the government. This was no big surprise. I have been told that if I object to the proposals then I need to put those objections in writing. Again this was no surprise. I intend to reply to the government consultations on Carter but if my written responses are treated anything like my verbal questions today I cannot see much notice being taken of my point of view. I simply hope that if more people voice their concerns the government will listen to a large number of voices.

More Tales From The Jury Room

2006-08-13T14:03:00.000+01:00

Here is another contribution that I have been sent about jury deliberations:

The charge was section 18 wounding, arising from a road-rage incident. The defendant, who, if things had stopped rather earlier than they did, would probably have been in court as the complainant, admitted hitting the other chap - in what he said was self-defence - while he was holding his car keys. The way the complainant came to be slashed across the throat (fortunately not very deeply) was that, according to the defendant, the small lock-knife he kept attached to his key-ring had somehow sprung open during the fight, without his realising it, because the catch was loose.

As quite often happens, the judge had sent the jury home after the speeches the previous day and summed up first thing in the morning. The jury were then sent out and we were rather surprised to be called back into court 10 minutes later.

A problem had come to the judge's notice. He'd just heard from the court security guards that one of the jurors had set off the metal-detector when he arrived that morning. They'd discovered this was because he'd got two knives with him. Obviously, they told he couldn't take them in with him and confiscated them, despite his protests that he needed them because he and another juror wanted to demonstrate their colleagues what they thought might have happened in the fight.

The jury were dismissed because, as the judge said, they'd clearly been developing very speculative theories about the fight. It's fortunate, I suppose, that we avoided a situation in which the jury had to explain they couldn't reach a unanimous verdict because one of their number had just been taken to A&E.

Bail Pending Appeal

2006-08-13T09:14:00.000+01:00

I recently represented a Client who pleaded guilty to an offence, due to the Client's previous convictions and the nature of the offence he had committed he was always at risk of being given a prison sentence. I explained to the Court the Clients personal circumstances and suggested if the Court considered taking action that was more serious that a conditional discharge then they should ask the Probation Service to prepare a pre-sentence report. The Magistrates retired and then came back in to Court saying that they wanted to deal with the case now and that they were thinking of imposing a sentence that could include prison.

It is not often that a bench of lay Magistrates will give an indication that they want to send someone to prison without first obtaining a presentence report. Unfortunately my client had previously been sent to prison, albeit a number of years ago, and I was therefore forced to deal with the case on the spot. I gave the Court full details of my Clients mitigation and the bench again retired.

During the time that the bench were out the Clerk of the Court asked if I was going to apply for bail pending appeal. It was strange of the Clerk to give the indication that she did as it meant that my Client was going to be sent to prison. I spoke with my Client and he said that if he was going to be given a prison sentence then he wanted to appeal against the sentence and apply for bail. I then drafted a notice of appeal and waited for the bench to come back.

The Magistrates decided to send my Client to prison. Once they had finished their pronouncement on sentence I stood up and explained that my Client was appealing against their sentence and I was applying for bail on his behalf pending an appeal being resolved at the Crown Court. The Magistrates listened to my bail application which was very simple: you have given a man a prison sentence when you have given his personal circumstances insufficient consideration. I basically told the Magistrates that they should give my Client bail because they were wrong to send him to prison. The Clerk of the Court explained to the bench that they should only grant bail pending an appeal in exceptional circumstances, this advice was spot on and correct.

The Magistrates retired and returned, and for some crazy reason they gave my Client bail pending his appeal. This means that despite deciding in the hearing that my Client deserved to go the prison they reversed their logic when granting bail.

I think that the logic in the decision was actually that the custody staff had gone home for the day and had the Court really wanted to send my Client to prison they would have asked him to wait whilst they arranged for a van to pick him up.

Destroy the Evidence

2006-08-11T22:59:00.000+01:00

I overheard a colleague talking about one of his cases today, he told his Client that the prosecution against him had been discontinued because the prosecution had destroyed the principal evidence in his case.

The Client was being prosecuted for possession of a prohibited weapon, which for the sake of simplicity was a gun. The gun had not been used in a crime, it was discovered during a house search. Unfortunately the Client did not have a licence for the gun.

The Client was investigated by the Police and then prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service. The case was moved from the Magistrates Court to the Crown Court because it was so serious. Once the case was in the Crown Court someone decided it was appropriate to destroy the gun. Whoever decided to destroy the gun obviously had ultimate faith in the strength of the prosecution case but absolutely no regard for the rule of law.

From the outset of the case the defendant had told the Police that he did not possess a gun, and that he in fact had an air pistol. The Crown Prosecution Service were put on notice that the defence intended to get their own expert to examine the gun. I am mystified as to why the gun was destroyed. Someone from the prosecution clearly thought it was a good idea, maybe they have had second thoughts now?

Without allowing the defence to examine the gun the prosecution had shot themselves in the foot. No Court in the land would convict a defendant on the basis of evidence that could not be tested, particularly where the prosecution had been told that the defence had wanted to test the evidence from the outset.

Waiting For Means Testing

2006-08-11T14:00:00.000+01:00

When I started working in the world of criminal defence work as a trainee solicitor in order to get legal aid you had to pass two tests, the first was the means test, the second test was the merits test.

Completing legal aid applications was a nightmare. First of all you needed to get the Client to the office, then you had to ensure that their criminal case was sufficiently serious to meet the merits test. The merits test has reamined very similar over the years, generally speaking if there is a real possibility that you could receive a prison sentence, or there was something complex or novel about the case then you met the test. The next stage was to fill out the form to meet the means test. This was always the part that was a nightmare. If a Client was on means tested benefits they had to provide evidence that they received that benefit. People on income support generally had benefit books and these could be photocopied. Client on job seekers allowance had to get letters confirming that they were actually being paid job seekers allowance. Clients who were working generally did not qualify for legal aid, but to complete an application you had to submit three months worth of wage slips. If the Client was self employed then they had to show their accounts for the past 6 months.

Means tested legal aid is coming back and will start with effect from 2nd October 2006.

I am not looking forward to means testing. The Legal Services Commission have already stated that they are willing to put in place an early cover system whereby solicitors can claim up to one hours work for representing Clients who have applied for legal aid within 2 days of being charged with an offence but who have failed the means test. This early cover system is then supposed to allow solicitors to claim for up to one hours worth of work on the case if legal aid is refused. Most defendants are not particularly clever, or organised, and I cannot see how most defendants are going to be able to supply the documents to prove their financial situation within two days of being charged at the Police Station and told that they are to be prosecuted. It is more likely that it will take them the best part of a week. In the days of means testing I recall case after case being adjourned because legal aid had not been properly sorted out due to financial circumstances/evidence.

The real worry I have about means testing is that it is all going to go horribly wrong. When there used to be means testing there would be about four weeks between the time a person was charged at the Police Station and the time they appeared in Court - by todays standards that time period has been reduced to about 1 week. There is going to be a lack of time to sort out the legal aid applications, and cases ae going to go before the Courts with Defendants saying my solicitor is not here because I have not got the papers to apply for legal aid yet. The Courts will slowly get bored of the argument that they should not deal without a Defendant's case because he has not sorted out his legal aid and then chaos will start as Defendants who are not represented will start to enter pleas without advice. You will get Defendants pleading not guilty to matters where they are guilty on their own account but think that the law is different and that they are in fact guilty. The reverse could also happen where people plead guilty to matters where they in fact have a defence.

I can foresee that there will be chaos. The savings that the Department for Constitutional Affairs believe that they will make by making Defendants who can pay for their own legal costs doing so will be wiped out by Courts becoming clogged up with Defendants who could be represented on legal aid funding but have failed to properly apply for legal aid.

Means testing is the wrong way to deal with funding. The Crown Courts operate a system whereby legal aid is granted to cases that are sufficiently serious, or complex, and if at the end of the case the Defendant is found guilty or has pleaded guilty the Court will assess the defendant's finances and then make a Recovery of Defence Costs Order and make those who can afford to pay pay for their legal aid costs. The Magistrates Courts should adopt this idea to prevent Defendants, Magistrates, and Solicitors getting tied up dealing with legal aid applications when they could be getting on with progressing the case.

Jury Service

2006-08-08T22:01:00.000+01:00

Here is an amusing story that I was sent by e-mail last week:

My main reason for writing was to share with you this account of the exploits of a trainee criminal solicitor who was doing jury service with us this week (he'd already explained to court staff he was a trainee solicitor with a particular interest in crime). He was on a fraud trial in which the first jury had had to be discharged because one of the prosecution witnesses blurted out something very prejudicial about the defendant while giving evidence. The judge started the day, in the absence of the jury, by reading a letter he'd just received from this chap; the juror feared that much of the evidence was going over the heads of some of the other jurors and, to remedy this, he'd downloaded and made copies of various sections of two Theft Acts plus some Court of Appeal rulings that he thought would help the jury. He thought, though, that he should ask his honour's permission before distributing them to his colleagues.

'Ah,' said the defence barrister; 'may I ask your honour if this is the gentleman who has been sitting at the extreme left of the back row? [It was]. It's just that, yesterday evening, the defendant's relatives, who've been in court throughout, told me that that particular juror had had with him a book on criminal law throughout the trial and that, during lunch yesterday, they'd seen him sitting outside the pub round the corner apparently discussing what they assume to be the same book, which was open on the table, with four other jurors'.

The judge was very nice about it when he dismissed the jury, explaining that he was sure everyone had been acting from the best intentions but, unfortunately, he had little choice but to stop the trial.

As one of the barristers commented afterwards, clearly they hadn't yet reached the module on criminal procedure in this guy's course!

Credit For A Not Guilty Plea

2006-08-08T21:42:00.000+01:00

There is a principle in criminal law that if you plead guilty at an early stage you will receive credit for your guilty plea. In real terms that means you are likely to receive less of a sentence if you plead guilty than you would if found guilty at the end of a trial.

The title of this post is credit for a not guilty plea because in recent weeks I have had cases where my Clients have been found guilty at trial but have then received a somewhat lenient sentence, and a sentence that is far more lenient than they would have received should they have pleaded guilty at the first hearing.

Trials can sometimes be odd in that going through the prosecution evidence and defence evidence the nature of the case is made known to the Magistrates Court and not just the bare facts and mitigation that would be presented during a sentence hearing.

There are, in my opinion, two reasons why sentences can be more lenient upon conviction after a trial. The first reason is because the Court hears fuller facts and has some sympathy for the Defendant. The second reason is because they want the case to come to an end and decide to impose a minimal penalty so that the Court can finally wash it's hands of the case instead of dragging the case out with another hearing.

Tales of Woe

2006-08-07T22:14:00.000+01:00

Here are a few tales or woe about the contractors that move defendants from either Police Stations or Prisons to Court and back. The government decided in their wisdom to get contractors to move defendants instead of the Police or the Prison Service. There have been many problems with this system, such as when Group 4 took over the contract in London previously held by Securicor they did not have as many vans to transport defendants so defendants would routinely arrive late!

Here are a few of the best examples I have heard of recently:

1. A defendant is moved from HMP Nottingham to Harwich Magistrates Court. For some reason the custody staff contracted to work at Harwich Magistrates Court were not there. The van from Nottingham was operated by a different contractor. The staff on the van from Nottingham refused to take the defendant off of the van and in to the cells at Harwich because they were only contracted to bring the defendant to the door of the local Court and not to man the custody suite at Harwich. The result of this run in was the van was driven some distance to another Court to drop off the prisoner and prevent the two day trial from taking place.

2. At one of my local Police Stations they have decided to knock down the old custody suite and build a brand new one for the Police Station. The Police Station is physically less than 10 meters away from the local Magistrates Court. Having built the new Police Station custody suite people are now scratching their heads as to why a tunnel was not built between the Police Station custody suite and the Magistrates Court. In the future a firm will have to be contracted to move the defendants 10m from the Police Station to the Court and it will no doubt involve the use of a van!

3. When a particular contract was agreed for one Magistrates Court the people responsible for the decisions decided that in order to save money they would get a contractor to man one Court dock of the Court building instead of all three. As a consequence if the Magistrates make a decision to send someone to prison their case must be either already in Court One or moved to Court One of the building before a custodial sentence can be passed.

I did call these tales of woe, but they are in fact very real accounts. They might sound funny but they really are the truth.

District Judge Cooper

2006-08-05T09:08:00.000+01:00

I have finally met the infamous District Judge Cooper who is referred to by criminal solicitors as 'Custody Cooper'.

I had the joy of going to Colchester Magistrates Court and watched this infamous District Judge in action. District Judge Cooper has a reputation for remanding people in custody where he either thinks that they are a bail risk despite the fact they are already on bail, or, that they need to consider their not guilty plea by being put in the Court cells for a few hours.

For various reasons I was waiting for my case to be dealt with so I had the opportunity of watching District Judge Cooper deal with the majority of a remand list. Some of the highlights included:

1. The three handed bail application. Three defendants appear in custody for a matter that can only be dealt with at the Crown Court. The defence solicitors all suggest that they want to apply for bail. The prosecutor objects to all three being granted bail. The first defendant applies for bail, and is refused. The second defendant applies for bail and is refused. The third defendant then withdraws his bail application knowing that he is going to be refused bail.

2. The bad character application that was reinstated. One case had been listed for the Crown Prosecution Service to make a bad character application for an impending trial. The Prosecutor stated that his colleague had decided to withdraw the application. District Judge Cooper expressed dismay. He then went through the defendant's previous convictions, he told the prosecutor that propensity had clearly been made, and that it was in the interests of the Magistrates who were going to deal with the trial to know about the bad character. He effectively co-erced the prosecutor to relist the matter for a further bad character application to take place.

3. The sentencing monologue. A defendant had appeared in custody on a Saturday morning and had been adjourned to be sentenced in front of District Judge Cooper for a matter of dangerous driving. The first comments to be made by District Judge Cooper when he saw the list of previous convictions for the defendant was, "Why has he not been sent to prison before?" and, "Why has he been given community penalty after community penalty that he has breached?" Despite the best efforts of the solicitor representing this particular defendant District Judge Cooper embarked on a sentencing monologue that lasted for several minutes where he criticised previous Courts for not imposing proper custodial sentences on the defendant. He then refused to sentence the defendant in the Magistrates Court and sent his case to the Crown Court to be sentenced.

District Judge Cooper is very entertaining to watch and if you are ever free on a Thursday morning he is well worth watching at Colchester Magistrates Court. The general public would probably applaud the comments he makes about defendants and approve of his methods. District Judge Cooper is very polite to defendants. It is amusing to think that he appears somewhat hard with defendants when he used to be a defence solicitor himself.

Carter

2006-08-05T08:51:00.000+01:00

I have not posted much recently as I have been pretty busy and have had my head buried in the Carter Review. Lord Carter of Coles has published his report on the procurement of legal aid and has suggested some pretty far reaching reforms of how us criminal solicitors should be paid.

I am not going to dwell on the contents of the report but I do want to raise a few points. No doubt as time goes on I will bang on about Carter, but I will save you from my monologue at this stage.

Lord Carter wishes to change the way that criminal solicitors are paid. For Police Station work it is proposed that instead of being paid varying hourly rates for travel, waiting, attendance etc., that we should now receive a fixed fee for each Police Station case. That means for most cases a set fee will be paid, and that the fixed fee will only be increased if over 18 hours of work is undertaken. It is very, very, very rare for a Police Station case to involve more than 18 hours worth of work.

Currently the varying hourly rates guarantee that whilst doing work on a Police Station case the work is being paid for. Hours worked equal fees generated.

This fixed fee system will not pay for any travel or waiting. The fixed fee will cover work done at the Police Station in terms of consulting with Clients, being present during interview, and being present during identification procedures. So any travel incurred getting to the Police Station or waiting there will not be remunerated in any way.

That's great! Should I be phoned in the middle of the night to attend at the Police Station for an interview at 3 am the government will not pay for me traveling to the Police Station, or waiting there if there is any delay (even if the delay were to be caused by the Police).

The fixed fee system will pay for cases on a per case basis, and not a per visit basis. Also the fixed fee will pay the same amount no matter what the offence is, so the government would pay the same amount if the case was a serial murder or a simple shop theft.

My real gripe with this system is that it will take away any incentive to attend at the Police Station out of normal contracted office hours. Most criminal solicitors are paid a percentage of the fees generated out of hours. So, if I dealt with a Police Station case outside of office hours and the legal aid fees generated came to £400 I would get paid £200 in overtime and then be taxed on that.

Fixed fees present a problem in paying overtime. If the fixed fees are brought in my firm would get paid about £175 before VAT is added. As I am employed I have no need to be VAT registered and cannot claim VAT on top of my overtime. The firm would probably pay 50% of the fixed fee so I would receive about £85 before tax in overtime. I am a fairly energetic solicitor and I am quite happy to work through the night if it is my turn on the rota. There are slightly older members of the profession who would not think twice about ignoring a call for what would be something like £55 after tax.

This country has a network of solicitors that will attend at any given Police Station within 45 minutes of being called 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year including Christmas Day. Bring in fixed fees and you will destroy the incentives to work out of hours, and potentially destroy this network of solicitors available to work out of hours. Why would a solicitor want to risk going to the Police Station in the middle of the night for £55 when it could involve 4 to 5 hours worth of work (including travel and waiting). It puts it in to perspective to think that working for 5 hours through the night the rate of pay after tax is £11 an hour!

Capital Punishment

2006-08-04T22:39:00.000+01:00

I sat in my local Court cafeteria today discussing the recent comments made by a Crown Court judge that he hoped a serious sex offender would die whilst in prison. Our discussion then moved on to the benefits that capital punishment could bring to the world of criminal justice.

Our prisons are very over crowded at this moment in time and it is unlikely that this situation will change in the very near future. Any prisons that are currently in the planning stage to be built are not going to be functional for many years. There are provisions such as identifying dangerous offenders, indeterminate sentences, the three strikes rule, and others, that generally mean that serious offenders are getting locked up for longer these days. Prisons are not cheap to run, and neither is it cheap to keep prisoners in prison.

My conversation was not on a serious level but I considered the benefits of bringing back capital punishment. I am sure that in the Lord Chancellor's current review of the interpreation and implementation of the Human Rights Act that he could persuade middle England and the Government to bring back capital punishment. Just think of the financial benefits of using the death penalty on anyone convicted of murder? There would be no costs for housing them in a prison, no costs in supervising them if they were to ever get parole, and finally there would be no risk of them committing further offences if released.

What about capital punishment in general? Domestic violence could be dealt with by way of public flogging, an eye for an eye and all that. Theft cases could be punished with the severing of hands and limbs. Public order offences could be dealt with by being locked in stocks and allowing the public to have revenge by throwing rotten fruit at them.

Capital punishment would ease the burden of work that the Probation Service/National Offender Management Service undertake.

Now I do not actually believe that capital punishment should be brought back, but if news of this blog post got to the Home Office you may see a new consultation paper issued: "Summary justice and capital punishment - the solution to this nations criminal justice woes".

Failing To Appear

2006-07-23T20:55:00.000+01:00

There are many defendants that I deal with who like to gamble on who sentences them when they appear in Court. There is a District Judge who used to work in South London who has now moved to Essex who earned a particular nickname because he was so likely to send people to prison.

One of my colleagues recently represented a Client who was somewhat nervous about being sentenced. He was due to be sentenced for a minor offence but because of his previous convictions any sentence was likely.

The Client arrived early at Court and had a conference with my colleague. My colleague then told the Client which District Judge he was going to appear in front of. The Client then said he was going to have a quick cigarette, and that was the last time he was seen. The Client obviously decided that he did not want to be sentenced by that particular District Judge fearing that the risk of being sent to prison was too much.

The foolish thing is that when the Client is arrested on a warrant for failing to appear he will receive a harsh sentence for his decision to leave Court, and the sentence he then receives for the matter he was originally to be sentenced for will probably be prison.

Nothing To Say

2006-07-21T23:48:00.000+01:00

I went off to one of my local Magistrates Courts today to deal with a Client who had been refused bail by the Police. I got to Court and picked up his papers. He was accused of a relatively minor set of offences. Unfortunately my Clients list of previous convictions was rather long. The Prosecutor immediately told me that she was going to object to bail due to concerns about by Client committing further offences whilst on bail, failing to attend at Court and interfering with witnesses. The Prosecutor based her fears on my Client's previous convictions that showed he offended whilst on bail, that he failed to attend Court, and that he had committed offences against the same complainant who had made the allegation against him for this offence.

It is an unwritten rule in the world of criminal defence work that you are expected to make a bail application for a Client when they first appear in custody at the Magistrates Court. This unwritten rule is strictly kept to because Clients love to see their solicitors fighting for them in Court and trying to secure their freedom. It really does not matter what the offence is, or what the chances of bail are - if your Client appears in custody at the Magistrates Court you must apply for bail.

I saw my Client in the cells and took his instructions. I usually look for a few key points in a case to base a bail application on such as the Client has never been convicted of an offence, or perhaps they do not have convictions for breaching bail or Court orders. I struggled to find one good point about my Client's case, eventually I decided that I would point out that my Client was being prosecuted, amongst other things, for an assault and that the evidence for the assault did not come from the person assaulted but another person who was heavily intoxicated.

I left the cells, went up to Court and the case was called on. Whilst sitting listening to the Prosecutor I then had a moment of inspiration, with nothing good to say I decided that my best tactic was perhaps to distract the Prosecutor. I had noticed that one of the Magistrates looked uncannily like Dr. John Reid so at an appropriate point during the Prosecutors objections to bail I leant over and said to her, "Have a look at the winger on the left, it is the Home Secretary". The Prosecutor looked over and started to snigger. My effort at distraction worked for a few seconds and did interrupt the flow of her speech, but unfortunately my effort at distraction was about as good as my chance of getting my Client bail - pretty poor.

I stood up and delivered my well argued bail application which was duly refused. Never mind I thought, at least the Client got his wish to make a bail application. I saw my Client in the cells after the Court hearing, he was happy that an effort had been made on his behalf, and in all reality he knew that he had no chance of bail.

Criminal Justice Reforms

2006-07-20T23:59:00.000+01:00

The Home Secretary has decided to review and reform the UK criminal justice system. One of the key reforms is "ending automatic time off for guilty pleas." I could ramble on for a long time talking about all of the proposed reforms but I will save that for a later day.

It seems that the government is not happy with people being given less of a sentence for pleading guilty at an early stage in the proceedings of a criminal case. It strikes me as being odd that the government is unhappy with this proposition as it was this very government who established the Sentencing Guidelines Council. It was the Sentencing guidelines Council who published a document called Reduction in Sentence for a Guilty Plea and who effectively created a binding guideline for all criminal Courts in the UK to follow. Where a defendant enters a timely guilty plea they are to be given credit for their guilty plea in terms of discounting the sentence that they would have otherwise recieved had they not pleaded guilty.

I cannot go one day without having to confirm to a Court, or make a note in my own files, that I have advised a Client that if they plead guilty they will be given credit for their early guilty plea.

Why do the Courts give credit for early guilty pleas? Well, it is to reward a Client for being honest with the Court and to reduce their sentence to take account fo the fact that a timely and costly trial has not taken place.

If Dr. Reid does want to take away the idea of discount for a guilty plea then he is likely to find lawyers advising Clients that they have nothing to lose by pleading not guilty. If the sentence will be the same whether the person is convicted after a trial or pleads guilty then what is the point in pleading guilty? If there is no carrot being dangled to intice a guilty plea defendants are likely to plead not guilty.

This is for Fred

2006-07-02T23:56:00.000+01:00

I have decided that it is necessary to explain what my job as a defence solicitor involves. From time to time I get comments posted on this blog that make it necessary for me to explain what my role in the criminal justice system involves. A poster called Fred recently commented:

"Hopefully if you get the scum bail he will knife one of your family."

I replied to Fred suggesting that his comment was a little uncalled for and he was kind enough to write:

"Gavin, not really, I never carry a knife and have never committed any crime. I have had friends and family who have been victims of your 'clients' and I stand by what I said. Get them off on a technicality and I hope they come after you and yours. We are all very fed up with the CJ system so you had better get used to the criticism."

I am a criminal defence solicitor. I am employed by a firm of solicitors and the only legal work that I do for that firm is criminal defence work. I do not prosecute cases. My work will mean that I am generally involved in cases in three ways:

1. Police Station work. I will go to Police Stations to advise and assist people who have been arrested and are to be interviewed under the terms of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This will generally mean arriving at the Police Station, speaking to the Officer dealing with the case and getting disclosure from that Officer, having a consultation with my Client, and then being present when the Client is interviewed.

2. Magistrates/Youth Court work. As a solicitor I have rights of audience in the Magistrates and Youth Courts to deal with all hearings related to crime. I will represent people who appear for guilty pleas, or trials. I will also prepare these cases by taking instructions from the Clients and consider the evidence served in their case.

3. Crown Court work. I have limited rights of audience in the Crown Court so I will generally only do the advocacy for Crown Court bail applications. The remainder of work that I do for Crown Court work is taking Clients instructions, preparing their case for trial/sentence, briefing and liaising with their barrister, and from time to time attending at the Crown Court with the Client and their barrister for hearings.

As a criminal defence solicitor I will:

i. Act in the best interests of my Client;
ii. Represent my Client to the best of my ability; or
iii. Try to secure the best possible result for my Client.

As a criminal defence solicitor I will not:

i. Make up instructions for my Clients to give to either the Police or a Court;
ii. Allow Clients to tell the Police or Court something different to what they have told me already;
iii. Lie to the Police or allow a Court to be misled; or
iv. Tell the Police or Court if my Client admits to a crime.

I am bound by professional ethics. I cannot, and will not, lie on behalf of a Client. If a Client tells me that he has actually committed a crime and then wants to tell the Police or a Court a different story then I cannot represent him if he is going to give that second account. If A client tells me that he has committed a crime then I can continue to represent him provided that all I do is put the prosecution to proof and not put the Clients account forward.

The Police investigate crimes and gather evidence. The Crown Prosecution Service, generally, prosecute matters in criminal courts. As a criminal defence solicitor I defend. If a Client admits they have committed a crime to me I do not go and tell the Police or the Court that the Client has committed a crime.

You may find that the kind of work that I am involved in is objectionable. You may disagree that people who have committed a crime should be allowed access to a defence solicitor. You may disagree that where evidence is overwhelming that a defendant should be able to challenge that evidence in our Courts with the benefit of a defence solicitor. In the United Kingdom, as in many other countries around this world, we have freedom of speech and everyone is entitled to their own opinion - even Fred. But, should you ever be arrested where you have not committed a crime would you not want the best possible defence? Would you not want access to legal advice and assistance? Would you not want a solicitor that is prepared to fight on your behalf against the Police and Crown Prosecution Service?

Most people who are arrested are not innocent. Conviction rates in the Magistrates Courts and Crown Courts are something like 92% to 95% of people who appear before the Court are convicted of a crime. Some defendants walk away from Court on technicalities because someone has failed to do their job properly, be it because a witness cannot perform well when giving evidence, or perhaps a Police Officer did not investigate a piece of evidence, or even maybe a Crown Prosecutor failed to consider certain evidence. I do come across some Clients who appear to be genuine and say that they are innocent. It is very rare for me to ever believe a person who tells me that they are innocent, but, every few months there is one case where I actually believe that I am representing an innocent party. If you were that innocent party would you not want a solicitor to fight on your behalf?

I regularly come in to contact with criminals who I try to divert away from crime. There are youths who have had pretty poor starts in life who I try to show if they continue doing what they are currently doing then they will end up in prison wasting their life away. There are also drug users who I try to educate to ensure that they stay alive and do not kill themselves at an early age.

I am a defence solicitor, nothing more, nothing less. This is what I do.

Light Relief

2006-06-29T22:03:00.000+01:00

In my local Magistrates Courts I do a fair number of trials. I get to see all of the faces that make up the local 'bench' of lay Magistrates. There are a number of Magistrates who I do have concerns about. There is one Magistrate who I am damn sure falls asleep in the middle of trials. I have seen their eyelids grow heavy, I have seen the Magistrate shut their eyes, and I have seen their head nod downwards as if they have briefly fallen asleep. I have been assured by a number of Clerks that this particular Magistrate is simply listening and the apparent sleeping is in fact their way of concentrating. Bizarre?

I stumbled across the following article on The Register web site. If I thought I had problems with a Magistrate that falls asleep then the people who have been before this judge clearly had greater problems:

A retired US judge is himself before the beak in Bristow, Oklahoma, "on charges he used a penis pump on himself in the courtroom while sitting in judgment of others", AP reports.

The trial of Donald D Thompson, 59, has reportedly provoked much courtroom merriment as the jury has been entertained by both a defence attorney and prosecutor indulging in "pantomime masturbation" and a former juror in Thompson's court identifying the sound of the pump because "he had seen such devices in Austin Powers and Dead Man on Campus".

A key witness in the trial has been former court reporter Lisa Foster. In giving testimony, she "wiped away tears as she described tracing an unfamiliar 'sh-sh' in the courtroom to her boss". Foster alleges that between 2001 and 2003 she saw the judge expose himself "at least 15 times", adding: "I was really shocked and I was kind of scared because it was so bizarre."

Foster further testified that during a 2002 trial, she heard the pump "during the emotional testimony of a murdered toddler's grandfather". She continued: "The grandfather was getting real teary-eyed, and the judge was up there pumping on that pump. It was sickening."

Thompson's pneumatic proceedings came to an end after a police officer heard the pump's distinctive signature during a case, and photographed the device during a recess. Thompson was charged with four counts of indecent exposure - each carrying a 10-year maximum sentence - and faces the possible withdrawal of his substantial $7,489.91 a month pension if found guilty.

From the witness box, Thompson claimed the pump was "a gag gift from a longtime friend with whom he had joked about erectile dysfunction". He admitted keeping it under the bench or in his office, but denied he'd ever used it. He added: "In 20-20 hindsight, I should have thrown it away."

Moments of light relief in the trial have included the aforementioned Austin Powers connection, offered by Daniel Greenwood, and expert witness Dr S Edward Dakil who "repeatedly prompted laughter" with his urology testimony.

When challenged by defense attorney Clark Brewster that the penis pump was "an out-of-date treatment for erectile dysfunction", Dakil asserted: "I still use those." After a suitable pause, Brewster enquired: "Not you, personally?" to which Dakil responded to jury laughter: "No. I recommend those as a urologist."

More On Blair

2006-06-24T11:47:00.000+01:00

Here is an interesting summary of criminal justice since Labour came in to power. This information is from a Guardian newspaper report:

There have been more than 50 bills to reform the criminal justice system, introducing more than 700 criminal offences since Labour came to power. Tony Blair insisted yesterday they have made a difference - but what has their impact been?

Crime: The British Crime Survey shows that crime has fallen by 44% since 1995, and that the chance of becoming a victim is 24%, the lowest level since the BCS began in 1981. But 36% of people in opinion polls say that disorder in public places is a "very big problem" in their area.

Anti-social behaviour: When asbos were introduced in the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act, the then home secretary, Jack Straw, said they would provide "tough, effective sanctions against neighbourhood disorder". A Commons select committee inquiry concluded that there was little hard evidence about the extent of antisocial behaviour.

Summary justice: Mr Blair had to drop his threat to march drunken young offenders to cashpoints to pay on-the-spot fines. But the 2001 Criminal Justice and Police Act introduced a range of fixed penalty fines to tackle yob culture. Latest figures show that 43% of such fines go unpaid.

Fast-track punishment for persistent young offenders: Mr Blair promised to halve the time it takes to get a young offender dealt with by the youth courts. The average time taken was cut from 143 days to 72 days in 2001 for England and Wales, but there has been no further progress.

More police: Police numbers fell between 1993 and 1997, and when Mr Blair entered Downing Street there were 127,000 police officers. The numbers continued to fall to 124,000 until 2001. This decline was reversed and the number of officers in England and Wales has now reached a record 143,000 plus 6,300 community support officers.

Seizing criminals' assets: The Assets Recovery Agency was launched under the Proceeds of Crime Act in 2003 but has recovered only £8m despite costing £60m to run.

Tackling offending: A £96m probation scheme to tackle persistent and serious young offenders was launched in 2001. But recent Home Office research revealed that 91% of 10,000 on the programme were reconvicted within two years.

Prisons: The prison population has risen from 61,000 in 1997 to a record 77,000.

Blairs Balancing Act

2006-06-24T08:23:00.000+01:00

Our Prime Minister has now spoken about rebalancing the criminal justice system.

A comment was made on a different web site that I thought was rather good:

Interesting speech but much of it does seem to be political spin:

"Here is the point. Each time someone is the victim of anti-social behaviour, of drug related crime; each time an illegal immigrant enters the country or a perpetrator of organised fraud or crime walks free, someone else's liberties are contravened, often directly, sometimes as part of wider society. It's no use saying that in theory there should be no conflict between the traditional protections for the suspect and the rights of the law-abiding majority because, as a result of the changing nature of crime and society, there is, in practice, such a conflict; and every day we don't resolve it, by rebalancing the system, the consequence is not abstract, it is out there, very real on our streets."

If Mr. Blair is seeking to rebalance the system he is in fact talking about tipping the scales in favour of the victim, does that not mean that the saftey of some questions will be called in to question? Bad character has been brought in, I have seen a spate of applications made in the early days, and now less and less applications for bad character are made. I sometimes sit down with Clients at the first hearing and advise them that if bad character is thrown in to their trial they might as well plead guilty. Hearsay applications, I have had about two of these in the past year.

Custody plus, now there is an idea that is supposed to balance the system. Send people to prison but ensure that they keep their jobs. Custody plus cannot work at this time because NOMS cannot provide the support that is required.

Bail has been tightened up with regards to drug users, but there are still areas where there are no drug workers and the Court is unable to take advantage of these laws because the system has not been put in to effect.

The real danager is that if the system is rebalanced then cases where the evidence by today's standard is not good enough for a conviction will result in convictions by tomorrow's lesser standards.

If Blair put the right funding in to NOMS and increased their staffing levels by massive amounts he would then be able to monitor offenders and tackle reoffending rates.

What I want to know is what does Mr. Blair actually intend to do to rebalance the system? His speech was not particularly clear to identify what is going to do other than think about things.

Darn, We Nearly Got Bail

2006-06-23T21:57:00.000+01:00

I went off to a local Crown Court today to use my skills as an advocate to try to secure bail for one of my firm's Clients. I do not yet have higher rights to do any type of hearing in the Crown Court but as a solicitor I am entitled to do bail applications.

The Client I was dealing with was not at the Crown Court because nearly 99% of Crown Court bail applications take place without the Client being present. As the Client was not present I had to try to draw some inspiration for the bail application from elsewhere. I sat down with the file and read through the facts, a knife point robbery on the street. I noticed that my Client had a number of convictions for violence and had failed to attend Court in the past. Hmmm... no chance of bail then!

I then thought back to when I represented the Client at the Police Station. The Officer dealing with the case had told me as far as he was aware my Client and the victim of the robbery were known drug dealers who had worked in the past as partners. The Police are more relaxed about known criminals committing offences against other known criminals, there is a certain amount of justice in that they keep their offending amongst themselves.

The witness statements in the evidence stated that the victim did not know who the robber was, then two days later there was another statement saying that the victim had now remembered who the robber was and that it was my Client. This was my inspiration, this small crack was going to be my point in the bail application.

Point number two: the Client claimed to have an alibi at the Police Station and I was pleased to say that a statement had been taken from the alibi witness who had confirmed the Client's account.

I met up with the barrister prosecuting the bail application and had a very pleasant chat. I conceded that I was bound to loose the application.

When the case was called on I went through the motions, I made my points and to my surprise the Recorder was happy to grant bail. As the Recorder was referring to the name of the person my Client was going to reside with the Court Clerk stood up, turned to the Recorder and muttered that he recognised the name. The case was put back. A short while later the Prosecution trotted in to Court with a list of convictions for the person that my Client was going to live with who had more convictions than my Client. I was invited to withdraw my bail application by the Recorder and to try again with a new address. I had managed to use my advocacy skills to secure bail in a no hope case to be scuppered by a Clerk who did have an amazingly good memory.

After making a few phone calls today I am pretty sure that another address will be located and I will go back to apply for bail again some time next week. Heres hoping I can convince another Judge with my no hope case!

CCTV Never Lies

2006-06-19T23:05:00.000+01:00

I went off to the Crown Court today to oversee the smooth running of a trial that was due to start today. I say that I went to oversee the trial because I was not doing the trial, a barrister was, and personally I find clerking cases very boring as I would rather be on my feet doing the advocacy.

This case involved an allegation of robbery where is was alleged that my Client had gone to a convenience store and attempted to obtain goods by waving a knife around. This case had always puzzled me because it was clear CCTV existed from the start of the case, and as part of this incident my Client received a blow to their head requiring seven staples in their head to hold their skin together. This head injury was not mentioned in any of the prosecution statements other than by the Police when they booked the Client in to the custody suite after her arrest. I had taken instructions from my Client and prepared the case on the basis that it was going to be an effective trial today. My Client even confirmed as little as two weeks ago that she had not committed a crime when she came to my office.

When I got to Court I was finally able to watch the CCTV. Unfortunately the CCTV showed my Client committing a robbery with a knife, and as they left the shop one of the shop staff could be seen running after her and hitting her over the head with a golf club.

My work had been in vain and today my Client entered a guilty plea. My Client would have pleaded guilty earlier in the proceedings if the Crown Prosecution Service had served me with a copy of the CCTV earlier.

Clients have a funny habit of not telling the truth. Prosecution witnesses have a funny habit of sometimes missing out vital bits of evidence from their statements. CCTV never lies.

Politicians v Judges

2006-06-18T10:26:00.000+01:00

As I read through my newsreader (not a newspaper but a newsreader) this morning I came across an article published in the Observer with the headline: Back off, chief judge tells politicians. This is possibly the first article that I have read in the media this week that has not tried to sensationalise the current Politicians v Judges row. This article gives a good insight in to the fact that the whole farcical legal system that we have been left with at present is as a direct result of New Labour's meddling with the legal system.

The media is currently having a field day with the case of Craig Sweeny the person convicted of various offences under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, and who the media has deemed to have received a low sentence. Craig Sweeny was in fact the case that started the row between the Home Secretary and the Attorney General, and in turn has been the catalyst for the Politicians v Judges row.

The media has suggested that the Government is now considering a review of sentencing laws. The current New Labour sentencing laws are already unworkable and as such they have been put on the statute book, but their implementation has been delayed because currently the 'system' could not cope with the logistics that the new 'custody plus' sentencing scheme demands. It was anticipated that the provisions in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 that relate to the new sentence of custody plus would be implemented in November 2006 but now a written answer by Gerry Sutcliffe MP has suggested that custody plus cannot be implemented at this time:

Mr. Malins: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the custody plus provisions of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to be introduced.

Mr. Sutcliffe: While continuing to work towards an implementation date of Autumn 2006 for Custody Plus, the Government would not implement such an important sentence unless it was satisfied that the National Offender Management Service could cope with the additional work. The issue of capacity to implement this fully and effectively is being considered.

There is currently a crisis within the National Offender Management Service (aka The Probation Service) because the National Offender Management Service is currently well understaffed. Gerry Sutcliffe MP has failed to mention that the prison system is nearly full:

The chief inspector of prisons has warned that BritainÂs overcrowded jails are close to putting up 'house full' notices and having to turn away newly convicted criminals.

Anne Owers said that with fewer than 1,800 places left from a total of 79,500, prisons could soon 'hit the buffers' and be unable to take any more offenders.

With thousands held in overcrowded conditions, including three to a cell, a further 1,800 would put the system in breach of health and safety laws. If present trends continue it would reach breaking point by mid-September.

I am looking forward to seeing the government sort out this mess. The Judiciary have already stated that prison overcrowding is a point that can be considered when sentencing an offender. The government is not going to be able to build new prisons in the immediate future the deal with the crisis. The thing that really confuses me about this sentencing/Craig Sweeny issue is that New Labour decided that prisoners should be eligible for parole at the half way point of their sentence under the Criminal Justice Act 2003, and not the two thirds point of their sentence.

Craig Gee Solicitors Advertising

2006-06-17T20:26:00.000+01:00

You will notice dotted around this web site are Google Ads. I do not choose the adverts that appear, although I do have the ability to refuse to display adverts. Particular adverts appear and from time to time and I often have a look at the web sites behind the adverts.

Recently I noticed an advert and then had a look at the web site. Craig Gee Solicitors web site is pretty basic, and in fact the link to the criminal section leads to a page that is devoid of content. If you go to Google and do a search for 'criminal solicitor' you will see on the right hand side an advert worded like this: 'Criminal solicitor - Need help on criminal law issues in Manchester? Try this firm. www.craiggee.com' This advert is being paid for by Craig Gee Solicitors yet it ultimately directs users looking for a criminal solicitor to a blank page - that is just crazy.

Craig Gee Solicitors could I suggest that you either finish your web site, stop paying for advertising until the web site is completed, or perhaps find a new web designer so that you can actually get a return on the money you are spending on advertising! I cannot understand why money is being wasted on advertising that leads to nowhere.

Double Listing

2006-06-09T21:19:00.000+01:00

I have spent a few days down at my local Magistrates Court this week. Today I had a special reasons hearing for a drink drive case where my Client claimed that he was drink driving because his drink was spiked. The case was always going to be quick and simple to deal with.

I got to Court nice and early and by 9.50 am I was ready for trial. My case was listed in a Court room with another trial. That trial took priority due to child witnesses so I had to wait around for another Court room to become free. In the other Court scheduled to deal with trials today they were also double listed.

Her Majesty's Court Service have a wonderful habit of double listing trials hoping that one of the trials will not be effective so that the other trial can then take place. Unfortunately today all the trials scheduled were ready.

My case was adjourned off until the afternoon shortly before lunch. I had to wait for about three hours this morning to be told to come back at 2.00 pm. It would have made more sense to put my one hour trial on before the others knowing that my trial would be short and sweet. When I did at last get my chance my special reasons hearing took place, the Magistrates found that special reasons did exist but then decided to disqualify my Client anyway!

Have A Go Hero

2006-06-04T23:40:00.000+01:00

Last week I dealt with a two day trial in a Magistrates Court that nearly turned in to a miscarriage of justice.

The case involved five defendants, I represented one of the defendants. Essentially an incident had occurred in a street late at night where two youths (one was armed with a large knife) had approached a group of three people and attacked them. My Client was one of the group of three. All five defendants had been charged with the offence of using threatening words and behaviour and a number of the defendants had been charged with possession of a bladed article.

The facts of this case were very simple. The two youths had attacked the group of the three. There was then a general fight where the two youths got a bit of a kicking and then the Police arrived.

On day one of the trial the Crown Prosecution Service were asked if they would bind over the five defendants and after negotiations broke down all the defendants had to decide did they want to run the risk of being convicted, or plead guilty to obtain credit for a guilty plea. There was some very good CCTV evidence that clearly showed each defendant engaged in the offences that they were charged with, the question was could the defence rely on a defence such as self defence to have their defendant acquitted? Eventually the other two out of the group of three pleaded guilty. My Client decided he had the stomach to fight and wanted to go to trial. The two youths also decided to go to trial.

The prosecution case had been very badly prepared and had as many holes in the evidence as a lump slice of Swiss cheese. The barrister representing the two youths kept chuckling to himself that his youths were probably the most guilty out of the lot, and that they were going to walk out of the trial at half time because the identification evidence against them was so weak. The two youths had given no comment interviews at the Police Station and had admitted to nothing. Unfortunately my Client had not been represented at the Police Station and he had given an account to the Police full of horrible comments that sounded like he had gone over the top in attacking the youth with a knife, and therefore gone beyond self defence.

The half way point in the trial came and the barrister was right, his Clients walked out of the trial as the Prosecution case against his Clients was so weak they could not establish their identity on the CCTV because the Prosecution lacked a commentary on the CCTV or identification evidence to establish which youth was which. I could not exploit this point as my Client had made comments admitting his involvement in this incident!

At the end of day one my Client was the last person left in the trial. We moved on to day two. My Client gave evidence and stuck to his self defence and defence of others speech. I managed to convince one of the group of three who had previously pleaded guilty to give evidence one behalf of my Client on day two to corroborate his account.

The Magistrates went out to consider the case, and came back and acquitted my Client.

Looking back on the case I have no doubt that my Client was justified in what he did. He was approached by two youths, one holding a knife who were intent on causing trouble. My Client gave the youth with a knife a good kicking, and the Court found that he acted in self defence - even though the youth was left on the floor unconscious. This have a go hero was not convicted - although he probably should have been.

Lock 'Em Up

2006-05-29T08:43:00.000+01:00

A rather interesting article has appeared in the Times today. This article suggests that the government policy of locking people up for short periods of time and then supervising them in the community for long periods of time is not going to work. The reason given for this policy not working is the simple fact that our prisons are currently stuffed full of prisoners and the system is struggling to cope.

Custody plus is a new type of sentence that is expected to come in to effect in November of this year:

Under "custody plus", offenders must be given between two and thirteen weeks in jail followed by at least six months probation on their release. Officials now fear that the introduction of the new sentence could lead to a further jump in the prison population because magistrates and judges will prefer to give an offender a short taste of prison rather than giving them a non custodial sentence.

The article concludes:

At the moment the Prison Service is 1,860 spaces short of being full, but last month Phil Wheatley, the director-general of the service, gave a clear warning of his concern about the future when he asked whether the planned 80,000 capacity for the system would be enough to deal with the numbers being dealt with by the courts. He admitted that the Prison Service was "very tight for room". Mr Wheatley added in an interview with Police Review: "As long as I am not being asked to lock up more people than I can safely lock up, then I am OK. The question for the future is whether this is going to be sufficient?" Harry Fletcher, the assistant general secretary of the National Association of Probation Officers, said yesterday: "There are real fears that magistrates will use it [custody plus] as an alternative to giving people a non-custodial penalty."

Now if you add in to the mix that there have also been other changes to the criminal justice sentencing system in recent years the problem is going to get worse. As a result of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 suspended prison sentences are now easier to get. The requirements for a suspended prison sentence have been relaxed. A suspended prison sentence is basically a prison sentence that hangs over a persons head for a defined period of time. Should that person offend again during the suspension period they can be sent to prison. For example if Mr. Burglar received a suspended prison sentence of 6 months suspended for 12 months he would have to keep out of trouble for 12 months to ensure that his prison sentence of 6 months was not activated.

Suspended prison sentences are now usually imposed in addition to a community order that requires the offender to complete community service (what they now call unpaid work in the community) and or be subject to supervision (what they used to call probation). The problem with adding in community service or probation to a suspended prison sentence is that once you are in breach of either the community service or probation your prison sentence can be activated as you have not complied with the Court's sentence.

I had three or four suspended prison sentences handed out last week, they are becoming quite common for certain offences. There is therefore a growing number of people who are subject to suspended prison sentences, and a large percentage of these people will undoubtedly fail and be brought back before the Courts. As these numbers grow there will again be a problem that the Prison Service cannot cope with the number of people that are being sent to prison.

It was only a few weeks ago that the Lord Chief Justice gave a well thought out speech stating that short, sharp shocks do not work.

Tiring Work

2006-05-28T23:26:00.000+01:00

I have completed a stint of Court Duty Solicitor work this week. I was the Court Duty Solicitor for my local Magistrates Court from Monday through to Saturday. Court Duty work is always interesting as you are thrown a variety of interesting cases to deal with. Some of this weeks highlights were:

1. The man from the Czech republic who was in Court for various motoring offences, one of which was imprisonable. He had been convicted in his absence of a number of things. He told me that he did hold valid insurance etc. I told him to go home and get his insurance document over the lunch period, and told him that he must come back to Court. He disappeared and never returned. As a warrant has now been issued for his arrest he will come before the Court for another Court Duty Solicitor to represent him.

2. The man who had not paid his fines since 2001 and claimed that he suffered from Alzheimer's. His medical condition afforded him a great defence to non payment of his fines. The Court could only send him to prison for non-payment of fines if they generally thought he had decided not to pay them, or had been negligent in the way he had not paid them. As this Client was giving evidence on oath that he had forgotten to pay them the Crown Prosecutor leant over to me and said rather cynically, "People will go to such lengths to avoid paying their fines. I bet he read about this condition in Take A Break magazine."

3. The man who had breached his community service and said that he could not complete his community service whilst the people who had stabbed him recently were also completing their community service. Unfortunately the Court did not accept this as a 'reasonable excuse' and his community service was revoked and he was resentenced to prison.

I was also on a 24 hour Police Station Duty Solicitor rota yesterday meaning that I have now completed another seven day working stint. No rest for the wicked eh?

Carbolic Smoke Ball Co.

2006-05-28T11:35:00.000+01:00

Anyone who has ever studied law will have come across the case of Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company. I received an email from a new Carbolic Smoke Ball Co. that is selling gifts for lawyers. This post is nothing but blatant advertising for the Carbolic Smoke Ball Co., but if you are after a quirky legal gift then look no further.

Most Morose Lawyer On The Web

2006-05-25T00:16:00.000+01:00

This blog sometimes gets a mention in the press. Over the past few months this blog has been mentioned in the Times, the Sun, and now The Lawyer has described me as the most morose lawyer on the web for my glum contributions. After reading this article I checked on the definition of morose: "Sullenly melancholy; gloomy."

The life of a criminal solicitor can be a difficult one, life does sometimes appear to be gloomy when you are stuck at a Police Station in the small hours of the morning, but working in crime means that life is never boring.

How Not To Impress A Court

2006-05-24T19:32:00.000+01:00

I have spent a number of days this week as the Court Duty Solicitor generally representing Clients who have been held in custody by the Police and put before the Court, or Clients on bail who have a sufficiently serious case to warrant legal representation.

I had the joy, today, of representing a Client who was in custody. He had been accused of a domestic assault, and had similar previous convictions. He denied being involved in the allegation and decided that he would plead not guilty. We then discussed bail and my Client told me that he wanted to apply for bail. After a consultation I had his case called on.

When my Client appeared in the dock he stood as many young males do with his hands down his trousers. The District Judge presiding over my Client's case looked over and shook his head, then he said, "Take your hands out of your..." he then stopped and did not seem to have the words to finish the sentence. My Client was then asked for his address, he replied by naming a large British city as opposed to his house number, road name, and town.

The rest of the hearing continued in much the same vein. My Client would heckle from time to time, his best heckling moment was when the Prosecutor stated that my Client had declined to answer questions in interview and when asked to comment on the allegation he replied to the Police, "It's bollocks". Upon hearing this my Client heckled, "Yeah, it's bollocks".

I did my duty and applied for bail. My bail application was refused, as expected.

My client could have enhanced his chances of success by appearing to actually care about his case in the dock, and by conducting himself in the dock that would suggest he was respectful of the Courts powers and therefore could possibly be trusted to abide by bail conditions. Unfortunately his whole demeanor suggested that he did not care and that he would not stick to bail conditions because of his lack of respect for procedure and rules. Although conducting himself in a respectful manner would not have been a good reason for granting him bail it would have at least been one small foundation upon which I could have based other arguments for bail.

Gravy Train

2006-05-21T15:26:00.000+01:00

An article appeared in today's Guardian with the headline "Legal aid bill for parole board challenges tops £2m". There are some quotes in this article:

The legal aid bill for human rights' challenges by prisoners to parole board decisions has soared tenfold in the last five years to more than £2m, according to official figures released yesterday.

And:

Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, last night said: "Recent changes in the law should not be a gravy train for lawyers . What we need are short, effective hearings which allow both sides to examine reasons for parole decisions."

And:

David Davies, Conservative MP for Monmouth, who ferreted out the figures, said: "It is appalling that because of human rights laws so much taxpayers' money is being spent on allowing prisoners to be legally represented to argue their case before the parole board."

I do understand why articles like this are printed. Firstly lawyers who defend people accused of, and sometimes convicted of, crimes are easy targets. Secondly prisoners are easy targets.

The government has established a system whereby the Parole Board has hearings to determine if certain prisoners can be released. I will generalise here, but, the current system of parole kicks in when a prisoner who has been given a sentence of four years or more in prison has served between half of his sentence to two thirds of his sentence. Between the half way point and the two thirds point he can apply for parole. Provided that the prisoner is not subject to more rigorousus sentence then he must be released after serving two thirds of his sentence anyway.

So once a year a prisoner is able to apply for parole. If he is not granted parole he has to wait another year before he can apply for parole again unless he reaches the two thirds point of his sentence and is released automatically. Bearing in mind that a prisoner has one chance a year to put his case to the Parole Board he should be entitled to some help. Generally speaking us solicitors can be granted funding of up to £1,500 to represent prisoners at these hearings. We do not get paid £1,500 per case, we can submit a claim for up to £1,500. The Parole Board are experts in their field. Prisoners are prisoners and most are of substandard intelligence, many suffer from mental health issues, and do not have the ability to put their case to the Parole Board.

If the government or elected MPs really do think that system is so unfair for prisoners to be represented at parole hearings then they are free to draft new legislation to get rid of the funding for solicitors, or create another system whereby prisoners are barred from having legal representation at their hearing. The government will not change the rules because they know at the end of the day it is only fair that once a year prisoners are given some help in how to present their case to the Parole Board.

Mr. Clegg and Mr. Davies you should know better than to take cheap shots at prisoners. Mr. Clegg it is not a gravy train, it is legally aided work, have a look at the number of criminal defence, or even prison law, firms that are still in practice, that number will decrease over the year and will continue to decrease because criminal law and prison law is not a gravy train. Mr. Davies if you think it iappallinguling to let prisoners be represented at Parole Hearings by legally aided solicitors then why have you not put a private members bill before Parliament to change the current system?

Rant over.

Tendering Opportunities

2006-05-19T12:41:00.000+01:00

I regularly visit the Legal Services Commission web site and recently I have noticed a section on Tendering Opportunities.

When the CDS Direct telephone advice scheme was set up people had grave concerns that non solicitors would be advising suspects at the Police Station over the phone, and that the quality of the advice would be likely to suffer as those involved in providing advice were going to be in a call centre type environment. There has yet to be a fundamental review of the CDS Direct telephone advice scheme, and I am eagerly awaiting publication of the Legal Service Commission's findings saying that it was an astounding success (I am not so sure that it is a success).

I have now noticed that on the Legal Services Commission's web site their tendering opportunities refers to outsourcing telephone advice schemes. At present their is only information on a civil version but undoubtedly the CDS Direct telephone advice scheme will be tendered for outsourcing. The information on the Legal Services Commission web site states:

The types of people or organisations we may be looking to work with include:

legal aid solicitors

not-for-profit organisations

other commercial organisations and individuals.

There are some large 'national' firms of legal aid solicitors, there are relatively few not-for-profit organisations, and there are obviously many, many other commercial organisations and individuals. Should the CDS Direct telephone advice scheme be put up for tender I cannot see a firm of solicitors having the resources, IT infrastructure, or ability to tender for such work - therefore it is going to go to 'other commercial organisations and individuals'. When such work goes out to these commercial organisations it will no doubt be tendered on price, and the lower the price the more likely the tender will be accepted. If people had grave concerns about the Legal Services Commission running the CDS Direct telephone advice scheme then they should have even graver concerns should this work be tendered and outsourced.

Keep Your Mouth Shut

2006-05-18T08:16:00.000+01:00

I dealt with a trial recently where I was able to secure an acquittal for my Client. There is a saying that the Prosecution case is at it's weakest when the prosecution close their case. The rationale behind this saying is that when a Defendant gives evidence in their own trial they often put their foot in it and ruin the good work that has been done before they enter the witness box.

My case had been well prepared by a colleague and the tactics in the case were simple. There were two prosecution witnesses who would give an account that blamed my Client for a public disorder matter. Then my Client followed by two young witnesses would give their account disagreeing with the Prosecution version of events. It would then be in the hands of the Magistrates to decide whether the case had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

I got to Court early and had a conference with my Client. I referred my Client's witnesses to the witness service who told them what to expect in Court. I then explained the trial procedure to my Client and gave him some general pointers on how to conduct himself in the witness box:

1. Do not argue with the Prosecutor.
2. Be polite and reasonable at all times.
3. Do not mention your previous convictions.

My Client had three convictions for the same offence for which he was on trial for. I do not know why the Prosecution had not made an application to adduce his bad character at trial, but it may well have had something to do with the fact that the prosecution witnesses also had previous convictions.

The trial was going according to plan until my Client got in to the witness box. The prosecution witnesses had stuck to their statements, but in doing so I had exploited a number of small inconsistencies. My Client got in to the witness box and seemed to forget all of the advice that I had given him. He argued with the Prosecutor, he did not appear to be reasonable, and worst of all he claimed that he was not the kind of person to commit a public order offence. I cringed at this point and noticed that the Prosecutor was looking at his previous convictions. In the normal course of events the Prosecutor would have stood up when dealing with cross examination and asked my Client to confirm what he had said to the Court, then ask him if he has previous convictions and then hand to the Court a copy of those convictions to correct a false impression given to the court. For some reason the Prosecutor did not do this, and I have no idea why.

After the Defendant had been cross examined his two young witnesses gave evidence. My closing speech consisted of the observation that five different accounts had been given to the Court and in those circumstances they Court should not convict. Thankfully the Magistrates agreed with my reasoning. I am pretty sure that the Magistrates decision would have been different if my Client's bad character had been made known to the Court.

Too Young To Be Locked Up?

2006-05-17T13:38:00.000+01:00

When is a person too young to be locked up? A few weeks ago I had the unenviable task of representing a 12 year old who was in serious danger of being sent to a Secure Training Centre (a prison for all intents and purposes) for a series of offences. The Client was appearing in Court for breaching previous sentences and for a handful of new offences.

For the hearing the local Youth Offending Team had produced a report which showed that the Client had a pretty poor home life. He was quite regularly hit by his father. He had a number of siblings that were also getting in to trouble. The problem with this Client was that they had not helped themselves by doing stupid things like cutting off their tag when being tagged was part of their sentence.

As my Client was in breach of previous sentences he was due to have those previous sentences revoked so that he would be resentenced for all of the old matters as well as the new matters. I totted up the offences and there were about 7 or 8 matters in total. Each offence by itself did not really warrant a prison sentence. Even with the offences added together they did not warrant a prison sentence. But throw in to the mix the fact that the Client had breached previous orders that were attempts to curb his criminal behaviour and then I had a problem.

I did feel slightly uncomfortable dealing with this case because I knew that the Client was going to be given a custodial sentence. I knew that there was notihng I could do to stop the inevitable sentence being passed. I mitigated on behalf of my Client saying that he had not had the opportunities that other children had, that he had a miserable life at home because of his father, that he attended at a school for problem children and that in such an environment he was unable to learn because others disrupted his education. Essentially I explained that my Client had been brought up in an environment where petty criminal behaviour was acceptable, and that he had no chance in life to escape the path he had been lead down because that path had been established by his family and his siblings.

Ultimately my Client was given the minimum prison sentence that a youth in the Youth Court can get, that being 4 months in custody. As a 12 year old my Client will go to a secure training centre. Since my Client was sentence I have spoken to the Youth Offending Team and they have told me that the Client is getting on really well in the Secure Training Centre because he has escape his family.

Many of you reading this posting will think that I sound foolish making the comments that I have, and that if the Client has committed the crime he should do the time. You are right. But where this Client has had little chance to develop as a well adjusted law abiding citizen because his family does not live up to those values he was always going to end up in prison.

Rant over...

This Weekend Was Murder

2006-05-15T07:29:00.000+01:00

Most people think of solicitors as being 'Fat Cats' who earn lots of money for actually doing very little work. Us criminal solicitors are often at the bottom of the pile when it comes to earning money and we do not rank anywhere near our 'City' friends who deal in commercial property transactions, or large corporate mergers and acquisitions. Criminal solicitors usually work at legal aid rates so they will not turn away work that is shunted in their direction. More work means more money, and as legal aid rates are not great it is necessary to do as much work as possible.

This weekend was non-stop work for me, and it was murder.

My weekend started at 4.32 pm on Friday when I was informed that there was a Client who had been refused bail from the Police Station and was going to be in Court on Saturday morning. I was on my firm's Court for this Saturday and therefore was going to be in Court. So Saturday morning I made my way to Court to try to deal with my Client in custody. I arrived at Court early so that I could be in and out of Court as quickly as possible - this trick usually works on a Saturday. Unfortunately the CPS file was not ready when I was so I had to wait for a few hours. After my Client's case had been called on, with bail being refused, I managed to see my Client again and leave Court about 1.00 pm.

On this same Saturday at 6.00 am I had started my 24 hour Duty Solicitor Police Station slot to deal with anyone arrested in my local area who wanted legal representation at the Police Station but did not have a specific firm to represent them already. I had been receiving calls whilst I was at Court about a person in custody. I left Court and drove immediately to deal with this person at the Police Station.

Part of my weekend plans also included dealing with another Client bailed to appear at a local Police Station mid afternoon on Saturday. In fact the time for the bail appointment was 3.00 pm which was kick off time for the FA Cup Final. I was fortunate enough that this appointment was cancelled and I was able to see the whole of the Cup Final.

In the late afternoon I then received a call from the Duty Solicitor Call Centre, a person spoke to me with a very broad accent which I could not understand. I managed to get the Client's name spelt to me and I was told where they were being detained, but at the time I could not work out what they had been arrested for. I telephoned the Police Station and was told that the Client had been detained for murder. During the same telephone conversation I was also given details of three other people in custody who had asked for the Duty Solicitor.

I went straight down to the Police Station to deal with the new murder Client and whilst I had various conversations with the investigating Officers, various consultations with my Client, and an interview, my phone kept ringing with my people wanting to be represented by the Duty Solicitor. By the end of Saturday night I had five Clients in custody at one Police Station, and another two in another local Police Station. Thankfully all of the Clients were to be interviewed the next day.

My firm has a 'Police Station Rota' so that over weekdays and weekends a person from my firm will deal with Police Station attendances out of office hours for a particular day. On Sunday I was due to hand over all of my Police Station Clients who were still in custody to a colleague on Sunday morning. As my murder Client was still in custody and I had dealt with their first round of interviews it was completely inappropriate for me to hand over the murder case to my colleague - I therefore had to work on the Sunday as well.

On Sunday morning I woke up and make about 10 phone calls. I spoke to my colleague who was on the firm's Police Station rota and they took the details of four Clients in one Police Station, I then managed to get another colleague to look after the two other Clients at another local Police Station. I then set off to complete my work with the murder Client. I spent most of Sunday at the Police Station and just after 5.30 pm I arrived at the barbecue that I had planned at being some weeks ago.

Sunday evening was spent sorting out the paperwork for the various people that I represented over the weekend, and spent preparing for a trial that I have on Monday. I now feel like I need a day off in the week to recover. As the title of this post suggests this weekend was murder.

Sarcastic Musings

2006-05-15T06:19:00.000+01:00

A great article has appeared in today's Telegraph with the headline, "Concern for the criminal has hijacked the justice system". This article starts off with sarcastic musings over the Human Rights Act row that has erupted in the press recently. The article then goes on to examine criminality in today's society.

The article made me chuckle.

How To Mitigate

2006-05-14T23:52:00.000+01:00

Being an advocate requires some skill, you have to know what to say and when to say it. As the years go on you develop certain speeches to cover different situations. One of the skills you need to be a good advocate is to be able to think on your feet, when you are suddenly presented with a situation you need to know how to react, and how to put your case to the Court. I do not profess to be a good advocate, although I would like to think that I am.

Friday was interesting. I received a telephone call from one of my colleagues who was busy at my local Magistrates Court dealing with a trial. My colleague phoned me and asked if I could come down to Court to deal with two Clients to be sentenced as their case had slipped through our diary system and there was nobody at Court to represent them. I picked up the file for the two Clients and got down to Court. As I walked in to the Court room I was asked by the District Judge who was sitting if I was ready to deal with the case. I explained that there had been a mix up with the Court diary, that I was sorry for the mistake, and that I would be as quick as I could with the Clients so that I did not unduly delay the Court. The Clients that I was representing were due to be sentenced for a fight in a bar, and their case was sufficiently serious to warrant prison sentences. The District Judge asked me how long I would need. Bearing in mind I had to locate the pre-sentence reports for each Client, find the Clients, read through each pre-sentence report, go through each pre-sentence report with the Clients, take each Client's instructions on the pre-sentence report, and generally familiarise myself with the case prior to being ready I asked for thirty minutes. The District Judge commented that I would only need five minutes with each Client, and then he graciously gave me twenty minutes to prepare the case.

I got to work straight away, and by this time I was flying by the seat of my pants as everything had to be done properly and done very quickly. I managed to locate my Clients and go through their reports. Thankfully my Clients did not have any objections to the contents of their reports. I explained that sentencing would be difficult and that custody could not be ruled out, but advised that in my opinion community penalties would be imposed.

I then walked in to Court and minutes later my case was called on. By this time I just about had a good enough grasp of the case to put forward my Clients mitigation. My case was then called on and as the Crown Prosecution Service prosecutor gave the facts of the case he pulled out a copy of a DVD of CCTV footage of the incident. He then requested that this footage be played to the District Judge. There were no possible grounds for me to object to the CCTV being played so I graciously said to the District Judge, "No Sir, of course I do not object to you viewing the CCTV".I then saw my two Clients behaving like animals in a bar - at this stage my planned mitigation changed in my head.

I got to my feet to mitigate and went through the standard speech for mitigation. I complemented my Clients on their glowing pre-sentence reports, I discussed their current family relationships, and current employment positions. I then had to explain why one Client should not be recalled to prison because this offence had been committed during a period of time when he was still completing an unexpired sentence. I then had to explain for the other Client that throwing a chair at someone in the bar should not be considered to be an aggravating feature of the offence because the chair did not actually hit the person! At this point I was really scraping the bottom of the barrel! I then had a moment of clarity, I thought that I would mention the Lord Chief Justice's speech "Alternatives to Custody - The Case For Community Sentencing". The mere mention of this speech seemed to enrage the District Judge as he embraced the idea of short, sharp sentencing practices being highly relevant to my particular case.

My job was made easier at one point by the district Judge as he told me that he was going to follow the recommended sentence in the pre-sentence report for one Client, and that sentence was a community penalty. He then said that he was going to deal with the other Client in a wholly different way, I assumed this to mean custody. I banged on for a bit and then noticed that the District Judge was listening to every word that I said about the second Client's young children. I pulled out the good father speech and sat down. I had done my job, if I continued to mitigate I would bore the District Judge. I had in the short time I had been at Court got to grips with the case and delivered the mitigation that my Client's both should have had and wanted. They looked at me from the dock and both nodded their heads to show that they were happy with my work.

My first Client received a community penalty. The District Judge then pronounced his sentence for the second Client and told him that the offence was so serious that only prison was a suitable sentence. The Usher in Court picked up the telephone to call the cells to send up custody staff to take away my second Client, but as the Usher picked up the phone the District Judge said that he would suspend the prison sentence due to the second Client having young children.

My job was done, my Clients had both avoided prison. As my Client's shook my hands complimenting me on my advocacy and walked away I could not help thinking how lucky I had been as this case could have gone horribly wrong as I had had no time to prepare the mitigation on behalf of my Clients.

Well Said

2006-05-11T13:38:00.000+01:00

The Lord Chief Justice gave a speech recently when he spoke about the need for more appropriate sentences. He eloquently said in two paragraphs of his speech:

"In arguing the merits of alternatives to custody, I have been concerned to demonstrate that these are in the interests of victims, of potential victims and of society as a whole. There is a further point to make. They are in the interests of the offenders. I know that it is unfashionable to refer to the interests of offenders, as opposed to those of their victims. Of course, victims have the first claim on our sympathies and on our actions. But this does not mean that we must disregard the interests of offenders. For if we do not we can never hope to deal with the underlying reasons for offending behaviour. And it is this that is in all our interests."

Also:

"I have been talking about the large number of inadequate or damaged members of society for whom minor criminality is the only way of life they know. Short spells of imprisonment followed by re-offending is an expensive and ineffective way of dealing with these. Meaningful punishment in the community, coupled with a proper programme of rehabilitation, properly resourced and managed, must be the better option."

I am no liberal, and many of my Clients that are sent to prison do deserve to be there, but sometimes a Court will just get it wrong and impose a sentence that does not have any real effect. Sentencing is about punishment and rehabilitation. Once those presiding over cases in the Magistrates Courts learn that sending a repeat offender to prison for two weeks over a shop lifting matter is not a sentence that either punishes or rehabilitates we will all be in a better position. Clients that I deal with on a regular basis say that short custodial sentences are pointless because they are simply locked up for a few weeks and that is no deterrent to them. I am quite frankly very impressed that the Lord Chief Justice has got such a good understanding of the problems that defendants face, and that he is able to express a well considered opinion. Cure the underlying issues that caused the crime and you are likely to start to address reoffending behaviour.

Meet Mr. Loophole

2006-05-04T23:41:00.000+01:00

Everyone has heard of Mr. Loophole, even if they do not know it consciously they will have heard about Mr. Loophole in the past. Mr. Loophole is a solicitor called Nick Freeman who specialises in road traffic cases using loopholes to secure the best possible result for his clients. Mr. Loophole is the solicitor who represents the rich and famous when they are in trouble with the law over road traffic matters.

Why am I talking about Mr. Loophole? Well, I have a trial coming up that relies on loopholes and complicated law if I am going to be successful in defending my Client.

I had a search around the world wide web looking for information on Mr. Loophole. He has his own web site http://www.freemankeepondriving.com/. The Guardian newspaper also conducted an interview with Mr. Loophole in January of this year. Mr. Loophole appears to be widely reported across the world wide web, he appears to be quite successful in representing his clients at present, and he certainly seems to be making a few pounds out of his enterprise.

Perhaps Mr. Loophole has found a niche area for criminal practitioners to consider working in. Most defendants in road traffic cases that do not involve major injury, or drink driving, or just plain dangerous driving, appear at Court unrepresented, and as they are unrepresented they are far more likely to plead guilty. Legal aid is not available for low level road traffic matters, and as such not many people come to me asking to be represented. Mr. Loophole may well have discovered a lucrative sideline that I will consider moving in to if I can win my Client's trial. Privately paying Clients are few and far between in the Magistrates Courts and Crown Courts of this land. If Carter has his way I will soon be paid less money for doing the same volume of legally aided criminal work - privately funded road traffic matters in the same Courts could be exactly what I am looking for.

The Youth of Today

2006-05-02T18:14:00.000+01:00

The Clients that I represent today are likely to turn in to Clients that I represent in the future as adults. I have represented a number of individuals over the past few weeks who seem to be on a very slippery slope and are likely to keep my firm very busy over the next few years. One particular Client appeared in the Youth Court for not complying with his supervision order, he was fortunate after he admitted this breach to be given a second chance. The youth then failed to comply with the requirements of his order again and at a later Youth Court hearing was sent in to youth detention (small people's prison) because the Court felt that he was going to fail again and again with any other sentence that they imposed. When I asked what could be said on my Client's behalf before the hearing the Client simply shrugged their shoulders and said, "Dunno".

Clients turn up to Youth Court with the knowledge that they may be sent away to a Young Offenders Institution and say that they are happy to go away provided that their mate is going there too!

I was told recently that a youth attended at a meeting with a Youth Worker where he lost his temper, in addition to the youth assaulting the Youth Worker one of his parents smashed property in the Youth Worker's office!

At the moment the future is bright for my line of work, there is a generation of youths growing up who do not see custody as a deterrent. They do not comply with the sentences handed down by the Youth Court, and quite frankly they see Youth Court as a meeting place instead as a place to be worried about. As long as the Youths have a complete disregard for the law their offending is likely to get more and more violent until they progress to the stage of beating, stabbing and killing victims. If Mr. Clarke thinks he has a problem trying to keep track of foreign nationals who have been released from prison he has a nightmare scenario trying to keep track of a large part of a generation!

What A Waste Of Time

2006-04-26T20:26:00.000+01:00

I decided that I would go off to one of my local Crown Courts this week to see if I could make some progress on a number of cases that had not been running particularly smoothly. On one case the Client had been granted bail at the Magistrates Court on his first appearance in custody, he had then failed to provide any instructions and he was not abiding by his bail conditions because his mail was being returned from his bail address. I thought that by attending at his preliminary hearing I could sit him down and get some instructions. On another case my Russian speaking Client had failed to provide any instructions and again I thought that the preliminary hearing would be a good chance to extract instructions from her. The last case was simply a hearing for no evidence to be offered against my Client as his case was to be dropped, I thought it would be nice to see the prosecution back down in person.

It all went wrong. The first Client failed to appear. The second Client's interpreter failed to attend Court. The third Client's case was called on when I was in Court with Client number one's case.

My best laid plans turned out to be a waste of time.

Has the UK Criminal Justice Weblog Died?

2006-04-25T15:35:00.000+01:00

When I set up a web site a few years ago I spent many days scouring the world wide web looking for some dynamic content to be displayed on the home page of the web site. I stumbled across the news feed that was produced by the UK Criminal Justice Weblog. This news feed was exactly what I had been looking for because it was topical and updated each working day. In this early days the idea of having dynamic content was that I could rely on the news feed changing so that the content of my web site would not look so stale.

I have been an avid reader of the UK Criminal Justice Weblog for a few years. I am aware that the author of the feed did originally start the project with some funding, and that in more recent times he continued with the blog as a matter of personal interest. The last time that I saw the UK Criminal Justice Weblog updated was on 15th March 2006. Has this news feed and the blog now come to an end?

I was rather saddened by the loss of regular updates in the UK Criminal Justice weblog so over the past few weeks I have been publishing my own newsfeed based on the same theme of the UK Criminal Justice Weblog. I scan the UK media looking for news reports on the criminal justice system. Clearly this is not a replacement for the work of Nick Page, but for my purposes it works. You can see the news feed in action being displayed on the Criminal Solicitor Dot Net web site towards the bottom of the page. To see fuller detail with more media stories displayed then follow this link. If you like what you see and would like to add the Criminal Solicitor Dot Net News feed to your RSS reader or website then follow this link.

Great Idea Charles

2006-04-24T13:39:00.000+01:00

Charles Clarke announced last week that he wanted to reform the way in which miscarriages of justice were compensated. Slipped in to this announcement was a nugget of information that Charles Clarke was also planning a massive reform of the Court of Appeal by introducing a new verdict of 'not proven'. Charles Clarke's idea seemed to be that if a person had been convicted of a crime, and that had appealed to the Court of Appeal but had been given a 'not proven' as the result of the appeal he would not have to pay out so much money for miscarriages of justice.

I may have misunderstood Charles Clarke's plans as he has yet to publish how he intends to imnplement this 'not proven' verdict. The UK media have reported that he wants to introduce the 'not proven' verdict so I am assuming that they are probably reporting something similar to the truth that has escaped from the Home Office.

Hazel Keirle, Head of Case Research of the Miscarriages of Justice Organisation, expressed her views on this announcement, "Intersting that Charles Clarke wants to intorduce a 'not proven' verdict in the English COA (where the Court never pronounces a verdict in any event), when in the Scottish High Court, they can't use the 'not proven' at all, that particular verdict being a jury verdict only. What is far more worrying is his obvious want to interfere in the making and development of the law whilst demonstrating a total lack of knowledge of how our Appellate system works at all. Miscarriages of justice are a fact of life - not a figment of imagination. Whatever their cause, those affected by it have a right to redress through due process and any attempt to curtail or delete that right, will eventually end up in Strasbourg."

Pro Bono

2006-04-23T20:30:00.000+01:00

Since I moved firms three months ago I have been doing a lot more pro bono work. For anyone who does not know what the legal term pro bono means it is simply a latin phrase to say that the work is done for free. Most of my Magistrates Court work is now based in one Magistrates Court, I attend there up to four days out of the week, and as a frequent visitor I have started to recognise many of the regular faces.

The firm I currently work for has a policy that provided we are attending at the Magistrates Court anyway if there are Clients who require assistance but their case cannot be legally aided we should try to help them and usually will represent them in Court on a pro bono basis. Last week there was a particular day when I think I did more cases on a pro bono basis than I did under the terms of a representation order (the current technical phrase for a legal aid order).

Criminal defence solicitors often find themselves working with people who have fallen to the bottom of society's social order. Many people who are convicted in this country have mental health problems and low IQs. As such many Clients look to us criminal solicitors to sort out their problems even when they know that we are working for free. I enjoy my job, and I do not putting myself out to help another human being. I do wonder with more and more cuts planned to criminal legal aid where these people are going to get help when there are fewer and fewer criminal solicitors who are less willing to undertake cases on a pro bono basis. In criminal work word of mouth is generally the only way that you pick up good 'own Clients', pro bono work is essential to maintain a good Client base, but if legal aid budgets keep getting cut then ultimately pro bono work will become too expensive to do.

Doom and Gloom

2006-04-23T10:41:00.000+01:00

The Criminal Law Solicitors Association recently published the results of a survey/questionnaire. This particular survey was asking how criminal practitioners view their future working with the changes that are likely to be implemented by the Carter review.

Here are a few snippets:

"Do you agree with the proposal to promote restructuring of suppliers to deliver fewer, larger, more efficient contractors ?" 84% Said no.

"In the light of the Carter report, do you anticipate for your firm expansion, shrinkage, or about the same?" 44% Said there would be shrinkage. 15% Said there would be expansion. 31% Said there would be no change. 10% Did not answer the question.

The last question which shows the uncertain future for criminal practitioners was:

"If when the figures come, the Review indicates that your firms income from criminal defence work will reduce, do you think that your firm will continue doing it?" 26% Said no. 37% Said probably not. 31% Said probably yes. 2% Did not answer. Amazingly only 2% answered this question with a straight yes.

My firm has departmental meeting every week, and for the past few weeks the theme of our meetings has been Carter. A small catch phrase has sprung up around the office of , "Work smarter, work with Carter". We are actually gearing up for the changes that we are sure that Carter is going to implement and we are trying to be leaner, meaner, and generally more efficient. It would seem that my firm fits in to the profile (if the CLSA questionnaire results are representative of all criminal practices) of 2% firms!

More Arrests

2006-04-11T20:29:00.000+01:00

In my local area the gossip amongst the Police is that the Chief Constable is demanding that more arrests be made. As I was at my local Police Station today I was standing with a Client who had been arrested for a Â£100,000 fraud. I saw that an Officer came and spoke with the Detective Sergeant dealing with my Client and then they parted company. The Detective Sergeant then came over to me and said that his Detective Inspector had asked what type of case he wasdealingg with, he had told her that it was a high value fraud, and that her response was that the fraud case was only going to result in one statistical detection! It seems that despite the fact that a high value fraud case could be prosecuted the higher ranks of my local Police force are not happy unless they can get multiple detections from single offenders.

Name Calling

2006-04-11T20:16:00.000+01:00

A few weeks ago one of my firm's Clients appeared in Court for a sentencing exercise. The Client was at the time in custody awaiting sentence and their prospects of receiving a custodial sentence were pretty good. One of my colleagues attended at Court and was fortunate enough to persuade the Court that the Client should not be sent to prison but should be made the subject of an onerous community penalty involving drug rehabilitation. When the District Judge passed sentence he decided to add to the Client's name by giving them the middle name of 'Last Chance'. This was not a particularly clever word play as the Client's last name rhymed with chance.

The news of this lenient and fortunate sentence got round my office and people were amused by the idea of the Client being given a moniker by the District Judge.

Unfortunately for the Client they were arrested some 36 hours after they had been released from Court for a new matter. I was given the task of dealing with the Client who faced overwhelming evidence on new charges. Around the office the Client's moniker was swiftly changed from 'Last Chance' to 'No Chance'. Despite my courageous efforts the Client was sent swiftly back to prison. Disappointingly the District Judge that sentenced the Client on the first occasion was not sitting for the second sentence hearing to change the name that he gave to the Client.

Judicial Influence, Or Judicial Interference

2006-04-09T10:09:00.000+01:00

Whilst at my local Magistrates Court this week I had to deal with a Client who had been arrested for his third breach of bail in four months, he was also appearing in Court for a new offence. The scenario for this Client is not too dissimilar to that found in many Courts in the land. An allegation of domestic violence is made, an arrest is made, the Defendant is charged and usually is released with strict bail conditions to prevent any further contact with the Complainant. Usually the parties resolve their differences before the trial comes to Court and at some point the Defendant is arrested for breaching his bail conditions because he either commits a further offence, or an allegation is made that he has committed a further offence (there is a difference).

My Client claimed that he had reconciled his differences with his partner but she still used the threat of arrest for breach of bail to control him should they have an argument. Please note that I am making no comment on whether my Client's account was the truth or not, also I do not advocate or support domestic violence in any form.

My Client appeared in custody in Court and he accepted that he was in breach of his bail, but stated that he had breached his bail at the invitation of the Complainant because he had been living at her address for the past few weeks despite there being a bail condition that he have no contact with her. I decided that the only way that my Client might get bail after accepting a third breach of bail was to explain to the Court that the Defendant and Complainant were more or less reconciled. Upon hearing my submissions the District Judge shook his head and said words to the effect of, "Will someone please contact the victim and find out what she wants to do about this?" This was a rather bizarre course of action, but one that I was certainly not going to object to.

A few hours later and the Witness Liaison arm of the Crown Prosecution Service had telephoned the Complainant who said that she wanted the Defendant to be released on unconditional bail and that she was going to withdraw all allegations against him.

As a result of this judicial influence, or perhaps judicial interference, my Client was released on unconditional bail. Had it not been for the judge's words this would never have happened.

It's Chaos Out There

2006-03-21T16:37:00.000Z

Here is the text of a Sunday Mirror article looking at the sad state of affairs in our Magistrates Courts:

The Sunday Mirror investigates "chaos in our magistrates' courts" which costs £173m a year. It warns "BRITISH justice is in danger of collapse - as our criminal courts descend into farce."

One in three magistrates' court cases fail to go ahead because of needless adjournments, missing files and time-wasting, a Sunday Mirror investigation has revealed.

We sat in court and witnessed a catalogue of blunders and delays. Scarcely more than 40 per cent of cases reach a satisfactory conclusion on the day they are listed. Because of the chaos many defendants don't bother turning up, knowing that amid the confusion it may take the system weeks to catch up with them.

Our findings come weeks after a National Audit Office survey revealed £173million was wasted last year on trials and hearings in magistrates' courts. Sitting in three courts last week, we witnessed how:

One defendant phoned the court to say she could not appear on a shoplifting charge because she was off on holiday to Thailand.

A thief who had broken the terms of his jail parole laughed as he was freed from court and told to give himself up to police.

A bored solicitor started planning her holiday wardrobe as she waited hours to ask for a simple adjournment.

Take the case at Dartford Magistrates' Court in Kent of Simon Hull, a 20-year-old criminal let out of jail early on condition he behaved.

But he was caught damaging and stealing items from a car. All his defence said was that he was in "a sorry state with alcohol and drug problems".

You might think he would be sent straight back to jail. But it was explained to him that a warrant would be issued for his arrest. He was told he could go to a police station to be arrested or wait for police to catch him. He asked: "So I have to get myself arrested?" The court clerk said: "Yes. The word 'daft' comes to mind."

Hull responded: "I've never heard something so stupid in all my life." He added, to laughter: "I'll do it Sunday. I'll enjoy my weekend then I'll give myself up."

We witnessed another example of the disdain in which our courts are held in Staines, Middlesex. Jessica Gibbs, 24, had phoned the court the day before she was due to appear on a shoplifting charge to say she couldn't make it because she was going on holiday to Thailand.

When she did finally appear she admitted the offence, claiming she stole £500 worth of computer games from a newsagents because she owed her rent. Magistrates' chairman Mrs Vicky Royce told her: "Your holiday fits a little oddly with you saying you could not pay your rent arrears."

Gibbs said the holiday had been a gift from her family. When asked if her family were prepared to help with the rent, she replied: "No, they wasn't."

Gibbs was ordered to carry out 60 hours of community service and pay £50 costs. The cost of wasted court time was estimated at £687, according to figures from the National Audit Office.

Back in Dartford, the court was due to hear a case against a 17-year-old youth charged with a string of offences. The woman defence solicitor was so bored she began to draw up a list of all the clothes she needed for a holiday she was about to go on.

When she finally got the chance to put her case she said her client was too ill to attend court. She was finally able to leave after three hours.

A spokesman for the National Audit Office said of the £173million wasted last year in magistrates courts, nearly £24million was due to the Crown Prosecution Service. "The defence is responsible for more than half, while the CPS and the police are responsible for just over a fifth," he added.

It is calculated that 28 per cent of all pre-trial hearings in magistrates' courts do not go ahead on the scheduled day.

Tory MP Edward Leigh, chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, said: "The innocent are kept in custody longer than necessary. And some guilty people must be getting away with their crimes."

A spokeswoman for the CPS acknowledged there were too many "ineffective hearings" but said it was "taking action".

EXHIBIT 1

28 per cent of all pre-trial hearings in magistrates' courts do not go ahead on time

EXHIBIT 2

Girl charged with shoplifting doesn't turn up because she's on holiday in Thailand

EXHIBIT 3

A thief who broke his bail terms laughs when he's told it's up to him to hand himself in to cops

EXHIBIT 4

A man appeared twice, costing thousands, for stealing £15 of bacon from a Sainsbury's store

Case 1: Staines

THERE were many mutterings of discontent during the frequent adjournments at Staines court.

Lawyers were overheard complaining to each other - and one said: "Magistrates always slow things down."

A defence solicitor added: "One day they retired seven times, on a matter a two-year-old child could have decided on."

The same lawyer - looking at a tall stack of traffic offence paperwork - said: "We will never get through that. It's ridiculous.

"There should be a special clerk at the police station to deal with that. There is no need for them to come to magistrates court."

Lawyers also expressed frustration at two cases that had to be adjourned because the police and court staff did not know where the defendants lived.

In the first, a doctor had been due to answer a charge of driving through a red light. Summonses had been issued to three different addresses and her case had already been adjourned to see if any had reached her.

None had - and the case was put off again, this time until April 5.

In the second, a man had been summoned to appear charged with driving at 70mph in a 50mph zone on the A3 at Esher, Surrey.

The prosecutor said: "There have been various attempts to serve this notice.

"If he can't be found then we can't continue with this prosecution." The case was adjourned until April 11.

Another case was also adjourned because the Probation Service computer system had failed.

Over two days, 62 cases came before the courts. Only 44 were heard through to the end.

Cases had to be dropped because no one could find the defendants

Case 2: Manchester

A CROWN Prosecution Service lawyer faced the wrath of a judge over delays at Manchester Magistrates' Court.

It happened when Alisha Kaur appeared before District Judge Alan Berg for the second time on charges of theft - and for the second time her CPS solicitor did not have the file.

The judge described it as a "terrible situation" and adjourned for 10 minutes to see if the file could be found.

Prosecutor Martin Fleming returned to say the file was still being held by the police, even though he had sent several memos asking for it. Judge Berg said: "I've got a bee in my bonnet about this Mr Fleming, because this isn't a unique set of circumstances' it's happening daily. I'm at the end of my tether. You say you keep sending the police memorandums but they don't seem to be achieving anything, they just ignore them don't they? It's appalling."

Finally he said: "I want an explanation from you next time this case appears as to why these papers have taken so long to arrive and an explanation from the officer involved as well.

"This is the second time we've heard this case and we're no further forward. If you do not have the papers next time I may well have to let the matter proceed anyway." The next day CPS prosecutor Alison Cartmel faced the judge's wrath when it was realised files were missing in four of the 21 cases due to be heard.

The judge told her: "Someone needs to tighten up the system.

"Defence solicitors are waiting here to have their cases heard and all you have to offer is that you haven't got the file."

On Thursday, a man appeared in court for the second time...for stealing £15 worth of bacon. Wayne Moore, who also admitted stealing £37.05 worth of goods from Sainsbury's, was ordered to pay the money back at £10 a fortnight.

The case will have cost hundreds of pounds to take to court.

On Friday, 21 cases were heard - and 10 had to be adjourned. Among them was that of Pole Marcin Wawrzyniak, who was charged with offences including drink driving.

As he barely speaks English, the judge was forced to order an adjournment until an interpreter is found.

21 cases were due to be heard.. but 10 had to be put back to another day

Case 3: Dartford

JUST four defendants were due to have their cases heard in the Monday morning session at Dartford Magistrates Court, Kent.

But the court clerk told the magistrates NONE could go ahead. One defendant did not have a solicitor present.

Another phoned to say their transport had broken down. A third failed to turn up - and their solicitor couldn't find them.

The last said he did not want a solicitor, then changed his mind...and one could not be found. Typical was the case of Ryan James, charged with assault causing actual bodily harm. He did not turn up and when his solicitor tried his mobile a voice on the other end said he bought the phone from James a week ago. The magistrates had no option but to abandon the morning session.

It was a frustrating day as the court heard only six cases when it did finally swing into action in the afternoon.

Tuesday was more productive, with 18 cases heard, but many dragged on and the court rose an hour late at 5pm.

One prosecutor said: "I have lost the will to live". At the same time, a despairing social worker said: "We will be here all night."

Wednesday was another late start because none of the defendants turned up. In the afternoon. just nine cases were heard. On Thursday it emerged the prosecution has lost yet another file - and a breach of the peace case which had already been adjourned twice was thrown out.

The cases dealt with on Friday included a Slovakian man charged with a sex attack who needed an interpreter.

Chair of the bench Elizabeth Brown asked the clerk why the interpreter had been awarded more than £100 in fees for less than 20 minutes work.

She was told interpreters can charge for three hours work - even if their involvement only three minutes.

In another case, Christopher Walker, 21, of Northfleet, Kent, was being held in custody and magistrates had to rule whether to grant him bail on two charges - actual bodily harm and attempted criminal damage.

The case was delayed for nearly 20 minutes because the prosecutor did not have details of the attempted criminal damage charge.

The prosecutor had to wait for his office to fax the papers through before Walker was finally granted bail.

Complete morning wasted when NO cases actually make it into court.

From One Extreme To The Other

2006-03-21T00:18:00.000Z

Last week on a particular day I had two appointments in my diary. Each appointment was to attend at a Police Station where a Client was to be interviewed about a matter.

The first interview was rather heavy going. The Police had raided an address and found ten 9 oz bars of cannabis and over 3,000 ecstasy tablets. My Client was not a frequent visitor to the address but had been present when the raid had taken place. I dealt with his interview and ultimately a decision was made to charge him with various counts of possession with intent to supply drugs. This is a serious matter and if convicted the Client can expect to go to prison for a number of years.

My second appointment of the day took me to a Police Station that I can only describe as 'quaint'. The Police Station backs directly on to the community library, and according to the reports that I have been given the Police Station is only open on a part time basis. My Client had been accused of attempted theft and attended at the Police Station by appointment. It was fortunate that the arrest was by appointment because a Custody Sergeant had been drafted in for this particular arrest to open up the custody suite of the 'quaint' Police Station to allow my Client to be interviewed. The allegation of attempted theft was nearly six months old, and to be honest I have no idea why the Police even bothered to investigate the matter. The allegation was that my Client had been in a shop, he had been seen to walk up to a bottle of vodka, pick it up and look as if he was going to put it in to bag he was holding, a member of staff then shouted out, "Oi!", and my Client put the bottle back on the shelf. After giving his account in interview of a complete denial by Client was released without charge.

I get to deal with all sorts of crime from attempted thefts like the one mentioned above to murder. I never really know what I will be doing by the end of a day when I start. This particular day is just one example of how I can be called on to deal with the most simple of matters, and then in the same day deal with a very grave matter.

Report Waste Initiative

2006-03-20T23:55:00.000Z

The Criminal Law Solicitors Association has set up a web site for criminal practitioners to report wastage that they come across in the criminal justice system. The Report Waste Initiative is a forum for people to post messages about their experiences of waste. I am all behind this campaign as us solicitors do take quite a knocking from the public who are told by someone that we are responsible for a large amount of waiting and delays in the criminal justice system when in it is usually the fault of another party such as the Crown Prosecution Service, the Police, the Courts for listing cases irresponsibly, or even the privately contracted firms who move Clients from prisons and police stations to Courts.

To an outsider this web site will look like a bunch of solicitors grouping together and having a right moan, and because all of the posts will be about waste onlookers will think that us criminal solicitors have nothing better to do than whinge. I assure you that this is a good cause and hopefully a systematic record of failings of other parties may hopefully shift the pubic perception that us criminal solicitors are the bad guys in the criminal justice system.

I am very much in support of this waste reporting, so much so that I have one of the CLSA banners displayed on the Criminal Solicitor Dot Net web site:

Say No To Carter

2006-03-20T23:49:00.000Z

You may have heard me ranting and raving before about a man called Lord Cater of Coles and his Procurement of Legal Aid review. This review basically, and I am simplifying this as much as one possibly can, believes that legally aided criminal defence services can be better delivered by awarding contracts to firms that bid the best price, and satisfy a quality criteria. I am sure that I have expressed my views on this issue before so I will not bang on about it again, save to say, I am extremely worried about the future of my profession and that all I can see ahead is doom and gloom.

After wondering what a single individual could possibly do about Lord Carter's proposals I decided to pull my finger out and I have now established the "Say No To Carter" online petition.

Please lend your support to the cause and register your objections to Lord Carter's proposals by signing the petition!

3 Minute Interview

2006-03-13T23:48:00.000Z

I had the pleasure of attending at a Police Station recently where the Police Constable investigating my Client clearly had no interest in pursuing the case. In disclosure the Officer explained that my Client had been arrested for criminal damage on the basis that DNA evidence that linked a co-defendant to the scene, and that co-defendant had put my Client's name forward in interview as being jointly responsible for the damage caused.

My client decided to exercise his right to silence and his interview lasted exactly three minutes from start to finish. This was a pretty quick interview bearing in mind the first minute and a half was taken up by five people (two Police Officers, the Client, their Appropriate Adult, and myself) in the interview room having to introduce themselves for the purposes of the tape, and the caution being explained to my Client. The interview then went like this:

Q: Did you go to the location and damage the property?
A: No comment.
Q: Where you present when the property was damaged?
A: No comment.
Q: Are you going to answer all of my questions no comment?
A: Yes.
Q: That's the end of the interview then.

To be fair the Police Officer knew that the case was going no where because there was no evidence to link my Client to the crime other than what his co-defendant had said, and as the co-defendant has made a self-serving statement the prosecution will not rely on that as evidence that is strong enough to convict my Client. The Officer reported to the Custody Sergeant after the interview and as predicted by myself the Client was released without charge.

Unpleasant Stories

2006-03-08T22:03:00.000Z

I try to keep in touch with the legal world in different ways, one of which is an e-mail list. Two comments appeared on this e-mail list under the title of "Oh the joy of Clients" today:

Story number 1:

A first for me today. A client waiting to see me fell asleep in reception. He awoke and decided to leave without seeing me after all. When he left we realised that whilst asleep he had peed all over the chair upon which he had been sitting ! That's presumably why he left in a hurry. The pet shop across from the office just sold me a can of foam to deal with pet accidents - can I claim it as a disbursement on his file do you think? Why do we do this job !!

Story number 2:

If one casts ones mind back to the mid 1980's Laura Ashley style was in full swing. Professional women at the time seemed to look like Alexis Colby (Joan Collins) from Dynasty all shoulder pads and built up hair; or Like Alice from Alice in Wonderland, all Lace dresses Alice Bands etc. As a mere articled clerk at the time I was working with a provincial firm. I remember, (I stress a very capable and professional) member of the latter of the two style camps, who was my direct superior. One day I Looked up from my desk to see a somewhat disheveled client leaving the office. Several seconds later the above mentioned solicitor backed slowly into my office, with a look of stunned Horror on her face and said very quietly "That man's just sh*t himself in my office!" Once it was ascertained that the gentleman had indeed suffered one of life's little accidents, as an articled clerk it fell to me to deal with the situation. I do not recall that clause in my Articles but there you go. But I suppose one way or another I have been cleaning up other peoples sh*t all my professional life!

Trust No One

2006-03-08T13:27:00.000Z

I went to a West London Magistrates Court recently to deal with a sentence hearing. I try not to venture too far from my office is Essex these days, and usually the most travelling I will do in a day is the 24 minutes the Legal Services Commission allows from me to travel from my office to the local Magistrates Court or Police Station. I went to Court in order to pacify a Client who was less than happy about the barrister who had represented him at his trial.

Most Magistrates Courts have advocates rooms where solicitors can put their hats, coats, bags, papers and whatever other objects they are carrying with them that are not necessary for the Court hearing. The standard of these rooms varies from Court to Court, but they all usually have the same feature - a lock on the door.

The Court I went to yesterday had an advocates room which included a coat rack that had a locking system so that a coat correctly hung could not be stolen. There was some kind of mechanisim whereby you placed a metal wire through the arm of the coat and locked the wire in to the rack. What is the world coming to when you have to go to Court and lock up your own coat in a room that has been set aside for the supposedly honest solicitors?

I hung my coat up and decided on principle that I would not lock it up to see if anyone would have the cheek to steal it. The coat was still there when I got back. My local Court has an advocates room that seems to have collected many items over the years. There is a large coat rack that is never completely emptied and several bags that have not moved in a long time. Perhaps in my local Court items are not locked up in hope that they will one day walk away themselves!

Just Make It Up

2006-03-06T23:30:00.000Z

I represented a Client recently for an offence where he had pleaded guilty to driving without due care and attention as he had managed to knock a cyclist from his bicycle whilst driving. The cyclist had received an injury to his face, the injury was not life threatening. The Crown Prosecution Service facts stated that the accident had occurred by the driver bumping the rear wheel of the bicycle. My Client accepted these facts.

I mitigated on behalf of my Client explaining the unfortunate series of events, and the unfortunate circumstances that my Client found himself in. The lay Magistrates then retired to consider their course of action and returned. The Chairman of the bench started his speech in which he adjourned the case for sentence by saying, "We have been told that you nearly killed the cyclist". Now this phrase came out of nowhere and had not been used by anyone during the hearing. The injuries that the victim had suffered were not described as life threatening and quite frankly the Crown Prosecution Service had not suggested that anybody's life had been in danger.

I jumped up from my seat and interrupted the Chairman. I said, "Sir, no one has suggested that Mr. Bloggs had nearly killed anyone." The Chairman replied, "Well, that is the view that we have come to". I persisted with my representations and eventually the Chairman backed down and accepted that he had come to the wrong conclusions. I was quite concerned that if the Client had appeared at Court unrepresented he may have found himself being sentenced on facts that this maverick Chairman had more or less made up!

The Real Hustle

2006-03-05T23:53:00.000Z

I sat down and watched a programme on BBC Three called The Real Hustle. This program was an information programme explaining how hustles can take place. Some of the hustles shown on tonight's programme were dipping, and selling black money.

I witnessed a far less subtle scam whilst I was sat in a pub recently. My working week had come to an end and as I sat enjoying a swift pint before heading home I noticed that one of my firm's Clients was in the same pub. As a general rule you should not drink in the same pub that your Clients do but you cannot help it sometimes. This particular Client had engaged one of my colleagues in conversation earlier that evening. I then saw that a few Oriental looking people were walking around the pub, one of them was carrying a large bag. This scenario in my line of business genrally means that dodgy DVDs are about to be offered for sale. I heard some slightly raised voices and then I saw that the Client was holding several DVDs and speaking to the group of Oriental males saying, "What? You want me to call the police. You better get out of here".

The scam is simple:

1. Take physical possession of the pirated DVDs being offered for sale.
2. Inspect the pirated DVDs and ensure they are the ones you want.
3. Once in possession of the pirated DVDs express concern that they are too cheap to be legitimate.
4. Express surprise that the pirated DVDs could be legitimately on sale as the film had not even been released on DVD yet.
5. Suggest that the DVD vendor is committing a crime.
6. Threaten to call the police and the Federation Against Copyright Theft if the DVD vendor does not leave.
7. Refuse to hand back the pirated DVDs claiming that they will be retained for evidence when the police arrive.
8. Hope that the DVD vendor leaves.

This is not a clever scam, but a fine example of how the criminal underworld has it's own checks and balances on it's members.

Fake Alibi

2006-03-05T23:32:00.000Z

I discovered a web site the other day that allows paying customers to create alibis. Fakealibi.co.uk states on it's web site: "We provide a First Class Alibi service - for whatever your situation requires. Our Account Managers, and FA Agents are on hand 24/7 to assist you!"

I am not quite sure that a service such as this would extend to providing criminal clients with alibis in order to avoid conviction. In fact The Times ran a news article a few weeks ago mentioning this web site and commented that this site may even unwittingly facilitate a crime. I can see it now, Joe Bloggs has been arrested for a GBH, he is interviewed and makes no comment in the interview when he exercises his right to silence, he is then bailed by the Police for further investigations to be carried out. Joe Bloggs then contacts Fakealibil.co.uk and arranges for an alibi to be created by claiming he was in a pub with a friend when really he was assaulting the complainant. The Police reinterview Joe Bloggs when he returns to the Police Station and he gives details of his new alibi. Hey presto he has the barebones of a defence!

I am sure that Police scrutiny would get past the sham of an alibi once a statement is taken from the person providing the alibi evidence.

Another service that I have noticed that has become more popular in recent years is replacement wage slips and P60s. Web sites such as this can provide you with pretty much what financial information you want to appear on a wage slip or P60. I am not suggesting that these wage slip services are doing anything wrong but a criminal who is interested in fraud can lie to a genuine wage slip service and obtain pretty good documents to then defraud another.

£74

2006-02-28T23:42:00.000Z

I went off to a far flung Crown Court today to deal with a preliminary hearing. The hearing went as planned as just as I was about to get in to my car to drive the return leg of the 150 mile journey to my office I received a phone call. The call was from my office telling me that one of our regular Clients was at the Magistrates Court local to where I was currently standing. I then made my way to the Court and arrived just after 11.00 am.

When I got to Court I could not see the Client and as I had only met them once before I could not be sure what they looked like. I shouted out the Client's name on the Court concourse several times and then heard a sniggering coming from behind me. A defendant, who was surprisingly well dressed, looked at me and said, "You've got your hands full with that one. They are a right loud mouth." I knew that already but I was glad to see that my Client acted the same in a 'foreign' court as she did in their local court.

Eventually my Client made their way to where I was standing and after discussing their case we went in to Court. The result of the case was they were fined £40 for being drunk and disorderly, and ordered to pay £34 in costs to the Crown Prosecution Service. Now, I considered this sentence to be very fair, and the CPS costs were rather low. My Client came out of the Court raging, "How am I gonna pay that? Are they 'aving a laugh or wot?" The Client's brother turned round and said, in a very sensible way, "Oh shut up, if you had been given a ticket by the Police it would have cost you £80".

After delivering my advice that the sentence was not appeasable by Client thanked me for her representation, agreed that the sentence was reasonable under the circumstances - but they still wandered off complaining about the injustice of having to pay £74 for being drunk and disorderly.

I'm Back

2006-02-28T23:40:00.000Z

Apologies for the lack of posts over the past month but I had been very busy. It is not really an excuse but I have just been rushed off my feet and have been paying less attention to this blog than I should have done!

Uniforms

2006-01-27T21:14:00.000Z

I went down to my local Magistrates Court this week to deal with, amongst other things, a case that was being prosecuted by the DVLA. After locating the prosecutor and speaking with her for a few minutes I noticed that she was in fact wearing a dark blue suit that was a DVLA uniform. Stitched on to jacket in green lettering were the letters DVLA. In my line of business the only people who I regularly encounter in uniforms are either the Police, Prison staff, the staff who bring prisoners to Court, and Court Security staff. I think that this was a first for me and I have never been prosecuted by a person in uniform.

I started to think a little more about this idea of uniform. The list callers, or ushers in Court often wear a black gown to distinguish themselves from everyone else in Court. The advocates (and ushers) dress in a smart fashion. It would be an interesting idea if uniforms were brought in so that the divisions in Court could be easily identified by the casual observer. Defence advocates could dress in the colours of their firm, Prosecutors could dress in the colours if their CPS region. Other prosecuting departments such as Trading Standards and the Department for Work and Pensions could also adorn themselves in some identifiable uniform or strip. Eventually the whole Court could be awash with colour and each person, other than the defendants, could easily be identified.

Or perhaps not! I cannot believe that this lady had to attend Court wearing a uniform - what a ridiculous idea. Personally I think that you can tell a lot about a person by the way they dress,and putting people in to uniforms where it is simply not necessary is a step too far.

Breath Of Fresh Air

2006-01-21T10:43:00.000Z

I left my old job this week and started my new job. I have moved from a relatively small criminal department in East London to a fairly large criminal department in Essex. I have been very impressed by what I have seen so far in terms of the organisation, it's people and the work that they do.

About twelve months ago I had an argument with the Human Resources department of my last firm. As a duty solicitor I was due to pay a £200 fee to the Law Society to be provided with a certificate to show that I had obtained the relevant qualifications to be a duty solicitor. When I asked for a cheque from the firm to pay the fee I was told that I would have to meet with the Human Resources Manager to discuss the business needs of the firm to see if it was appropriate for the firm to pay the fee.

To an outsider it may seem greedy for a solicitor to expect a firm to pay fees on their behalf but the truth of the matter is that payment of the £200 meant that I would remain on the local duty solicitor schemes and therefore the firm would draw in work from the local courts and police stations via the slots I was allocated on the duty solicitor rotas. Basically it was in the interests of the firm to pay the fee to get more work.

When I eventually got my chance to discuss the business needs of the firm with the Human Resources Manager the firm 'generously' offered to loan me the money to pay the fee on the condition that I repay the money. I told the firm they could stick their offer where the sun doesn't shine or would leave. Eventually they backed down and paid the fee. I should have really considered my position back then and left sooner!

I have been in my new job for three days. I have already had discussions about training, personal development, professional association memberships and the like. There has never been any suggestion that I should pay for the associated fees because the new firm knows that they will benefit from any training or development that I undertake. I am now going to crack on with getting my higher rights of audience sorted out before December of this year as I have been given a real incentive to develop my professional career further.

So far so good for the new job.

Getting The Best From Your Lawyer

2006-01-19T23:54:00.000Z

The Department for Constitutional Affairs has issued a press release called "Getting the best from your lawyer: 7 steps to a better deal". This guide is aimed at people instructing a solicitor and paying for those services. My work is generally funded by legal aid but if my Clients were to go through the 7 steps they are likely to come up with the following answers:

1. What will the legal adviser do for me?

Anything I ask him. Hopefully he will get me out of the Police Station on bail, but if he can't do that he should be able to get me bail at the Magistrates Court. He can then defend me with whatever rubbish I tell him so that I can be found not guilty despite the usually compelling evidence that suggests I am guilty.

2. How much will this legal adviser cost me compared with others?

Cost? What's that? I thought that was all done on legal aid. I'm on benefits you know.

3. What do I get for my money?

Usually fags and booze, occasionally I'll get some coke - and if things are really bad I might get some crack with my cash. Usually I don't need money because shoplifting is easy enough, and hey, what you can take for free doesn't cost me any money.

4. How often has the legal adviser handled this type of work?

Too many times, in fact I am wondering why he is always down the Police Station or Magistrates Court - he doesn't seem to know any other kind of work. When will he become a barrister?

5. How long will it take for the transaction to be completed?

Transaction? What? A drug deal - no, not me mate.

6. What can I do if something goes wrong, or I am not satisfied with the service provided?

I'll transfer if I don't get what I want. If I don't get bail, or I don't get some fags or tobacco off my brief I might go elsewhere to another firm. Getting a conviction or being sent down is not a problem, I just need my tobacco.

7. Have I got a good deal?

As long as I don't get convicted of the offence that I have been charged with I will have got a result, even if it just being convicted of a lesser offence.

Disgruntled Client

2006-01-19T18:51:00.000Z

I cam across a web site today that had been set up by a disgruntled Client of a firm called Moss & Coleman. It is quite amazing what efforts people will go to in order to express their unhappiness at the service they received.

If you want to look at the site I am referring to click here. Please be aware this site contains swear words and should not be viewed if you are a child or easily offended.

Get Yourself An ASBO

2006-01-16T21:38:00.000Z

E-bay are now listing ASBOs for sale. This time limited offer can be bought if you bid the right price before 21st January 2006.