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."
Monday, April 24, 2006
Sunday, April 23, 2006
Pro Bono
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.
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
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!
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!
Tuesday, April 11, 2006
More Arrests
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 £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
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.
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.
Sunday, April 09, 2006
Judicial Influence, Or Judicial Interference
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 21, 2006
It's Chaos Out There
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, March 20, 2006
Report Waste Initiative
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:
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
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!
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!
Monday, March 13, 2006
3 Minute Interview
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.
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.
Wednesday, March 08, 2006
Unpleasant Stories
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!
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
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!
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!
Monday, March 06, 2006
Just Make It Up
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!
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!
Sunday, March 05, 2006
The Real Hustle
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.
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 28, 2006
£74
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.
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
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!
Friday, January 27, 2006
Uniforms
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.
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.
Saturday, January 21, 2006
Breath Of Fresh Air
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.
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.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
Getting The Best From Your Lawyer
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.
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
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.
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.
Monday, January 16, 2006
Get Yourself An ASBO
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.
Saturday, January 14, 2006
Stupid Criminal File
Stupid Criminal File is a blog I stumbled across this week. It lists news stories from around the globe of the misfortunes suffered by criminals as a result of their poorly planned actions.
Familiar Faces
In the week I had to go to a Magistrates Court that I had not been to for about a year. In a previous job with another firm of solicitors I used to attend at this Court about once a week. If you go to the same Court on a regular basis you tend to get to know the staff and people working in and for the Court.
As I parked my car in the car park I noticed a personalised number plate of a solicitor who I know of, he had changed his car since I had last seen the number plate and had clearly done well for himself since I had last seen him. I then remembered who this solicitor was and recalled that his Court demeanor consisted of simply shouting in a gruff voice demanding to get what he wanted.
I got in to Court and after seeing my Client in the cells I went to find the usher for the Court I had to appear in. The usher was a gentleman who I had met before but I had never really understood his system of calling cases on. My previous experience with him was whatever you told him he would do the opposite. For example if I were to tell him that my case was ready to be put on he would leave me until the end of the list, if I told him I was not ready he would out my case on straight away!
I then bumped in to the Crown Prosecution Service Prosecutor. This gentleman has always been very pleasant but there have been rumours in the past about this particular prosecutor that he has an alcohol problem. Now I am not one to gossip and quite frankly I think that the rumours were just an excuse to explain why he never paid attention in Court, why he always went out for a glass of water whenever the Court rose, and why his hands would shake at any given time during the day. My one outstanding memory of this Prosecutor was that once I dealt with a contested breach of bail case with him and after my Client gave evidence denying the breach the Prosecutor stated that he did not want to cross examine my Client. The District Judge in Court asked the Prosecutor twice if he was sure that he did not want to cross examine my Client and then stated that my Client was free to go because the Prosecutor did not cross examine my Client the Court was duty bound to accept my Client's evidence denying the breach.
After getting the papers from the Prosecutor and seeing my Client again I sat in Court and told the usher that I might be ready to go on in Court in the vague hope that he might think that I was not ready. I then saw a typical display by the solicitor I mentioned earlier. His case was called on and as he waited for his Client to be brought up from the cells he stood up in his gruff voice and said, "May it please you your worships, I represent this defendant." Now this solicitor appears in this Court virtually every weekday, he probably appears before the same lay Magistrates regularly, and before his case was called on the usher said, "The next case will be Mr. Bloggs represented by Mr. Solicitor". You would think that this solicitor would develop a more friendly or more familiar introduction, such as, "Good morning your worships," afterall, they already know who he is.
The solicitor then dealt with the case which was a breach of bail. At the end of his submissions that his Client had been a bit foolish not abiding by his curfew but should be released on the same bail conditions as before the Chairwoman of the Magistrates said, "Bail is refused because we fear he will commit further offences and he has breached a conditional discharge by breaching his bail." This is entirely wrong as breaching bail is not an offence, you cannot be sentenced for it, you can only have your bail revoked if you breach your bail conditions. The solicitor stood up and in his 'gruff' fashion he started talking in a rather rude manner to the Magistrates by pointing at them in an accusatory fashion (is there such a word as accusatory?) telling them they did not know what the law was in relation to breach of bail and conditional discharges.
I always act in a polite way to whomever I encounter. I was also dealing with a breach of bail case that day. After employing my pleasant demeanor I managed to convince the Court that my Client had made a silly mistake and he was released from Court on the same bail conditions as before. I was expecting a remand in custody having observed the 'gruff' solicitor, and the way the Magistrates reacted in the previous case.
As I parked my car in the car park I noticed a personalised number plate of a solicitor who I know of, he had changed his car since I had last seen the number plate and had clearly done well for himself since I had last seen him. I then remembered who this solicitor was and recalled that his Court demeanor consisted of simply shouting in a gruff voice demanding to get what he wanted.
I got in to Court and after seeing my Client in the cells I went to find the usher for the Court I had to appear in. The usher was a gentleman who I had met before but I had never really understood his system of calling cases on. My previous experience with him was whatever you told him he would do the opposite. For example if I were to tell him that my case was ready to be put on he would leave me until the end of the list, if I told him I was not ready he would out my case on straight away!
I then bumped in to the Crown Prosecution Service Prosecutor. This gentleman has always been very pleasant but there have been rumours in the past about this particular prosecutor that he has an alcohol problem. Now I am not one to gossip and quite frankly I think that the rumours were just an excuse to explain why he never paid attention in Court, why he always went out for a glass of water whenever the Court rose, and why his hands would shake at any given time during the day. My one outstanding memory of this Prosecutor was that once I dealt with a contested breach of bail case with him and after my Client gave evidence denying the breach the Prosecutor stated that he did not want to cross examine my Client. The District Judge in Court asked the Prosecutor twice if he was sure that he did not want to cross examine my Client and then stated that my Client was free to go because the Prosecutor did not cross examine my Client the Court was duty bound to accept my Client's evidence denying the breach.
After getting the papers from the Prosecutor and seeing my Client again I sat in Court and told the usher that I might be ready to go on in Court in the vague hope that he might think that I was not ready. I then saw a typical display by the solicitor I mentioned earlier. His case was called on and as he waited for his Client to be brought up from the cells he stood up in his gruff voice and said, "May it please you your worships, I represent this defendant." Now this solicitor appears in this Court virtually every weekday, he probably appears before the same lay Magistrates regularly, and before his case was called on the usher said, "The next case will be Mr. Bloggs represented by Mr. Solicitor". You would think that this solicitor would develop a more friendly or more familiar introduction, such as, "Good morning your worships," afterall, they already know who he is.
The solicitor then dealt with the case which was a breach of bail. At the end of his submissions that his Client had been a bit foolish not abiding by his curfew but should be released on the same bail conditions as before the Chairwoman of the Magistrates said, "Bail is refused because we fear he will commit further offences and he has breached a conditional discharge by breaching his bail." This is entirely wrong as breaching bail is not an offence, you cannot be sentenced for it, you can only have your bail revoked if you breach your bail conditions. The solicitor stood up and in his 'gruff' fashion he started talking in a rather rude manner to the Magistrates by pointing at them in an accusatory fashion (is there such a word as accusatory?) telling them they did not know what the law was in relation to breach of bail and conditional discharges.
I always act in a polite way to whomever I encounter. I was also dealing with a breach of bail case that day. After employing my pleasant demeanor I managed to convince the Court that my Client had made a silly mistake and he was released from Court on the same bail conditions as before. I was expecting a remand in custody having observed the 'gruff' solicitor, and the way the Magistrates reacted in the previous case.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
Was It Worth It?
One of my Clients was recently sentenced for offences better known as benefit fraud. He was given a sentence that some people might think sounds quite sensible, but I cannot stop thinking that the logic behind the sentence is very much flawed.
Without going in to too much detail my Client had overclaimed benefits to the value of about £18,000. Now that is a lot of money. The Client pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. His case was adjourned for the Probation Service to prepare a pre-sentence report. He went back to the Magistrates Court and even though he had a very positive pre-sentence report recommending a community penalty he was committed for sentence to the Crown Court.
When sentenced at the Crown Court my Client was given a custodial sentence of four months. Now the leading cases on sentence for cases of this type say that a custodial sentence for the value involved in this case can be expected and should be imposed, in fact I advised my Client at our very first meeting that he was at serious risk of getting a custodial sentence. Before the Client had even been summonsed to Court he had been paying back the overpayment, now he has been sent to prison he has lost his business, he will probably be in debt when he is released due to a non-functioning business, he will probably struggle to get his business going again when he comes out in about 6 to 8 weeks time. By sending the Client to prison so that he can be maintained at one of her Majesty's Hotels the Court has deprived society of it's best chance of recovering the money that was fraudulently overpaid in the first place. As he was overpaid benefit the departments that overpaid him are entitled to claim their money back.
May be years of defence work really has made me biased. In an era where the prison population is at breaking point my Client has been sent to prison to be punished for a number of offences. I cannot complain about the sentence because legally it is correct, perhaps it is even morally correct. But financially it is illogical. Why send the Client to prison, where he will loose his current business, so that it will probably take 50 years to repay the overpaid benefit when giving him a community penalty would have allowed him to work and repay the debt in little over three years as he would have retained his income and his ability to repay the debt? At the end of the hearing I spoke with my Client in the cells, he described being sent to prison as an inconvenience and that he was more concerned about his financial affairs than the loss of his liberty. The irony is that the sentence he has been given has probably made it easier for him to avoid paying back the debt when he is released from prison, as an out of work convict who is going to want to employ a person who has a conviction for dishonesty? If his business cannot be restarted then he will be dependant on benefits again putting a further strain on the benefits system.
Without going in to too much detail my Client had overclaimed benefits to the value of about £18,000. Now that is a lot of money. The Client pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. His case was adjourned for the Probation Service to prepare a pre-sentence report. He went back to the Magistrates Court and even though he had a very positive pre-sentence report recommending a community penalty he was committed for sentence to the Crown Court.
When sentenced at the Crown Court my Client was given a custodial sentence of four months. Now the leading cases on sentence for cases of this type say that a custodial sentence for the value involved in this case can be expected and should be imposed, in fact I advised my Client at our very first meeting that he was at serious risk of getting a custodial sentence. Before the Client had even been summonsed to Court he had been paying back the overpayment, now he has been sent to prison he has lost his business, he will probably be in debt when he is released due to a non-functioning business, he will probably struggle to get his business going again when he comes out in about 6 to 8 weeks time. By sending the Client to prison so that he can be maintained at one of her Majesty's Hotels the Court has deprived society of it's best chance of recovering the money that was fraudulently overpaid in the first place. As he was overpaid benefit the departments that overpaid him are entitled to claim their money back.
May be years of defence work really has made me biased. In an era where the prison population is at breaking point my Client has been sent to prison to be punished for a number of offences. I cannot complain about the sentence because legally it is correct, perhaps it is even morally correct. But financially it is illogical. Why send the Client to prison, where he will loose his current business, so that it will probably take 50 years to repay the overpaid benefit when giving him a community penalty would have allowed him to work and repay the debt in little over three years as he would have retained his income and his ability to repay the debt? At the end of the hearing I spoke with my Client in the cells, he described being sent to prison as an inconvenience and that he was more concerned about his financial affairs than the loss of his liberty. The irony is that the sentence he has been given has probably made it easier for him to avoid paying back the debt when he is released from prison, as an out of work convict who is going to want to employ a person who has a conviction for dishonesty? If his business cannot be restarted then he will be dependant on benefits again putting a further strain on the benefits system.
Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Useful Information For Magistrates
I read a document today called "Useful Information for Magistrates". This document has been published by the Department for Constitutional Affairs. This is one of the most patronising and sarcastic 'official' publications that I have come across recently.
Here a few quotes from the guidance:
What should I do if I don'’t agree with a law that has been passed?
All magistrates are required to obey the law and to enforce any law that is enacted. If you were to break any relevant law enacted by Parliament, or to refuse to enforce it, this would be likely to constitute conduct incompatible with the requirements of your office. It is also important that magistrates maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy at all times. Those found to have brought the magistracy into disrepute are liable to disciplinary action. Before deciding to express in public your personal views on any sensitive or controversial issue, you must consider carefully how your position might be perceived by those who come before you in court, and the implications it might have for wider public confidence in the administration of justice.
What can I tell others about my work as a magistrate?
There is no reason why you shouldnÂ’t discuss the work of the court in general terms, especially as this helps promote a greater understanding of the magistracy and might encourage other people to apply. However, a great deal of the work you will be involved in will be of a confidential nature. You should never discuss individual cases, past or present, or reveal information to which you had privileged access (such as the views expressed in retiring room discussions). You should also be alert to the danger of doing anything which might bring the magistracy into disrepute or seriously compromise your impartiality.
This is from the What should I do if the media wants to speak to me? section:
On very rare occasions the media have tried to gain access to a magistrate at their home (usually after an unsuccessful attempt to interview them at the court). This can be very unsettling. However, you can do the following:
- Avoid answering the door, even to say no comment” as you might still be photographed.
- Avoid making a scene as this will add to the journalist'’s story.
- Get a friend or relative to run errands.
- Use an answerphone to screen incoming calls.
- If you need to go outside, adopt a calm, polite attitude and donÂ’t get tempted to make a rash comment.
If a reporter or photographer is on the pavement, they are not breaking the law.
I have a great deal of respect for the senisble Magistrates out there who deal with something like 95% of all criminal cases, but publications like this make it seem as if the Magistrates that fill our Courts are incapable of dealing with simple, everyday decisions.
Here a few quotes from the guidance:
What should I do if I don'’t agree with a law that has been passed?
All magistrates are required to obey the law and to enforce any law that is enacted. If you were to break any relevant law enacted by Parliament, or to refuse to enforce it, this would be likely to constitute conduct incompatible with the requirements of your office. It is also important that magistrates maintain the dignity, standing and good reputation of the magistracy at all times. Those found to have brought the magistracy into disrepute are liable to disciplinary action. Before deciding to express in public your personal views on any sensitive or controversial issue, you must consider carefully how your position might be perceived by those who come before you in court, and the implications it might have for wider public confidence in the administration of justice.
What can I tell others about my work as a magistrate?
There is no reason why you shouldnÂ’t discuss the work of the court in general terms, especially as this helps promote a greater understanding of the magistracy and might encourage other people to apply. However, a great deal of the work you will be involved in will be of a confidential nature. You should never discuss individual cases, past or present, or reveal information to which you had privileged access (such as the views expressed in retiring room discussions). You should also be alert to the danger of doing anything which might bring the magistracy into disrepute or seriously compromise your impartiality.
This is from the What should I do if the media wants to speak to me? section:
On very rare occasions the media have tried to gain access to a magistrate at their home (usually after an unsuccessful attempt to interview them at the court). This can be very unsettling. However, you can do the following:
- Avoid answering the door, even to say no comment” as you might still be photographed.
- Avoid making a scene as this will add to the journalist'’s story.
- Get a friend or relative to run errands.
- Use an answerphone to screen incoming calls.
- If you need to go outside, adopt a calm, polite attitude and donÂ’t get tempted to make a rash comment.
If a reporter or photographer is on the pavement, they are not breaking the law.
I have a great deal of respect for the senisble Magistrates out there who deal with something like 95% of all criminal cases, but publications like this make it seem as if the Magistrates that fill our Courts are incapable of dealing with simple, everyday decisions.
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
Whoops, Are We Prosecuting?
I received a telephone call today whilst I was sat in my office. The person on the end of the telephone said that they had a bit of a problem as they were phoning from a London Borough's legal department:
Him: Are you dealing with Mr. Blogg's case.
Me: Yes, why do you ask?
Him: I have had a telephone call from the Crown Court and they have listed a case which they say we are prosecuting. The problem I have is that both of our solicitors are away today and we know nothing about this case.
Me: It is a benefit fraud prosecution.
Him: Do you have a file?
Me: Yes, hold on I will check. [I go a get my file] Ah, the case is a joint prosecution between you and the Department for Work and Pensions. It was the DWP who issued the summons so I guess they are dealing with the prosecution.
Him: Yes, that must be right. That could have been a bit embarrassing with the case being called on with no Counsel.
Me: Yes.
Him: Oh well, thanks for your help. Remember not to mention this conversation to anyone.
Me: Sorry... [phone is hung up].
I am not quite sure why the man was so embarrassed. Last year I had several cases where some of my Client's were committed to the Crown Court to be sentenced in cases brought by both the Department for Work and Pensions and London Boroughs in respect of benefit frauds and Counsel for the prosecution did not turn up, or turned up with no papers and no idea what was going on. It is a sad fact that incidents like this are usually accepted as being accepted problems.
I shall wait and see if Counsel from the Department for Work and Pensions turns up tomorrow prepared for the hearing.
Him: Are you dealing with Mr. Blogg's case.
Me: Yes, why do you ask?
Him: I have had a telephone call from the Crown Court and they have listed a case which they say we are prosecuting. The problem I have is that both of our solicitors are away today and we know nothing about this case.
Me: It is a benefit fraud prosecution.
Him: Do you have a file?
Me: Yes, hold on I will check. [I go a get my file] Ah, the case is a joint prosecution between you and the Department for Work and Pensions. It was the DWP who issued the summons so I guess they are dealing with the prosecution.
Him: Yes, that must be right. That could have been a bit embarrassing with the case being called on with no Counsel.
Me: Yes.
Him: Oh well, thanks for your help. Remember not to mention this conversation to anyone.
Me: Sorry... [phone is hung up].
I am not quite sure why the man was so embarrassed. Last year I had several cases where some of my Client's were committed to the Crown Court to be sentenced in cases brought by both the Department for Work and Pensions and London Boroughs in respect of benefit frauds and Counsel for the prosecution did not turn up, or turned up with no papers and no idea what was going on. It is a sad fact that incidents like this are usually accepted as being accepted problems.
I shall wait and see if Counsel from the Department for Work and Pensions turns up tomorrow prepared for the hearing.
Sunday, January 01, 2006
A Day In The Life Of A Duty Solicitor
Here is a post from the Criminal Solicitor Dot Net web site from a Duty Solicitor recalling how she spent her days over the festive period. This is what I call dedication. In my younger days before I had a wife and children I might have considered doing this volume of work over a two national holidays:
This is the way my Christmas holidays have gone:
26th December - to court to deal with own client. Only 5 prisoners in the cells, 1 of whom had asked for the duty. (I am not on the duty rota for this court by the way.) When I arrived the duty had not arrived. Group 4 or whatever they call themselves now checked the rota and said that the duty had a client in the cells for breach of bail. The original charge was att rape x 2. When contacted the duty said they were not coming to Court. The clerk then said that he could simply bail the client who had asked for the duty but this left the breach prisoner and could I help. I spoke to the client and agreed to represent him. It was clear that he should be re-bailed. He was not a British national and his English was not sufficiently good to represent himself in Court. The prosecution were opposing him being re-bailed. I represented him and he was re-bailed. I cannot submit an agency bill because the firm did not know that I was going to represent him. I think that I can let them have a grad fee claim and ask them to submit it with their bill at the end of the case though. With regard to my own client who was on a warrant to another court as well, I could not even get him to enter his guilty plea because there was only one Magistrate. Come back on 30th when we should have 2 magistrates.
27th December - to court as duty solicitor - there should be 2 duty solicitors each day. The other duty did not turn up leaving me to deal with clients in two courtrooms. It is manageable unless it is simply a remand Court which this was. The Bench were kept waiting but did not seem to mind too much.
28th December - 24 hour duty from 6pm until 6pm 29th December - this led to problems on 29th December because....
29th December - contacted at 8am by police station to say own client in cells and not yet ready. Not going to be ready until about 11.30am. Thats OK because although I am Court Duty I should be finished for about then and will contact once I have finished. Arrive at Court and the other duty does not turn up AGAIN. This leaves me with 6 prisoners, in 2 courtrooms and 5 needed bail applications plus the prosecutor in one court was extremely gung ho and wanted pleas entering. I managed to resist that though.
As a result realise that I am not going to be able to deal with own client at police station. Speak to her on phone and she agrees to ask for the duty. Next thing I get a call from the Duty scheme referring my own client to me. I have to decline.
30th December 2005 - Back to the court from 28th where again there was only one Magistrate and the clerk and the prosecutor said that the clerk from 28th should have known that there would only be one Magistrate! No real progress there then.
31st December 2005 - Awoken at 6.10am by telephone call from Duty Scheme as they cannot raise either of the two 24 hour duty solicitors could I deal with a panel case? Allegation of digital penetration. Speak to Custody staff, client arrested at about 3am and when brought into custody stated he had had 15 bottles of WKD and also the complainant was extremely drunk and could not be medically examined until later in the morning. Also because I know that the police will offer the AP a video interview before taking her statement I think that it is very unlikely that there will be an interview before late afternoon and possibly early evening. Having agreed to take the case and written off my New Year's Eve I am delighted to deal with two of the nicest and most sensible officers I have met in a long time. They say that they will be ready at 11.30 and no we don't mind if you go to the bank first and get here for 12.00. They give me disclosure of the outline of the allegation and when I speak to client he denies offence categorically and in such a way that I am able to advise him to answer questions now without AP having been interviewed. After his interview the officers go off and do the video interview and then client is bailed for forensic results.
So in the space of 5 days 5 different duty solicitors either did not attend Court or did not answer their phone. Not good. If you are wondering why I was Court duty twice its because I agreed to cover both days for people who have children and wished to spend Christmas with them.
Finally, guess what I am 24 hour duty from 9am tomorrow until 9am 2nd Jan.
This is the way my Christmas holidays have gone:
26th December - to court to deal with own client. Only 5 prisoners in the cells, 1 of whom had asked for the duty. (I am not on the duty rota for this court by the way.) When I arrived the duty had not arrived. Group 4 or whatever they call themselves now checked the rota and said that the duty had a client in the cells for breach of bail. The original charge was att rape x 2. When contacted the duty said they were not coming to Court. The clerk then said that he could simply bail the client who had asked for the duty but this left the breach prisoner and could I help. I spoke to the client and agreed to represent him. It was clear that he should be re-bailed. He was not a British national and his English was not sufficiently good to represent himself in Court. The prosecution were opposing him being re-bailed. I represented him and he was re-bailed. I cannot submit an agency bill because the firm did not know that I was going to represent him. I think that I can let them have a grad fee claim and ask them to submit it with their bill at the end of the case though. With regard to my own client who was on a warrant to another court as well, I could not even get him to enter his guilty plea because there was only one Magistrate. Come back on 30th when we should have 2 magistrates.
27th December - to court as duty solicitor - there should be 2 duty solicitors each day. The other duty did not turn up leaving me to deal with clients in two courtrooms. It is manageable unless it is simply a remand Court which this was. The Bench were kept waiting but did not seem to mind too much.
28th December - 24 hour duty from 6pm until 6pm 29th December - this led to problems on 29th December because....
29th December - contacted at 8am by police station to say own client in cells and not yet ready. Not going to be ready until about 11.30am. Thats OK because although I am Court Duty I should be finished for about then and will contact once I have finished. Arrive at Court and the other duty does not turn up AGAIN. This leaves me with 6 prisoners, in 2 courtrooms and 5 needed bail applications plus the prosecutor in one court was extremely gung ho and wanted pleas entering. I managed to resist that though.
As a result realise that I am not going to be able to deal with own client at police station. Speak to her on phone and she agrees to ask for the duty. Next thing I get a call from the Duty scheme referring my own client to me. I have to decline.
30th December 2005 - Back to the court from 28th where again there was only one Magistrate and the clerk and the prosecutor said that the clerk from 28th should have known that there would only be one Magistrate! No real progress there then.
31st December 2005 - Awoken at 6.10am by telephone call from Duty Scheme as they cannot raise either of the two 24 hour duty solicitors could I deal with a panel case? Allegation of digital penetration. Speak to Custody staff, client arrested at about 3am and when brought into custody stated he had had 15 bottles of WKD and also the complainant was extremely drunk and could not be medically examined until later in the morning. Also because I know that the police will offer the AP a video interview before taking her statement I think that it is very unlikely that there will be an interview before late afternoon and possibly early evening. Having agreed to take the case and written off my New Year's Eve I am delighted to deal with two of the nicest and most sensible officers I have met in a long time. They say that they will be ready at 11.30 and no we don't mind if you go to the bank first and get here for 12.00. They give me disclosure of the outline of the allegation and when I speak to client he denies offence categorically and in such a way that I am able to advise him to answer questions now without AP having been interviewed. After his interview the officers go off and do the video interview and then client is bailed for forensic results.
So in the space of 5 days 5 different duty solicitors either did not attend Court or did not answer their phone. Not good. If you are wondering why I was Court duty twice its because I agreed to cover both days for people who have children and wished to spend Christmas with them.
Finally, guess what I am 24 hour duty from 9am tomorrow until 9am 2nd Jan.
Thursday, December 29, 2005
You're In Trouble Now Son
I recently got called out to a Police Station where I represented a father and his son for completely unrelated incidents.
As I was dealing with the son's case I bumped in to the father in the custody suite. I already knew the father from my previous dealings with him. He started to explain to me how disappointed he was that his son had been arrested. I found this rather ironic because the son had never been arrested before and the father had a list of convictions that would probably stretch for several metres.
After dealing with the interview for the son I had to wait for the Police to make a decision on the case so I went on to deal with the father's case. The father was bailed out of the Police Station before the son, and before the son was released the father told the Custody Sergeant that he should not release the son so that he could get a taste of what being in trouble was really about. The father then turned to me and said that he will soon make an appointment to come and see me about a case he is currently on bail for!
As I was dealing with the son's case I bumped in to the father in the custody suite. I already knew the father from my previous dealings with him. He started to explain to me how disappointed he was that his son had been arrested. I found this rather ironic because the son had never been arrested before and the father had a list of convictions that would probably stretch for several metres.
After dealing with the interview for the son I had to wait for the Police to make a decision on the case so I went on to deal with the father's case. The father was bailed out of the Police Station before the son, and before the son was released the father told the Custody Sergeant that he should not release the son so that he could get a taste of what being in trouble was really about. The father then turned to me and said that he will soon make an appointment to come and see me about a case he is currently on bail for!
In The News
Diary of a Criminal Solicitor was mentioned in The Times today. A feature appeared about legal blogs and this blog was given a few inches. You can read the article in full by following this link.
What surprised me about the article was that it appeared on page 5 of The Times. I have been out and purchased my copy of The Times and I shall keep the paper copy of the article safe and sound to show people in the years to come.
What surprised me about the article was that it appeared on page 5 of The Times. I have been out and purchased my copy of The Times and I shall keep the paper copy of the article safe and sound to show people in the years to come.
Friday, December 23, 2005
I Am Going To Arrest You Even Though I Do Not Have A Power Of Arrest
My office received a telephone call from a person today asking if we could attend at the Police Station with them as they had been asked to attend for an interview about an alleged assault. I went off to the Police Station to deal with the matter.
One thing that really annoyed me about this particular Police Station attendance was that whilst I was en route on a train far under the streets of London the Police decided that there was not enough room in one custody suite to interview my Client so they decided they would take my Client to another Police Station! I only found out about the change of venue as I arrived at the first Police Station!
I eventually got to the Police Station and then discovered that my Client had been arrested under section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is what the current version of s. 25 states:
25 General arrest conditions
(1) Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence which is not an arrestable offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, he may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate because any of the general arrest conditions is satisfied.
(2) In this section the relevant person means any person whom the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect of having committed or having attempted to commit the offence or of being in the course of committing or attempting to commit it.
(3) The general arrest conditions are
(a) that the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable;
(b) that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name;
(c) that
(i) the relevant person has failed to furnish a satisfactory address for service; or
(ii) the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service;
(d) that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent the relevant person
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency; or
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(e) that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the relevant person.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above an address is a satisfactory address for service if it appears to the constable
(a) that the relevant person will be at it for a sufficiently long period for it to be possible to serve him with a summons; or
(b) that some other person specified by the relevant person will accept service of a summons for the relevant person at it.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3)(d) above authorises the arrest of a person under sub-paragraph (iv) of that paragraph except where members of the public going about their normal business cannot reasonably be expected to avoid the person to be arrested.
(6) This section shall not prejudice any power of arrest conferred apart from this section.
My Client was being investigated for an allegation of common assault, and until 1st January 2006 the Police generally cannot arrest a person for an allegation of common assault that has already taken place, and where the incident is no longer going on. As soon as I discovered that my Client had been arrested under this flimsy provision I kicked off in the custody suite. My Client had been contacted by telephone and had originally attended at the Police Station as a volunteer. The Ofdealingelaing with the case relied upon s. 25(3)(a) to (c) to justify the arrest. My Client had been compliant at all times with the Officer nad had furnished satisfactory informtion about their address and name. I told the Officer that he was abusing his powers and I complained to the Custody Sergeant too - of course they ignored my representations and agreed with each other that an arrest was justified under s. 25.
There is little point taking this issue further. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and other legislation has changed the Police power of arrest from a list of specific offences that carry a power of arrest to a general power of arrest. Code G of the Police and Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice has now created a new power of arrest:
A lawful arrest requires two elements:
A persons involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the
commission of a criminal offence;
AND
Reasonable grounds for believing that the persons arrest is necessary.
If I had been successful in arguing my point with the Police today I may well have advised my Client to leave the Police Station before an interview took place - but if we had walked out the Police may well have decided to pay my Client a visit after 00.01 am on 1st January 2006 to exercise their new power of arrest.
One thing that really annoyed me about this particular Police Station attendance was that whilst I was en route on a train far under the streets of London the Police decided that there was not enough room in one custody suite to interview my Client so they decided they would take my Client to another Police Station! I only found out about the change of venue as I arrived at the first Police Station!
I eventually got to the Police Station and then discovered that my Client had been arrested under section 25 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. This is what the current version of s. 25 states:
25 General arrest conditions
(1) Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence which is not an arrestable offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, he may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate because any of the general arrest conditions is satisfied.
(2) In this section the relevant person means any person whom the constable has reasonable grounds to suspect of having committed or having attempted to commit the offence or of being in the course of committing or attempting to commit it.
(3) The general arrest conditions are
(a) that the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable;
(b) that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name;
(c) that
(i) the relevant person has failed to furnish a satisfactory address for service; or
(ii) the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether an address furnished by the relevant person is a satisfactory address for service;
(d) that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to prevent the relevant person
(i) causing physical injury to himself or any other person;
(ii) suffering physical injury;
(iii) causing loss of or damage to property;
(iv) committing an offence against public decency; or
(v) causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway;
(e) that the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to protect a child or other vulnerable person from the relevant person.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3) above an address is a satisfactory address for service if it appears to the constable
(a) that the relevant person will be at it for a sufficiently long period for it to be possible to serve him with a summons; or
(b) that some other person specified by the relevant person will accept service of a summons for the relevant person at it.
(5) Nothing in subsection (3)(d) above authorises the arrest of a person under sub-paragraph (iv) of that paragraph except where members of the public going about their normal business cannot reasonably be expected to avoid the person to be arrested.
(6) This section shall not prejudice any power of arrest conferred apart from this section.
My Client was being investigated for an allegation of common assault, and until 1st January 2006 the Police generally cannot arrest a person for an allegation of common assault that has already taken place, and where the incident is no longer going on. As soon as I discovered that my Client had been arrested under this flimsy provision I kicked off in the custody suite. My Client had been contacted by telephone and had originally attended at the Police Station as a volunteer. The Ofdealingelaing with the case relied upon s. 25(3)(a) to (c) to justify the arrest. My Client had been compliant at all times with the Officer nad had furnished satisfactory informtion about their address and name. I told the Officer that he was abusing his powers and I complained to the Custody Sergeant too - of course they ignored my representations and agreed with each other that an arrest was justified under s. 25.
There is little point taking this issue further. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and other legislation has changed the Police power of arrest from a list of specific offences that carry a power of arrest to a general power of arrest. Code G of the Police and Evidence Act 1984 Codes of Practice has now created a new power of arrest:
A lawful arrest requires two elements:
A persons involvement or suspected involvement or attempted involvement in the
commission of a criminal offence;
AND
Reasonable grounds for believing that the persons arrest is necessary.
If I had been successful in arguing my point with the Police today I may well have advised my Client to leave the Police Station before an interview took place - but if we had walked out the Police may well have decided to pay my Client a visit after 00.01 am on 1st January 2006 to exercise their new power of arrest.
Thursday, December 22, 2005
Christmas Is Coming
I was the Police Station Duty Solicitor for a busy East London scheme last night. My rota shift started at 11.00 pm and ran through to 7.00 am. I was expecting a flurry of phone calls and a number of interviews. Unfortunately I only received a few phone calls for fairly minor matters that did not require an attendance at the Police Station. I did phone the Duty Solicitor Call Centre to check that I was supposed to be on call, and they confirmed that I was on duty.
It seems that as Christmas is coming and the criminal element of society has decided to take a break. Christmas is generally a quiet period for crime apart from the obvious matters such as burglaries to clear out houses full of presents, or the domestic violence that ensues after a large doses of alcohol and food. Christmas for people arrested just before Christmas often involves a flurry of activity to get them out of prison either on bail or on licence so that they can be at home over Christmas.
The Christmas period is often quiet. There are always people arrested on festive days, and some are even detained over Christmas until the first available Court sits to consider bail. I spent Christmas Eve last year at the Police Station on a murder case, I was extremely happy when the Police decided not to do a pointless video identification parade that would have run up to about midnight. I managed to get home about 9 pm and start Christmas.
I was due to be the Police Station Duty Solicitor for a North London scheme between 11.00 pm on Christmas Eve and 7.00 am on Christmas Day this year. Thankfully I found a generous and very kind solicitor who agreed to swap my slot.
I am hoping that Christmas is a quiet period for me, I have probably jinxed myself now.
It seems that as Christmas is coming and the criminal element of society has decided to take a break. Christmas is generally a quiet period for crime apart from the obvious matters such as burglaries to clear out houses full of presents, or the domestic violence that ensues after a large doses of alcohol and food. Christmas for people arrested just before Christmas often involves a flurry of activity to get them out of prison either on bail or on licence so that they can be at home over Christmas.
The Christmas period is often quiet. There are always people arrested on festive days, and some are even detained over Christmas until the first available Court sits to consider bail. I spent Christmas Eve last year at the Police Station on a murder case, I was extremely happy when the Police decided not to do a pointless video identification parade that would have run up to about midnight. I managed to get home about 9 pm and start Christmas.
I was due to be the Police Station Duty Solicitor for a North London scheme between 11.00 pm on Christmas Eve and 7.00 am on Christmas Day this year. Thankfully I found a generous and very kind solicitor who agreed to swap my slot.
I am hoping that Christmas is a quiet period for me, I have probably jinxed myself now.
Wednesday, December 21, 2005
Court Strike
Staff at Her Majesty's Court Service went on strike yesterday. Chaos was caused to my local Magistrates Courts. Quite simply there was a lack of Clerks to run Courts, and there was a distinct lack of staff to run the Courts in terms of administration and list calling.
In Thames Magistrates Court they were running about four Courts with only three Clerks.
The Court staff are striking for a wage increase good luck to them. The public seems to have a perception that people who work within the criminal justice system do not deserve wage increaes because they service criminals.
Listening to the radio today I heard several interviews. Apparently the Court staff are now on a 'go-slow' and will only work 37 hours per week, they will do no more work. If Her Majesty's Court Service staff are now on a 'go-slow' then the system is going to come to a swift halt. Only last week I was at Thames Magistrates Court for an afternoon hearing. There were about 15 cases from the morning list that had not been dealt with in the particular Court that I had my afternoon appearance in. After about an hour the bench retired and came back 30 minutes later announcing that if anyone was on bail and was due to be heard in that Court then their case had been adjourned and they would receive a new Court date in the post at some point in the future.
In Thames Magistrates Court they were running about four Courts with only three Clerks.
The Court staff are striking for a wage increase good luck to them. The public seems to have a perception that people who work within the criminal justice system do not deserve wage increaes because they service criminals.
Listening to the radio today I heard several interviews. Apparently the Court staff are now on a 'go-slow' and will only work 37 hours per week, they will do no more work. If Her Majesty's Court Service staff are now on a 'go-slow' then the system is going to come to a swift halt. Only last week I was at Thames Magistrates Court for an afternoon hearing. There were about 15 cases from the morning list that had not been dealt with in the particular Court that I had my afternoon appearance in. After about an hour the bench retired and came back 30 minutes later announcing that if anyone was on bail and was due to be heard in that Court then their case had been adjourned and they would receive a new Court date in the post at some point in the future.
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
Video Link Court Appearances
A case I have been dealing with was concluded at the Magistrates Court today. A rough history of the case is that my Client appeared in custody and was refused bail. He should have appeared the following week over a video link from prison to make a second bail application. It took three attempts on consecutive days before his image was successfully projected in to the Court for his appearance to take place. Then the case was adjourned to be committed to the Crown Court. On the next appearance the Crown Prosecution Service failed to send a Prosecutor to Court to deal with the case! When someone from the CPS did attend at Court the case was adjourned to the next week.
Today the committal took place despite a Court strike. There should have been a 9.00 am conference over the video link. This was not possible due to staff shortages. The case went ahead after several delays and eventually the case was committed to the Crown Court.
I billed the file in the afternoon and added together the times that had basically been wasted by other agencies. There was a total of 10 hours waiting, and over 4 hours worth of travel. If this case had been without the delays waiting would have been reduced to less than an hour, travel would have been about 2 hours maximum.
Why am I ranting about this case? When they brought in video link hearings they were designed to reduce delays, and increase the volume of cases dealt with. Video link hearings are scheduled so that cases have specific time slots. Due to a combination of factors in this case I now have a case that the Legal Services Commission would probably enjoy to audit and then suggest that I had over claimed due to excessive travel and waiting times!
Today the committal took place despite a Court strike. There should have been a 9.00 am conference over the video link. This was not possible due to staff shortages. The case went ahead after several delays and eventually the case was committed to the Crown Court.
I billed the file in the afternoon and added together the times that had basically been wasted by other agencies. There was a total of 10 hours waiting, and over 4 hours worth of travel. If this case had been without the delays waiting would have been reduced to less than an hour, travel would have been about 2 hours maximum.
Why am I ranting about this case? When they brought in video link hearings they were designed to reduce delays, and increase the volume of cases dealt with. Video link hearings are scheduled so that cases have specific time slots. Due to a combination of factors in this case I now have a case that the Legal Services Commission would probably enjoy to audit and then suggest that I had over claimed due to excessive travel and waiting times!
Sunday, December 11, 2005
The Attorney General Apologises
I sometimes get very wound up by very small issues. Over the past few weeks I have been rather upset by the Attorney General's office misquoting one of my cases as being a shambolic state of affairs where defence solicitors took advantage of 'the system' to bring a case to it's knees - have a look here and here about my ramblings.
I have now heard back from the Attorney General's office. You can have a look at what they said in full by downloading this .pdf document. The important part of the letter states, "The error in the accompanying press release was the fault of the CPS, who has notified this office that it had wrongly attributed the facts of a different case to that of your client. We have therefore arranged for the immediate amendment of the press release, and apologise to you for the confusion."
I am now happy that this little misunderstanding has been resolved.
I have now heard back from the Attorney General's office. You can have a look at what they said in full by downloading this .pdf document. The important part of the letter states, "The error in the accompanying press release was the fault of the CPS, who has notified this office that it had wrongly attributed the facts of a different case to that of your client. We have therefore arranged for the immediate amendment of the press release, and apologise to you for the confusion."
I am now happy that this little misunderstanding has been resolved.
Section 30 of the Theft Act 1968
I had a trial a few weeks ago where the case against my Client was that he had gone round to his ex-wife's address and had an argument with her on her doorstep. The argument progressed and the wife shut the door. My Client wanted to continue the argument and began to bang on a glass window in the door. He kept banging until his arm went through the window causing damage to the property and damage to his arm. My Client was arrested at the scene and charged with, amongst other things, criminal damage.
When I met this Client at Court he told me that he paid for half of the mortgage on the property, he was not particularly happy about the concept of being held responsible for damaging property that was jointly owned by him. I sat discussing his case and a bizarre thought came in to my mind. I thought about section 30 of the Theft Act 1968. I am not sure where this thought came from but I did recall that in order to be prosecuted for damaging marital property the Director of Public Prosecutions has to consent to the prosecution. I have spent many boring hours reading text books and this was one occasion where my reading had actually been worth it! I advised my Client that he could plead not guilty and hope that the CPS did not obtain the proper consent to prosecute before his trial started. My Client liked the advice knowing full well that if the CPS did obtain consent then he would be guilty by default.
The weeks passed by waiting for the trial and eventually we got to the trial date. I arrived at Court. I discovered that the wife had attended and that the CPS were ready to proceed to trial. I again advised my Client that he could only win on a technicality, and that if the CPS did have consent for his prosecution then he was guilty on the basis of his own admissions in interview. My Client was clear in his instructions, he wanted me to pursue the s. 30 Theft Act 1968 point.
The trial started, and just before the wife was called to give evidence I leant over to the Prosecutor and asked if they had the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute the case. The Prosecutor turned to me and said that it was not necessary as my Client had no interest in the wife's property. I cross examined the wife and she accepted that my client had been paying half of the mortgage - so I had now established that my Client had an interest in the property.
The CPS closed their case and I made a submission that there was no case to answer as there was no consent to prosecute a case where this s. 30 point applied, therefore the proceedings were a nullity. The Prosecutor stood up and asked for a short adjournment to check their file. They came back after 10 minutes and said that they must have consent to prosecute this case. Although there was no positive endorsement on the file to say that consent had been considered and given the Prosecutor claimed that consent must have been given. Despite my objections the Magistrates sided with the Prosecutor! We then broke for lunch.
After lunch the Prosecutor came back in to Court and then retracted their point on consent and stated that they could not be sure if consent had been given therefore they would offer no evidence on the matter of criminal damage. Success. My Client was then cleared of all remaining matters and he walked out of Court with verdicts of not guilty.
There are technical and complicated laws in this land, they rarely trouble the criminal justice system. But where there is a technical loophole and the case is dealt with in the Magistrates Court you can be sure that the Crown Prosecution Service will not have considered the issue important enough to deal with.
Before people start posting messages that I am getting guilty people off of the hook I will remind you that I do my job and the Crown Prosecution Service (or whomever may be prosecuting my Client) is do their job. If a generous salary from the tax payer is not enough for the Prosecutor to do their job properly then complain to the government. The prosecution generally have infinitely more resources than I, or the firm that I work for, do, and if they cannot see these loopholes coming they should not be doing their jobs. In this particular case this loophole was easy enough to see from the interview and do you know what virtually anyone at the Crown Prosecution Service could have done to get the Director of Public Prosecution's consent to prosecute this case? They only had to fill out a form and exercise their delegated powers to consent to the prosecution themselves!
When I met this Client at Court he told me that he paid for half of the mortgage on the property, he was not particularly happy about the concept of being held responsible for damaging property that was jointly owned by him. I sat discussing his case and a bizarre thought came in to my mind. I thought about section 30 of the Theft Act 1968. I am not sure where this thought came from but I did recall that in order to be prosecuted for damaging marital property the Director of Public Prosecutions has to consent to the prosecution. I have spent many boring hours reading text books and this was one occasion where my reading had actually been worth it! I advised my Client that he could plead not guilty and hope that the CPS did not obtain the proper consent to prosecute before his trial started. My Client liked the advice knowing full well that if the CPS did obtain consent then he would be guilty by default.
The weeks passed by waiting for the trial and eventually we got to the trial date. I arrived at Court. I discovered that the wife had attended and that the CPS were ready to proceed to trial. I again advised my Client that he could only win on a technicality, and that if the CPS did have consent for his prosecution then he was guilty on the basis of his own admissions in interview. My Client was clear in his instructions, he wanted me to pursue the s. 30 Theft Act 1968 point.
The trial started, and just before the wife was called to give evidence I leant over to the Prosecutor and asked if they had the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions to prosecute the case. The Prosecutor turned to me and said that it was not necessary as my Client had no interest in the wife's property. I cross examined the wife and she accepted that my client had been paying half of the mortgage - so I had now established that my Client had an interest in the property.
The CPS closed their case and I made a submission that there was no case to answer as there was no consent to prosecute a case where this s. 30 point applied, therefore the proceedings were a nullity. The Prosecutor stood up and asked for a short adjournment to check their file. They came back after 10 minutes and said that they must have consent to prosecute this case. Although there was no positive endorsement on the file to say that consent had been considered and given the Prosecutor claimed that consent must have been given. Despite my objections the Magistrates sided with the Prosecutor! We then broke for lunch.
After lunch the Prosecutor came back in to Court and then retracted their point on consent and stated that they could not be sure if consent had been given therefore they would offer no evidence on the matter of criminal damage. Success. My Client was then cleared of all remaining matters and he walked out of Court with verdicts of not guilty.
There are technical and complicated laws in this land, they rarely trouble the criminal justice system. But where there is a technical loophole and the case is dealt with in the Magistrates Court you can be sure that the Crown Prosecution Service will not have considered the issue important enough to deal with.
Before people start posting messages that I am getting guilty people off of the hook I will remind you that I do my job and the Crown Prosecution Service (or whomever may be prosecuting my Client) is do their job. If a generous salary from the tax payer is not enough for the Prosecutor to do their job properly then complain to the government. The prosecution generally have infinitely more resources than I, or the firm that I work for, do, and if they cannot see these loopholes coming they should not be doing their jobs. In this particular case this loophole was easy enough to see from the interview and do you know what virtually anyone at the Crown Prosecution Service could have done to get the Director of Public Prosecution's consent to prosecute this case? They only had to fill out a form and exercise their delegated powers to consent to the prosecution themselves!
Tuesday, November 29, 2005
More Rubbish
I made a post a few weeks ago about what I would call very bad misinformation on the Attorney General's web site that referred to a case that I had been involved in. The press release that contained this misinformation was removed from the Attorney General's web site when I made a formal complaint about the content of the press release. I have been told many times by the Secretary to the Attorney General that my complaint is being dealt with and that I will receive a response soon - so far I have had nothing but empty promises.
Today I noticed that a speech delivered on 4th October 2005 by the Attorney General has appeared on the web site. Page 26 of this speech makes the same references to the case that were in the press release. Either this complaint has been resolved and my representations have been ignored, or whoever publishes the material on the Attorney General's web site is being somewhat foolish.
I shall make some phone calls today to see why the complaint has not been resolved and why the speech has been posted with the same misinformation in in.
Today I noticed that a speech delivered on 4th October 2005 by the Attorney General has appeared on the web site. Page 26 of this speech makes the same references to the case that were in the press release. Either this complaint has been resolved and my representations have been ignored, or whoever publishes the material on the Attorney General's web site is being somewhat foolish.
I shall make some phone calls today to see why the complaint has not been resolved and why the speech has been posted with the same misinformation in in.
Tuesday, November 22, 2005
Technology
On Tuesday I went to Court for a video link hearing. My Client had been refused bail the week before but was due to appear in Court via a video link for a second bail application. Video link hearings are always a little bit strange because the Client appears on a television screen and is never physically present in Court. The thing that I find strange about the whole affair is that the client appears on the television screen sitting down with a sign, usually to their right, that says HMP Whatever - they look like news presenters they way that they are arranged.
I got to Court nice and early to have a private conference over the video link with my Client. Unfortunately the video link equipment was not working. After about an hour had passed the Usher told me another revelation - my Client had been lost in the prison system and he was not at the prison he should have been. It took about another hour to locate my Client, and it turned out that he was gone to a far flung South London prison instead of the usual remand prison when he had been refused bail last week.
My whole morning had been a waste of time and the case was simply adjourned to the next day. You would think with the modern technology at our disposal video link hearings would work without any problems?
I got to Court nice and early to have a private conference over the video link with my Client. Unfortunately the video link equipment was not working. After about an hour had passed the Usher told me another revelation - my Client had been lost in the prison system and he was not at the prison he should have been. It took about another hour to locate my Client, and it turned out that he was gone to a far flung South London prison instead of the usual remand prison when he had been refused bail last week.
My whole morning had been a waste of time and the case was simply adjourned to the next day. You would think with the modern technology at our disposal video link hearings would work without any problems?
Monday, November 21, 2005
I Can Shout Louder Than You
I had to deal with the trial from hell today. I attended at one of my local Magistrates Courts to deal with, amongst other things, an assault case where the Client had a problem with alcohol and had failed to provide any instructions prior to the trial date.
When I arrived at 9.30 am I hoped that the Client would not attend at Court because his case was so hopeless. After a series of phone calls I started to think that my client was not coming to Court but then he staggered in the door at about 10.35 am. When I introduced myself (I had not met the Client before) I was immediately greeted with a mouthful of verbal abuse where the Client was demanding to see his lawyer - after several attempts he finally worked out that I was in fact his solicitor.
I took the Client to an interview room and explained the matters for which he was being prosecuted, this also provoked the Client to demand to see his lawyer? Confused? I was too! Everytime I mentioned the charges my Client would shout out, "Are you not listening to me man, not guilty". The Client could not progress past the point of saying not guilty to explain why he was not guilty. Repeatedly through my delightful conversations with my Client he would shout, "Are you listening man?" to which I would reply, "Yes Mr. X, I am listening to your every word. That is the ?th time you have said that. Please do explain your case to me as so far you have provided no instructions at all". After 20 minutes of this experience I told my Client that due to the aggressive behaviour that he was displaying towards me I was going to leave the room and consider if I was going to continue to represent him. I was then called in to Court and told the district Judge that I was minded to withdraw from the case, the District Judge stated that he could not compel me to stay but did request that I remain to assist the Court. I do not know why but I remained.
After a further 20 minute shouting match with my Client I finally had some instructions. I discovered that if I shouted louder than my Client he was forced to listen to me, so I spent much of my time obtaining instructions by aggressively shouting at my Client.
The trial turned out to be an absolute nightmare. The Client would not contain himself and was removed from the Court for contempt of Court before lunchtime. I then represented the Client in his absence. After lunch the District Judge agreed to allow the Client to remain in the Court for the remainder of the hearing, but after about 15 minutes the Client because abusive towards the witnesses and was removed again. Eventually we got round to the Client giving evidence from the dock.
The Client was amazingly poor when giving evidence. He announced to the world that he had no convictions for assaulting Police Officers despite his antecedents showing four such convictions! He was crossed examined on that point and when the District Judge explained the reasons behind his findings of fact he commented that the Client was clearly a liar.
To my credit I managed to get one of the four charges dismissed on the basis that the prosecution evidence was weak, and for the three other matters the District Judge found the Client guilty but on a limited basis. This was a case where I expected to, and did, go down in flames.
To top the afternoon off the Client was remanded in custody, having previously been on bail, due to his late arrival.
This is another notable 'drunk' case where I have had no choice but to proceed to trial with a drunk Client. These cases always go wrong because the Client is always so unpredictable.
When I arrived at 9.30 am I hoped that the Client would not attend at Court because his case was so hopeless. After a series of phone calls I started to think that my client was not coming to Court but then he staggered in the door at about 10.35 am. When I introduced myself (I had not met the Client before) I was immediately greeted with a mouthful of verbal abuse where the Client was demanding to see his lawyer - after several attempts he finally worked out that I was in fact his solicitor.
I took the Client to an interview room and explained the matters for which he was being prosecuted, this also provoked the Client to demand to see his lawyer? Confused? I was too! Everytime I mentioned the charges my Client would shout out, "Are you not listening to me man, not guilty". The Client could not progress past the point of saying not guilty to explain why he was not guilty. Repeatedly through my delightful conversations with my Client he would shout, "Are you listening man?" to which I would reply, "Yes Mr. X, I am listening to your every word. That is the ?th time you have said that. Please do explain your case to me as so far you have provided no instructions at all". After 20 minutes of this experience I told my Client that due to the aggressive behaviour that he was displaying towards me I was going to leave the room and consider if I was going to continue to represent him. I was then called in to Court and told the district Judge that I was minded to withdraw from the case, the District Judge stated that he could not compel me to stay but did request that I remain to assist the Court. I do not know why but I remained.
After a further 20 minute shouting match with my Client I finally had some instructions. I discovered that if I shouted louder than my Client he was forced to listen to me, so I spent much of my time obtaining instructions by aggressively shouting at my Client.
The trial turned out to be an absolute nightmare. The Client would not contain himself and was removed from the Court for contempt of Court before lunchtime. I then represented the Client in his absence. After lunch the District Judge agreed to allow the Client to remain in the Court for the remainder of the hearing, but after about 15 minutes the Client because abusive towards the witnesses and was removed again. Eventually we got round to the Client giving evidence from the dock.
The Client was amazingly poor when giving evidence. He announced to the world that he had no convictions for assaulting Police Officers despite his antecedents showing four such convictions! He was crossed examined on that point and when the District Judge explained the reasons behind his findings of fact he commented that the Client was clearly a liar.
To my credit I managed to get one of the four charges dismissed on the basis that the prosecution evidence was weak, and for the three other matters the District Judge found the Client guilty but on a limited basis. This was a case where I expected to, and did, go down in flames.
To top the afternoon off the Client was remanded in custody, having previously been on bail, due to his late arrival.
This is another notable 'drunk' case where I have had no choice but to proceed to trial with a drunk Client. These cases always go wrong because the Client is always so unpredictable.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Are You Counsel?
I went off to a Magistrates Court that is a little off my usual path.
I spoke with the Prosecutor first of all about the case. As the case was listed for a first appearance today I collected the advance information from the Prosecutor who then wanted to know what firm of solicitors was representing the Client. The conversation went a little like this:
Her: Who instructs you?
Me: I do.
Her: Sorry?
Me: I am dealing with the case.
Her: Are you Counsel?
No: I am a solicitor.
Her: Sorry.
After finding and speaking to my Client I spoke with the Usher to let her know that my Client and I had attended at Court and that her case was ready to be called on. The conversation went like this:
Me: Hello, I am here representing Mrs X.
Her: Is your Client here?
Me: Yes.
Her: Are you ready to be called on.
Me: Yes.
Her: Who has instructed you?
Me: No, I am a solicitor.
Her: Oh sorry, you look like Counsel.
At some point during the morning I was approached by one of the duty solicitors local to the Court I was at, they spoke with me:
Him: Hello, what are you doing here.
Me: I am just waiting to be called on for a first appearance.
Him: I don't know if you can help me. I am the duty solicitor today and I have a Client who has a co-defendant. They are both in custody and the co-defendant has legal aid with a firm but they have not turned up. Would you accept a brief from the solicitors to represent the other chap?
Me: Erm, I'm not Counsel.
Him: Sorry, you look like Counsel.
It turned out the reason people kept mistaking me for a barrister was because I was smartly dressed in a pin striped suit. I dress smartly every day and do think that there are some shabbily dressed solicitors out there who have clearly grown to be too comfortable in their usual surroundings and dress pretty poorly. I did not mind being mistaken for Counsel on the basis that I was well dressed but I do think that people have the wrong idea when they suggest that in the general heirachy of things that barristers come above solicitors in terms of dress sense!
I spoke with the Prosecutor first of all about the case. As the case was listed for a first appearance today I collected the advance information from the Prosecutor who then wanted to know what firm of solicitors was representing the Client. The conversation went a little like this:
Her: Who instructs you?
Me: I do.
Her: Sorry?
Me: I am dealing with the case.
Her: Are you Counsel?
No: I am a solicitor.
Her: Sorry.
After finding and speaking to my Client I spoke with the Usher to let her know that my Client and I had attended at Court and that her case was ready to be called on. The conversation went like this:
Me: Hello, I am here representing Mrs X.
Her: Is your Client here?
Me: Yes.
Her: Are you ready to be called on.
Me: Yes.
Her: Who has instructed you?
Me: No, I am a solicitor.
Her: Oh sorry, you look like Counsel.
At some point during the morning I was approached by one of the duty solicitors local to the Court I was at, they spoke with me:
Him: Hello, what are you doing here.
Me: I am just waiting to be called on for a first appearance.
Him: I don't know if you can help me. I am the duty solicitor today and I have a Client who has a co-defendant. They are both in custody and the co-defendant has legal aid with a firm but they have not turned up. Would you accept a brief from the solicitors to represent the other chap?
Me: Erm, I'm not Counsel.
Him: Sorry, you look like Counsel.
It turned out the reason people kept mistaking me for a barrister was because I was smartly dressed in a pin striped suit. I dress smartly every day and do think that there are some shabbily dressed solicitors out there who have clearly grown to be too comfortable in their usual surroundings and dress pretty poorly. I did not mind being mistaken for Counsel on the basis that I was well dressed but I do think that people have the wrong idea when they suggest that in the general heirachy of things that barristers come above solicitors in terms of dress sense!
Tuesday, November 15, 2005
Hacked
I had an unpleasant experience over the weekend trying to restore a computer that had been hacked. As far as I could tell a hacker from Holland had exploited a hole in my usually tight firewall and destroyed my mail server. I did consider investigating the matter further by exploring security logs, trying to trace IP address and the like - but what's the point?
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 has been somewhat battered by a recent decision made by District Judge Kenneth Grant. Although I may be able to use the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to deal with my case I am fairly sure that the legislation is so outdated that further holes will be punched in it to prevent further convictions. I have been a little surprised by the media coverage that this case has received, afterall it was a first instance decision of a Magistrates Court.
The Computer Misuse Act 1990 has been somewhat battered by a recent decision made by District Judge Kenneth Grant. Although I may be able to use the Computer Misuse Act 1990 to deal with my case I am fairly sure that the legislation is so outdated that further holes will be punched in it to prevent further convictions. I have been a little surprised by the media coverage that this case has received, afterall it was a first instance decision of a Magistrates Court.
Monday, November 14, 2005
The Chinese Government Comes To Town
I spoke with a colleague recently whom I worked with when I was completing my training contract. I usually speak with this particular person about once a week and we often discuss what we have both been doing during the week. When I spoke to this colleague I asked him if he had been up to anything interesting and he told me that he had been to Bow Street Magistrates Court to apply for an arrest warrant for a Chinese Minister. I found this to be rather surprising as the usual reply would have been that he had been stuck at a Magistrates Court, or had spent half the night at the Police Station.
Our conversation continued and he explained that a request had been made at his office to apply for an arrest warrant, and the partners at his firm thought it would be high profile pro bono work worth doing. I said to him, "What on earth are you doing making frivolous applications like that?" My colleague did not believe in the merits of the application but said that it had been a pleasant day out of the office as the application was made in the morning and the District Judge that heard the application delivered a reasoned judgment at 4.00 pm that day. He was even interviewed by Channel 4 news, but unfortunately they did not play the footage of the interview.
Our conversation continued and he explained that a request had been made at his office to apply for an arrest warrant, and the partners at his firm thought it would be high profile pro bono work worth doing. I said to him, "What on earth are you doing making frivolous applications like that?" My colleague did not believe in the merits of the application but said that it had been a pleasant day out of the office as the application was made in the morning and the District Judge that heard the application delivered a reasoned judgment at 4.00 pm that day. He was even interviewed by Channel 4 news, but unfortunately they did not play the footage of the interview.
Wednesday, November 09, 2005
CDS Direct Rumours
I talked a few days ago about the new pilot scheme being run by the Legal Services Commission to provide telephone advice to people detained at the Police Station in certain circumstances called CDS Direct. During the past week I have been listening to comments made by solicitors across the country and it seems that the CDS Direct pilot is not running as smoothly as it should be. All of my comments here are based on rumours or accounts given to me by colleagues - I have yet to have my own experience with CDS Direct. Here are some of the things that I have heard:
- CDS Direct employs 15 'advisors', so at any one time there are up to 5 advisors at the CDS Direct call centre. This means that the Legal Services Commission have replaced the services of hundreds of solicitors available to deal with telephone advice calls at any point in the day with 5 advisors. It seems that calls that should be dealt with by CDS Direct are being put through to solicitors in the way they were prior to the CDS Direct pilot because the CDS Direct call centre is under staffed. On this same point the man who has trained the advisors is apparently Tony Edwards from the solicitors firm TV Edwards. A colleague has stated that Mr. Edwards advice to the advisors was that they must complete their telephone advice call and complete their notes before moving on to the next call and if that means not picking up an incoming call then so be it.
- Of all the Custody Sergeants asked none are aware of the CDS Direct pilot. This snap shot view has been obtained by solicitors asking in an ad hoc way when they attend at the Police Station.
- CDS Direct are not sticking to their operational procedures as they are advising people for cases that fall outside of their remit.
- The Legal Services Commission press office (it has been suggested that Richard Shand has made this comment) is stating that the CDS Direct pilot has dealt with all eligible cases. 90% Being dealt with (i.e. advice given) within 15 minutes, 99% within 30 minutes (these times are less than the target times set down). The experiences of solicitors attending at the Police Station, and other solicitors picking up calls because CDS Direct has not dealt with the call for some reason, suggests that the comment by the Legal Services Commission press office may not be correct.
Monday, November 07, 2005
Billing Time Again
Billing time has come round again. It is that time of the month when the management in my firm tell all of the fee earners to bill all of the files that are possible to bill.
I do not mind billing. It is a time consuming activity but it is nice to understand how my hard work can translate in to money for my employer.
An e-mail was sent to me today suggesting that I should perhaps bill a little bit more this month. It is exactly this kind of attitude that has driven me from the firm I currently work for to find employment elsewhere. I am being told to bill more, was the £50,000 worth of bills I submitted last month not enough? I had a glut of Crown Court cases finish last month which hopefully will be paid in the next few months. I am going to bill no where near the £50,000 of last month, the firm will probably get something like £10,000 out of me for this month. The management fails to understand that to earn large fees on Crown Court cases I have to ease off the Police Station and Magistrates Court work.
Never mind, I shall submit my billing and keep on smiling knowing that my days are numbered as I start my new job in the new year.
I do not mind billing. It is a time consuming activity but it is nice to understand how my hard work can translate in to money for my employer.
An e-mail was sent to me today suggesting that I should perhaps bill a little bit more this month. It is exactly this kind of attitude that has driven me from the firm I currently work for to find employment elsewhere. I am being told to bill more, was the £50,000 worth of bills I submitted last month not enough? I had a glut of Crown Court cases finish last month which hopefully will be paid in the next few months. I am going to bill no where near the £50,000 of last month, the firm will probably get something like £10,000 out of me for this month. The management fails to understand that to earn large fees on Crown Court cases I have to ease off the Police Station and Magistrates Court work.
Never mind, I shall submit my billing and keep on smiling knowing that my days are numbered as I start my new job in the new year.
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Why Call It CDS Direct?
A pilot being run by the Legal Services Commission will begin on 31st October 2005. The pilot is designed to examine whether it is feasible for legal advice to be given by a call centre in less serious cases to people arrested and detained at the Police Station.
The Legal Services Commission has called it's call centre CDS Direct. I strongly object to this name as it is misleading.
CDS Direct stands for Criminal Defence Service Direct. Solicitors firms who do legally aided criminal defence work form the Criminal Defence Service. The Legal Services Commission is also running a pilot called the Public Defender Service which has a handful of offices dotted around the country. These offices are staffed by employees who are paid by the Legal Services Commission. They are public defenders.
Although the Public Defender Services comes under the umbrella of the Criminal Defence Service the vast majority of the CDS is made up of firms who hold a General Criminal Contract - people who are paid legal aid fees instead of being paid directly by the Legal Services Commission.
Most solicitors in private practice objected to the idea of the CDS Direct Pilot. The Legal Services Commission ignored our objections and decided to set up the pilot anyway. When the Legal Services Commission realised that they would not be able to employ duty solicitors from private practice to work in the call centre on a part time basis because it would conflict with their existing work commitments members of the PDS were drafted in. When the Legal Services Commission realised that they may be breaking the rules by using non-solicitors to advise detained people over the telephone where the detained people had been asked if they wanted to speak to a solicitor the LSC simply changed the rules.
I do not know why the Legal Services Commission are still calling this pilot CDS Direct. It perhaps should be called PDS Direct or LSC Direct because it has more to do with those organisations than it does with the majority of the Criminal Defence Service.
So if you are arrested after 31st October 2005 for a very simple matter where legal representatives usually only give legal advice over the telephone your advice will come from the CDS Direct call centre. You will be advised by a person who holds a qualification called the Police Station Qualification but they may or may not be a solicitor. You will probably only get to speak to a solicitor at the CDS Direct call centre if you specifically ask for one.
The Legal Services Commission has called it's call centre CDS Direct. I strongly object to this name as it is misleading.
CDS Direct stands for Criminal Defence Service Direct. Solicitors firms who do legally aided criminal defence work form the Criminal Defence Service. The Legal Services Commission is also running a pilot called the Public Defender Service which has a handful of offices dotted around the country. These offices are staffed by employees who are paid by the Legal Services Commission. They are public defenders.
Although the Public Defender Services comes under the umbrella of the Criminal Defence Service the vast majority of the CDS is made up of firms who hold a General Criminal Contract - people who are paid legal aid fees instead of being paid directly by the Legal Services Commission.
Most solicitors in private practice objected to the idea of the CDS Direct Pilot. The Legal Services Commission ignored our objections and decided to set up the pilot anyway. When the Legal Services Commission realised that they would not be able to employ duty solicitors from private practice to work in the call centre on a part time basis because it would conflict with their existing work commitments members of the PDS were drafted in. When the Legal Services Commission realised that they may be breaking the rules by using non-solicitors to advise detained people over the telephone where the detained people had been asked if they wanted to speak to a solicitor the LSC simply changed the rules.
I do not know why the Legal Services Commission are still calling this pilot CDS Direct. It perhaps should be called PDS Direct or LSC Direct because it has more to do with those organisations than it does with the majority of the Criminal Defence Service.
So if you are arrested after 31st October 2005 for a very simple matter where legal representatives usually only give legal advice over the telephone your advice will come from the CDS Direct call centre. You will be advised by a person who holds a qualification called the Police Station Qualification but they may or may not be a solicitor. You will probably only get to speak to a solicitor at the CDS Direct call centre if you specifically ask for one.
How Rude
I was the Police Station Duty Solicitor for a busy scheme on Saturday afternoon. Between the hours of 3pm and 11pm I had 12 cases referred to me. One of the cases was a female who had been accused of harassment.
It was slightly problematic contacting the Police Station after 9.30pm because 15 people were brought in for football violence following the Arsenal v Tottenham match. As the Police in the custody suite seemed to ignore the phone when I tried to phone them I had to rely on the Police phoning me.
I got a call about this female about 10.30 pm. The Officer told me that he was going to conduct the interview in the morning. I explained that I would speak to the Client and see whether she opposed that course of action. I then spoke to the Client and she was rather feisty straight away. At one point our conversation went like this:
Her: Are you coming down to the Police Station now?
Me: No. You are receiving free legal advice and assistance under legal aid. The government has seen fit to refuse to pay me to do work that is deemed unnecessary and at present the Officer in the case cannot provide me with disclosure, he has further investigations to carry out - therefore legal aid would not extend to me coming to see you unless there is a real issue to be dealt with.
Her: What?
Me: Are you a vulnerable person with mental health or learning difficulties?
Her: No.
Me: Are you a juvenile?
Her: No.
Me: Have the Police mistreated you?
Her: No, but I am still here.
Me: The Officer is not going to be in a position to interview you tonight. I need to discuss...
Her: [Shouting in the background] He aint coming down, what f***ing good is that. He can f*** off.
Me: Hello, hello... Is anyone there?
I tried to phone the Police Station back several times but they simply would not pick up the telephone. Due to the comments made by the Client I considered her to have dispensed with my services. I do not need to put up with comments like that. The Client was obviously upset that they were going to spend the night in a Police cell but if they were not going to listen to what I was going to say what was the point in acting for the Client?
The next day I received another phone call about the Client. The Police were ready to interview and the Client had asked for me to attend at the Police Station. I told the Police that she had dispensed with my services last night, so she would have to find another solicitor. The clever Client kicking off complaining about having to stay at the Police Station had ensured that she would be at the Police Station even longer as she had to find another solicitor. The moral to this story is do not bite the hand that feeds you .i.e. be nice to your solicitor.
It was slightly problematic contacting the Police Station after 9.30pm because 15 people were brought in for football violence following the Arsenal v Tottenham match. As the Police in the custody suite seemed to ignore the phone when I tried to phone them I had to rely on the Police phoning me.
I got a call about this female about 10.30 pm. The Officer told me that he was going to conduct the interview in the morning. I explained that I would speak to the Client and see whether she opposed that course of action. I then spoke to the Client and she was rather feisty straight away. At one point our conversation went like this:
Her: Are you coming down to the Police Station now?
Me: No. You are receiving free legal advice and assistance under legal aid. The government has seen fit to refuse to pay me to do work that is deemed unnecessary and at present the Officer in the case cannot provide me with disclosure, he has further investigations to carry out - therefore legal aid would not extend to me coming to see you unless there is a real issue to be dealt with.
Her: What?
Me: Are you a vulnerable person with mental health or learning difficulties?
Her: No.
Me: Are you a juvenile?
Her: No.
Me: Have the Police mistreated you?
Her: No, but I am still here.
Me: The Officer is not going to be in a position to interview you tonight. I need to discuss...
Her: [Shouting in the background] He aint coming down, what f***ing good is that. He can f*** off.
Me: Hello, hello... Is anyone there?
I tried to phone the Police Station back several times but they simply would not pick up the telephone. Due to the comments made by the Client I considered her to have dispensed with my services. I do not need to put up with comments like that. The Client was obviously upset that they were going to spend the night in a Police cell but if they were not going to listen to what I was going to say what was the point in acting for the Client?
The next day I received another phone call about the Client. The Police were ready to interview and the Client had asked for me to attend at the Police Station. I told the Police that she had dispensed with my services last night, so she would have to find another solicitor. The clever Client kicking off complaining about having to stay at the Police Station had ensured that she would be at the Police Station even longer as she had to find another solicitor. The moral to this story is do not bite the hand that feeds you .i.e. be nice to your solicitor.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)