I am a big champion of the concept of a paperless office - a world where the is no necessity to use paper and pen every time something needs to be recorded on a file.
Over the past few years I have been using a laptop to attempt to work without paper when I am out and about at the Magistrates Court and Crown Court. A Court environment is easy to cope with a computer and the majority of the Courts that I visit are equipped with wifi networks. Working on a paperless basis has always been a problem when it comes to working in other environments such as Police Stations or Prisons.
A major problem with working in a paperless way is getting people to sign documents that have only just been generated, such as statements, proofs, and most importantly legal aid applications.
Prisons and Police Stations are now becoming more tolerant of computers and over the next few weeks I am going to attempt to work without paper when I am out and about. I have acquired an iPad and have managed to work out how to get a Client to use the touch screen interface of the iPad to sign a document with an image of their usual signature.
I am hoping that my life can be simplified without the need to constantly record information in paper.
The only downside to my paperless working concept is that for audit purposes all the computer records that I generate have to be printed off and kept on a file!
Thursday, August 02, 2012
Thursday, July 19, 2012
My Solicitor Is Better Than Yours...
I had an unfortunate experience yesterday.
I went to a Police Station to represent an own Client, he arrived with two of his co-defendants, one of which was very "mouthy". When I attempted to speak to my Client in the waiting area of the Police Station the mouthy co-defendant kept interrupting and telling me that his solicitor was the best solicitor and that my Client should use his solicitor.
My conversation with him went something like this:
Mouthy: My solicitor is better than you.
Me: Really, where is he then?
Mouthy: He is busy.
Me: Ah, too busy to deal with you then?
Mouthy: No, he told me to come here by myself - he told me what to tell the Police.
Me: Okay, that's very nice.
Mouthy: My solicitor uses top barristers.
Me: That's nice for you - so he doesn't represent you in the Crown Court himself?
Mouthy: No, I have always had top barristers.
Me: Like who?
Mouthy: Mr X from X chambers.
Me: Oh, he is prosecuting a murder that my firm is dealing with at the moment.
Mouthy: No, he only defends - he is a QC.
Me: No, I assure you he is prosecuting.
Mouthy: No, my solicitor told me that he never prosecutes.
Me: Well, that can't be right - why don't you look at the local news reports that show that your barrister is prosecuting the trial [I reach for my phone to look up the case on the internet].
Mouthy: But my solicitor said...
Me: I am sure that your solicitor has told you many things.
Mouthy [now talking to my Client]: You should sack him and use my solicitor.
My Client: Why? Your solicitor is not even here. He doesn't sound very good anyway.
Me: Let me get this right. You think that my Client should be represented by your solicitor, so that he can act in your best interests, that may not be in my Client's best interests, even though he has not attended with you today?
Mouthy: Er...
I am glad to report that my Client remained my Client and did not listen to the powerful and persuasive arguments put forward by his co-defendant as to why he should not use my firms services.
I went to a Police Station to represent an own Client, he arrived with two of his co-defendants, one of which was very "mouthy". When I attempted to speak to my Client in the waiting area of the Police Station the mouthy co-defendant kept interrupting and telling me that his solicitor was the best solicitor and that my Client should use his solicitor.
My conversation with him went something like this:
Mouthy: My solicitor is better than you.
Me: Really, where is he then?
Mouthy: He is busy.
Me: Ah, too busy to deal with you then?
Mouthy: No, he told me to come here by myself - he told me what to tell the Police.
Me: Okay, that's very nice.
Mouthy: My solicitor uses top barristers.
Me: That's nice for you - so he doesn't represent you in the Crown Court himself?
Mouthy: No, I have always had top barristers.
Me: Like who?
Mouthy: Mr X from X chambers.
Me: Oh, he is prosecuting a murder that my firm is dealing with at the moment.
Mouthy: No, he only defends - he is a QC.
Me: No, I assure you he is prosecuting.
Mouthy: No, my solicitor told me that he never prosecutes.
Me: Well, that can't be right - why don't you look at the local news reports that show that your barrister is prosecuting the trial [I reach for my phone to look up the case on the internet].
Mouthy: But my solicitor said...
Me: I am sure that your solicitor has told you many things.
Mouthy [now talking to my Client]: You should sack him and use my solicitor.
My Client: Why? Your solicitor is not even here. He doesn't sound very good anyway.
Me: Let me get this right. You think that my Client should be represented by your solicitor, so that he can act in your best interests, that may not be in my Client's best interests, even though he has not attended with you today?
Mouthy: Er...
I am glad to report that my Client remained my Client and did not listen to the powerful and persuasive arguments put forward by his co-defendant as to why he should not use my firms services.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Where Has Court 6 Gone?
My local Magistrates Court has been rebuilt and now has a brand new building.
There are signs in the building to assist visitors and Court Users.
The sign has the obvious omission that there is no Court 6 in the building but there is a Court 5 and a Court 7.
Court 7 is in fact Court 7 from the Crown Court which is on the opposite side of the road in another building.
This sign must really confuse people who have no idea why there is no Court 6.
There are signs in the building to assist visitors and Court Users.
The sign has the obvious omission that there is no Court 6 in the building but there is a Court 5 and a Court 7.
Court 7 is in fact Court 7 from the Crown Court which is on the opposite side of the road in another building.
This sign must really confuse people who have no idea why there is no Court 6.
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Thank You for Your Hard Work
I had the joy of being on call again last night.
I was called to the Police Station to deal with a regular Client who is often involved in violent offences and can be an aggressive indivdual, even towards my colleagues.
After a brief consultation where the Client indicated he did not want to be interviewed I explained that he was likely to be charged with an offence and kept in custody until he could be put before a Magistrates Court. I then invited him to sign some legal aid forms to ensure funding was put in place for his imminent hearing his reply was:
"I'm not signing your f'ing legal aid forms so you can get f'ing paid."
Now the odd thing is that up to this point I had not fallen out with the Client at this point.
There was nothing wrong in principal for him to decline to sign the legal aid forms. Over the years of doing my job I have encountered many interesting individuals, including many people who are aggressive and unhappy at being detained at the Police Station. Some are rude, and some are ungrateful. None have refused to sign legal aid applications so far - that is probably if they do not want to sign the forms they will not be represented at Court.
I was called to the Police Station to deal with a regular Client who is often involved in violent offences and can be an aggressive indivdual, even towards my colleagues.
After a brief consultation where the Client indicated he did not want to be interviewed I explained that he was likely to be charged with an offence and kept in custody until he could be put before a Magistrates Court. I then invited him to sign some legal aid forms to ensure funding was put in place for his imminent hearing his reply was:
"I'm not signing your f'ing legal aid forms so you can get f'ing paid."
Now the odd thing is that up to this point I had not fallen out with the Client at this point.
There was nothing wrong in principal for him to decline to sign the legal aid forms. Over the years of doing my job I have encountered many interesting individuals, including many people who are aggressive and unhappy at being detained at the Police Station. Some are rude, and some are ungrateful. None have refused to sign legal aid applications so far - that is probably if they do not want to sign the forms they will not be represented at Court.
Monday, June 25, 2012
Just My Luck
I had a busy weekend being "on call" for the Saturday and Sunday that have just passed.
Being on call means that you are often called upon to deal with cases of a varying nature. Some cases are quick and easy, others are more serious and often take longer to deal with. Whilst I was out and about I received a call from a local firm of solicitors who said that they were dealing with a 3 handed case (a case involving three suspects) and that they feared there would be conflict of interest in the future, and wanted to ensure that their conflicted defendant was still represented. After a brief discussion with the other firm, the Police Station and importantly the Client, I made arrangements and went down to the Police Station.
When I got to the Police Station I realised that the case was reasonably serious. An allegation had been made that my Client was in some way involved in the supply of a large quantity of cannabis. The case also seemed more serious than usual as the Serious Organised Crime Agency had been involved in the case.
After taking instructions from my Client it became clear that I was dealing with a person who had been manipulated by the others who had been arrested, and, that it was more than likely he was an innocent person who was in the "wrong place at the wrong time". After we had finished the interview the Officer dealing with the case hinted that they accepted my Client's innocent account and did not think that he would be prosecuted for any matters at all.
Criminal defence solicitors are increasingly paid for cases on the basis of a formula. The formula makes a basic payment for the seriousness of the offence, that payment depends on how the case proceeds (for example is there a guilty plea or a trial) and if the case proceeds to trial the basic payment is increased depending on the number of pages of evidence served by the Prosecution. In this particular case it seemed quite clear that SOCA had been following some of the people who were arrested and therefore the page count for such a case would normally be quite good.
Whilst I was very happy that my Client was not charged with an offence, it was rather unlucky that I had been dealing with a Client who was not going to be prosecuted. I have no doubt that the firm that referred the Client to me made a conscious decision to hold on to the Clients that they thought would generate the bigger fees.
Being on call means that you are often called upon to deal with cases of a varying nature. Some cases are quick and easy, others are more serious and often take longer to deal with. Whilst I was out and about I received a call from a local firm of solicitors who said that they were dealing with a 3 handed case (a case involving three suspects) and that they feared there would be conflict of interest in the future, and wanted to ensure that their conflicted defendant was still represented. After a brief discussion with the other firm, the Police Station and importantly the Client, I made arrangements and went down to the Police Station.
When I got to the Police Station I realised that the case was reasonably serious. An allegation had been made that my Client was in some way involved in the supply of a large quantity of cannabis. The case also seemed more serious than usual as the Serious Organised Crime Agency had been involved in the case.
After taking instructions from my Client it became clear that I was dealing with a person who had been manipulated by the others who had been arrested, and, that it was more than likely he was an innocent person who was in the "wrong place at the wrong time". After we had finished the interview the Officer dealing with the case hinted that they accepted my Client's innocent account and did not think that he would be prosecuted for any matters at all.
Criminal defence solicitors are increasingly paid for cases on the basis of a formula. The formula makes a basic payment for the seriousness of the offence, that payment depends on how the case proceeds (for example is there a guilty plea or a trial) and if the case proceeds to trial the basic payment is increased depending on the number of pages of evidence served by the Prosecution. In this particular case it seemed quite clear that SOCA had been following some of the people who were arrested and therefore the page count for such a case would normally be quite good.
Whilst I was very happy that my Client was not charged with an offence, it was rather unlucky that I had been dealing with a Client who was not going to be prosecuted. I have no doubt that the firm that referred the Client to me made a conscious decision to hold on to the Clients that they thought would generate the bigger fees.
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Contempt of Court
Theresa May, the current Home Secretary, has been found guilty of contempt of court.
It must be quite embarrassing as the government's minister in charge of criminal matters to be found guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order.
If a government Minister does not comply with a court order then why should the rest of us?
It must be quite embarrassing as the government's minister in charge of criminal matters to be found guilty of contempt of court for failing to comply with a court order.
If a government Minister does not comply with a court order then why should the rest of us?
Location, Location, Location
I have moved offices. About a year ago the firm that I worked for had a bit of a management disagreement and the Crime Department left my previous firm and joined another firm. After these two firms worked together for a year I was moved from my old office in sunny Southend-on-Sea to the new City of Chelmsford.
My new office location is very good. I am based in a small city that has within in it a "centralised remand" Magistrates Court, a Crown Court - and the local prison is also in the city. The Police Station for the city is currently closed for refurbishment but it should reopen in the next 12 months or so. All of the facilities that I need are right on my office doorstep and are all within walking distance.
Location is a very important part of crime work. A firms office post code will determine what rotas solicitors are eligible to get on for Duty Solicitor work. In the past 5 years, or so, firms have been moving their offices about, or opening up new satellite offices, in order to qualify their firm to get on to new Duty Solicitor rotas. There is a simple economic theory that the more rotas a firm can get on to the more crime work they are likely to do.
But, location can be a pain in the back side for some firms. I mentioned that my city now has a "centralised remand" Court. This means that over time some smaller Magistrates Courts have been closed as they were deemed inefficient and costly. Now there are some Magistrates Courts that are open on a daily basis but they no longer deal with "custody" cases - that is defendants who the Police have decided should be prosecuted for offences but have decided not to release those people on bail. Essex now has a system of centralised remand Courts so that defendants who are not granted bail by the Police are sent to a single Court in the North of the county, and a single Court in the South of the county.
The idea of a centralised remand Court is fine for my location. But there are firms which are based outside of Chelmsford that have to send one solicitor to the centralised remand Court to deal with any custody cases, and still send another solicitor to their local Magistrates Court to deal with defendant's who are on bail. It is a common occurrence for some firms not to send a Duty Solicitor to cover their allocated slots on the Court rota simply because they do not want that solicitor to be at a Court where they could be deployed to make more money elsewhere.
My new office location is very good. I am based in a small city that has within in it a "centralised remand" Magistrates Court, a Crown Court - and the local prison is also in the city. The Police Station for the city is currently closed for refurbishment but it should reopen in the next 12 months or so. All of the facilities that I need are right on my office doorstep and are all within walking distance.
Location is a very important part of crime work. A firms office post code will determine what rotas solicitors are eligible to get on for Duty Solicitor work. In the past 5 years, or so, firms have been moving their offices about, or opening up new satellite offices, in order to qualify their firm to get on to new Duty Solicitor rotas. There is a simple economic theory that the more rotas a firm can get on to the more crime work they are likely to do.
But, location can be a pain in the back side for some firms. I mentioned that my city now has a "centralised remand" Court. This means that over time some smaller Magistrates Courts have been closed as they were deemed inefficient and costly. Now there are some Magistrates Courts that are open on a daily basis but they no longer deal with "custody" cases - that is defendants who the Police have decided should be prosecuted for offences but have decided not to release those people on bail. Essex now has a system of centralised remand Courts so that defendants who are not granted bail by the Police are sent to a single Court in the North of the county, and a single Court in the South of the county.
The idea of a centralised remand Court is fine for my location. But there are firms which are based outside of Chelmsford that have to send one solicitor to the centralised remand Court to deal with any custody cases, and still send another solicitor to their local Magistrates Court to deal with defendant's who are on bail. It is a common occurrence for some firms not to send a Duty Solicitor to cover their allocated slots on the Court rota simply because they do not want that solicitor to be at a Court where they could be deployed to make more money elsewhere.
Sunday, June 10, 2012
Deportation Issues
Apparently the Government has decided that it wants more foreign nationals to be deported if they are convicted. Whilst there is nothing wrong with a Government creating laws for the Courts to work with Theresa May's announcement is a little odd. She has suggested that if the Courts do not interpret the law in accordance with new guidelines for deportation of foreign nationals then she may have to resort to making new laws.
One of the basic concepts you learn on any law course is that there is a separation of powers between the Crown (i.e. the Monarchy), the Executive (i.e. the Government) and the Judiciary (i.e. the Courts). Whilst the role played by the Monarchy is less and less important the roles of the Judiciary and the Executive are very important.
The Executive create laws by passing laws which are usually in the form of primary legislation or Acts of Parliament. The Executive also make other laws using secondary legislation. When laws are made the Courts are duty bound to follow those laws and interpret them according to the will of Parliament. There are of course many times when the Courts have chosen to interpret the law in a way which seems to be the complete opposite of what Parliament intended.
Now, if Theresa May is unhappy with the way in which the Courts are currently interpreting human rights laws all she needs to do is to create new legislation which tells the Courts what to do and how to interpret the law? I have not read many articles on this subject but I am confused as to why she thinks she can simply give the Courts guidance on how to do their job and expect them to follow her guidance?
One of the basic concepts you learn on any law course is that there is a separation of powers between the Crown (i.e. the Monarchy), the Executive (i.e. the Government) and the Judiciary (i.e. the Courts). Whilst the role played by the Monarchy is less and less important the roles of the Judiciary and the Executive are very important.
The Executive create laws by passing laws which are usually in the form of primary legislation or Acts of Parliament. The Executive also make other laws using secondary legislation. When laws are made the Courts are duty bound to follow those laws and interpret them according to the will of Parliament. There are of course many times when the Courts have chosen to interpret the law in a way which seems to be the complete opposite of what Parliament intended.
Now, if Theresa May is unhappy with the way in which the Courts are currently interpreting human rights laws all she needs to do is to create new legislation which tells the Courts what to do and how to interpret the law? I have not read many articles on this subject but I am confused as to why she thinks she can simply give the Courts guidance on how to do their job and expect them to follow her guidance?
Friday, June 08, 2012
BlackBerries
I have a BlackBerry that is a work phone that I walk around with all the time. The BlackBerry is always charged and even sits on my bedside cabinet overnight. I am rarely more than 2m away from my BlackBerry.
Why do I keep this device so close to me all the time? There are a few reasons:
1. It is a phone and it does ring every now and then.
2. I get sent so many messages if I do not read them as they arrive I end up with 150 or so messages to read every workday.
3. I like to keep on top of what is going on with my cases and my colleagues movements.
The problem with my addiction to my BlackBerry is that when I go on holiday or go abroad I feel lost without my BlackBerry.
The Wife hates my BlackBerry.
Why do I keep this device so close to me all the time? There are a few reasons:
1. It is a phone and it does ring every now and then.
2. I get sent so many messages if I do not read them as they arrive I end up with 150 or so messages to read every workday.
3. I like to keep on top of what is going on with my cases and my colleagues movements.
The problem with my addiction to my BlackBerry is that when I go on holiday or go abroad I feel lost without my BlackBerry.
The Wife hates my BlackBerry.
Saturday, June 02, 2012
Technology
I was doing a number of plea and case management hearings yesterday, one of which was by video link.
Unfortunately the prosecutor arrived and gave me a new indictment which rather upset the planned pleas for the hearing. The defendant was charged with one offence up until yesterday and then all of a sudden he is being prosecuted for two offences.
If the hearing was not by video link I would have simply gone down to the cells and spoken to the defendant to discuss the change with his case. The problem was I had already spoken to the defendant in the prearranged conference slot before the hearing and I was given the new indictment two minutes before the hearing.
During the hearing the Court attempted to connect to the prison so that the Court could see the defendant and the defendant could see the Court - but due to problems it took something like 35 minutes for the equipment to work and that was after several reboots. It would have been quicker for the defendant to be brought directly from the prison to Court when they realised that there was a problem with the equipment.
When the equipment worked I had to ask the Court to for further time to discuss the recent developments and the Judge decided the quickest way to do this was simnply to clear the entire Court.
The hearing that was estimated to take 15 minutes to complete in fact took some 50 minutes. Video linkl technology is supposed to speed up proceedings and reduce costs by dispensing with the costs of bringing a prisoner to Court. Yesterday was a fine example how technology sometimes causes extra delays in Court hearings.
Unfortunately the prosecutor arrived and gave me a new indictment which rather upset the planned pleas for the hearing. The defendant was charged with one offence up until yesterday and then all of a sudden he is being prosecuted for two offences.
If the hearing was not by video link I would have simply gone down to the cells and spoken to the defendant to discuss the change with his case. The problem was I had already spoken to the defendant in the prearranged conference slot before the hearing and I was given the new indictment two minutes before the hearing.
During the hearing the Court attempted to connect to the prison so that the Court could see the defendant and the defendant could see the Court - but due to problems it took something like 35 minutes for the equipment to work and that was after several reboots. It would have been quicker for the defendant to be brought directly from the prison to Court when they realised that there was a problem with the equipment.
When the equipment worked I had to ask the Court to for further time to discuss the recent developments and the Judge decided the quickest way to do this was simnply to clear the entire Court.
The hearing that was estimated to take 15 minutes to complete in fact took some 50 minutes. Video linkl technology is supposed to speed up proceedings and reduce costs by dispensing with the costs of bringing a prisoner to Court. Yesterday was a fine example how technology sometimes causes extra delays in Court hearings.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Guilty Pleasure
I quite enjoy watching Silk on BBC One - but it is a bit of a guilty pleasure.
I have watched tonight's episode and have again seen many errors in how matters proceed in Court - but I am sure that these errors are either unintentional or created in order to make the programme more entertaining. I could not work out why evidence was being given in Martha's case when it appeared to be a guilty plea - there was no apparent issue in the facts that suggested there was a dispute that required a Newton hearing. The hearing was not a trial as there was no jury present in Court. It was just odd. In Clive's case the level of abuse between the prosecutor/defence advocates and the witnesses was terrible. There were also errors where people were questioned about their previous convictions without there being any application to seek the Court's approval to have permission to ask them about previous misconduct. Also, questions about previous sexual conduct of the victim would have had to be approved by the Court before they could be asked.
Despite the errors I was still entertained. Views on Silk in the legal profession seem to be divided. Some enjoy it as I do, others find that they cannot stand to watch the programme.
I have watched tonight's episode and have again seen many errors in how matters proceed in Court - but I am sure that these errors are either unintentional or created in order to make the programme more entertaining. I could not work out why evidence was being given in Martha's case when it appeared to be a guilty plea - there was no apparent issue in the facts that suggested there was a dispute that required a Newton hearing. The hearing was not a trial as there was no jury present in Court. It was just odd. In Clive's case the level of abuse between the prosecutor/defence advocates and the witnesses was terrible. There were also errors where people were questioned about their previous convictions without there being any application to seek the Court's approval to have permission to ask them about previous misconduct. Also, questions about previous sexual conduct of the victim would have had to be approved by the Court before they could be asked.
Despite the errors I was still entertained. Views on Silk in the legal profession seem to be divided. Some enjoy it as I do, others find that they cannot stand to watch the programme.
Southend Magistrates Court in the Papers
The Guardian has today published an article on one of my local Magistrates Courts.
I was not at Court on Monday so I cannot take the credit for any of the defence representations.
Magistrates Courts lists are sometimes full of what appear to be relatively mundane cases. Each case has it's own story which is very important to all parties involved in the case - that being the defendant, the victim and those who represent those individuals. Each case would have been a battle that was hard fought on either side.
What is described in the article is "bread and butter" work and represents what defence solicitors and prosecutors do day in and day out in Magistrates Courts up and down the country.
I was not at Court on Monday so I cannot take the credit for any of the defence representations.
Magistrates Courts lists are sometimes full of what appear to be relatively mundane cases. Each case has it's own story which is very important to all parties involved in the case - that being the defendant, the victim and those who represent those individuals. Each case would have been a battle that was hard fought on either side.
What is described in the article is "bread and butter" work and represents what defence solicitors and prosecutors do day in and day out in Magistrates Courts up and down the country.
Monday, May 28, 2012
Free CPD Point for Solicitors
The Solicitors Regulation Authority is running a free webinar on Quality Assurance Scheme for Advocates where solicitors can earn one free CPD point.
If you are interested in a free CPD point follow this link.
If you are interested in a free CPD point follow this link.
I Better Finish This Off
Last year I dealt with a plea and case management hearing where I had an informal chat with the CPS lawyer. The case was odd in that it involved a scuffle in the street with a knife. The case was odd because the people directly involved in the scuffle had not given witness statements and the only person who was involved in the scuffle and the proceedings was the Client. Witnesses had provided statements suggesting that my Client had been attacked by two men, other witnesses suggested that my Client had attacked the two men.
My firm had written to the CPS suggesting that they should not continue to prosecute the case because their evidence was contradictory and the Client had a valid defence for having the knife. When I got to the plea and case management hearing the Client was wavering and suggested that he wanted to plead guilty despite his defence to try to reduce the risk of being sent to prison.
I spoke with the CPS lawyer and asked if the CPS were considering dropping the case and was told that they were going to continue. The Client pleaded not guilty and his case was adjourned for a trial. I later found out that the CPS lawyer had been concerned about the case but decided to continue because he had heard me mention at an earlier hearing that the Client may consider pleading guilty to bring the case to a swift end.
When the case was listed for a trial I made sure that my diary was free so that I could do the trial as I felt I had an obligation to finish the case off as my comment appeared to be one reason why the case was continuing. I am pleased to report that my Client had a trial and was eventually found not guilty.
I sometimes wonder if my input in to cases does have a real impact which changes the outcome of a case in a positive way. I would like to think that my decision to finish the case had a real input in securing the acquittal of the Client.
My firm had written to the CPS suggesting that they should not continue to prosecute the case because their evidence was contradictory and the Client had a valid defence for having the knife. When I got to the plea and case management hearing the Client was wavering and suggested that he wanted to plead guilty despite his defence to try to reduce the risk of being sent to prison.
I spoke with the CPS lawyer and asked if the CPS were considering dropping the case and was told that they were going to continue. The Client pleaded not guilty and his case was adjourned for a trial. I later found out that the CPS lawyer had been concerned about the case but decided to continue because he had heard me mention at an earlier hearing that the Client may consider pleading guilty to bring the case to a swift end.
When the case was listed for a trial I made sure that my diary was free so that I could do the trial as I felt I had an obligation to finish the case off as my comment appeared to be one reason why the case was continuing. I am pleased to report that my Client had a trial and was eventually found not guilty.
I sometimes wonder if my input in to cases does have a real impact which changes the outcome of a case in a positive way. I would like to think that my decision to finish the case had a real input in securing the acquittal of the Client.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Hello Again
Is anyone still out there?
I have not posted anything here for a long, long time.
Where have I been? Nowhere really, I am still doing criminal defence work in Essex.
Things have changed in my world. I was working for a firm of solicitors which faced the prospect of imploding due to differences between the Partners and the direction they each wanted to take the firm. I am very pleased to report that my entire criminal department got up and joined an existing major crime firm in Essex.
The world of crime has remained very similar - there are still too many people out there chasing a ever decreasing pool of money to make a living. The government is still hell bent on cutting fees for legal aid work.
My work has diversified. I am now spending more time in the Crown Court than anywhere else. I have prosecuted cases in behalf of a local Council. My firm has also become a preferred supplier to prosecute Probation breaches in the Crown Court.
If people are still out there reading this blog then I will carry on posting about the murky world of a criminal solicitor.
I have not posted anything here for a long, long time.
Where have I been? Nowhere really, I am still doing criminal defence work in Essex.
Things have changed in my world. I was working for a firm of solicitors which faced the prospect of imploding due to differences between the Partners and the direction they each wanted to take the firm. I am very pleased to report that my entire criminal department got up and joined an existing major crime firm in Essex.
The world of crime has remained very similar - there are still too many people out there chasing a ever decreasing pool of money to make a living. The government is still hell bent on cutting fees for legal aid work.
My work has diversified. I am now spending more time in the Crown Court than anywhere else. I have prosecuted cases in behalf of a local Council. My firm has also become a preferred supplier to prosecute Probation breaches in the Crown Court.
If people are still out there reading this blog then I will carry on posting about the murky world of a criminal solicitor.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Conflict of Interest
I spent seven hours yesterday afternoon and evening at a Police Station dealing with a Client. The case I dealt with was really quite serious and the evidence against my Client was pretty poor - the case needed a positive identification in a video identification procedure before the Police would have enough evidence to go to the CPS for the CPS to authorise a charge.
I got to the Police Station just after 4pm. After a short interview the Police announced that they were going to carry out a video identification procedure. The identification procedures took from 6pm through until 10.30pm to be completed. During that time my Client's video image was captured, eight "stooges" from a Police database of several thousand people were selected. Some video editing was undertaken by the Police Identification Officer to pixelate out my Client's tattoos. I then previewed the video parade and ultimately I was present when the two witnesses viewed the video identification parades.
I was tired yesterday. The fact that I was at the Police Station from 4pm until after 11pm made me grumpy - especially as it was not my turn to be on call. I could have phoned my colleague who was on call yesterday and told them to get down to the Police Station but I did not think it was appropriate to just leave the Client - I generally do not like to leave Client's in the middle of a case.
Whilst I sat observing the two witnesses view my Client in the video identification parade I had a sudden conflict between my urge to see the Client released from the Police Station and the thought that if he was not identified it was likely that the case against him would be dropped. This was a horrible thought as it was a conflict between my natural desire to do my best and achieve the best possible result for my Clients, and, the business instinct that a Police Station case that turns in to a Crown Court trial can be a case that generates a reasonable fee. Thankfully when the second witness identified my Client I felt a sense of disappointment that my Client was going to be charged with an offence and was quite likely to be kept in custody for the foreseeable future.
I got to the Police Station just after 4pm. After a short interview the Police announced that they were going to carry out a video identification procedure. The identification procedures took from 6pm through until 10.30pm to be completed. During that time my Client's video image was captured, eight "stooges" from a Police database of several thousand people were selected. Some video editing was undertaken by the Police Identification Officer to pixelate out my Client's tattoos. I then previewed the video parade and ultimately I was present when the two witnesses viewed the video identification parades.
I was tired yesterday. The fact that I was at the Police Station from 4pm until after 11pm made me grumpy - especially as it was not my turn to be on call. I could have phoned my colleague who was on call yesterday and told them to get down to the Police Station but I did not think it was appropriate to just leave the Client - I generally do not like to leave Client's in the middle of a case.
Whilst I sat observing the two witnesses view my Client in the video identification parade I had a sudden conflict between my urge to see the Client released from the Police Station and the thought that if he was not identified it was likely that the case against him would be dropped. This was a horrible thought as it was a conflict between my natural desire to do my best and achieve the best possible result for my Clients, and, the business instinct that a Police Station case that turns in to a Crown Court trial can be a case that generates a reasonable fee. Thankfully when the second witness identified my Client I felt a sense of disappointment that my Client was going to be charged with an offence and was quite likely to be kept in custody for the foreseeable future.
Friday, March 12, 2010
HCA - Finally
Today I received a certificate in the post from the Solicitors Regulation Authority. This certificate approved me as a Higher Courts Advocate for criminal proceedings giving me the ability to appear in all criminal cases before a Crown Court, Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court.
Although it is rather pleasing to have finally obtained the title of Higher Courts Advocate or Solicitor Advocate it is rather daunting knowing that at some point in the future I am going to be thrust in to the Crown Court for a trial in front of a Judge and Jury. I regularly deal with trials in the Magistrates and Youth Courts and it has been may years since I felt out of my comfort zone in a summary trial.
I have done work in the Crown Court as an advocate using what rights of audience a "normal" solicitor has - those being Crown Court bail applications, committals for sentence from the Magistrates Court, appeals against sentence and even appeals against conviction.
My career has spanned some 12 years in criminal law now. The first few years were filled with a burst of activity in obtaining new qualifications. First of all I became a trainee solicitor, then I obtained accreditation as a Police Station representative. I then qualified as a solicitor and subsequently became a "Duty Solicitor". I have waited about nine years for my next qualification - my status as a Solicitor Advocate. I am not sure that there are any further professional qualifications a criminal solicitor can obtain that would of any real use in a career in criminal defence work.
Now I am just waiting for my first proper brief to appear in the Crown Court.
Although it is rather pleasing to have finally obtained the title of Higher Courts Advocate or Solicitor Advocate it is rather daunting knowing that at some point in the future I am going to be thrust in to the Crown Court for a trial in front of a Judge and Jury. I regularly deal with trials in the Magistrates and Youth Courts and it has been may years since I felt out of my comfort zone in a summary trial.
I have done work in the Crown Court as an advocate using what rights of audience a "normal" solicitor has - those being Crown Court bail applications, committals for sentence from the Magistrates Court, appeals against sentence and even appeals against conviction.
My career has spanned some 12 years in criminal law now. The first few years were filled with a burst of activity in obtaining new qualifications. First of all I became a trainee solicitor, then I obtained accreditation as a Police Station representative. I then qualified as a solicitor and subsequently became a "Duty Solicitor". I have waited about nine years for my next qualification - my status as a Solicitor Advocate. I am not sure that there are any further professional qualifications a criminal solicitor can obtain that would of any real use in a career in criminal defence work.
Now I am just waiting for my first proper brief to appear in the Crown Court.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Can I Complain Please?
I attended at my local Police Station today to assist a Client who was attending at the Police Station on bail to be reinterviewed. As I was waiting for the Officer to collect my Client and myself I stood listening to a conversation that a member of the public was having with one of the Station's civilian station office staff.
The member of the public wanted to report a number of crimes. He said words to the effect of, "A person I work with has been defrauding a large number of companies out of thousands of pounds by using a false identity." The station officer replied, "Are you the victim?" The member of the public then explained that he felt it was his civic duty to report the matter to the Police, but no, he was not the victim.
The conversation then consisted of a five minute dialogue where the member of the public was told that because he was not the victim of the fraud he was not entitled to make a complaint, and that he should tell the victims of the fraud what was going on so that they could then decide whether or not to prosecute the matter. It was quite clear that the member of the public was unhappy with the advice as he repeatedly explained that he was a witness to several of the frauds and only wanted to help.
The member of the public was finally turned away, he walked past muttering, "Why do I bother to pay my council tax?" I did speak to the member of the public, as I knew him, and told him that if he did want to make the complaint he would be able to speak to someone that was interested in taking the complaint - he just needed to get past the barrier that the current station officer had created. He told me he would try again another time.I was somewhat surprised by the attitude of the station officer - they are the point of contact between the public and the police and she had given blatantly bad advice. The member of the public was entitled to make a complaint and the Police should have acted pro-actively in taking the information and then deciding what to do with that information when in possession of it.
The suggestion that only the victim could decide whether or not a prosecution should follow on from the complaint was completely wrong. I deal with many cases of domestic violence where the complainant withdraws their complaint but the prosecution continues on the say-so of the Crown Prosecution Service.It must be terribly demoralising for someone to make the effort to report a suspected crime to the Police to be told to go away. How would the station officer deal with a call from a member of the public who said, "I am witnessing a nasty assault, the man has just hit the other man round the head with a hammer?" Perhaps they might reply, "Sorry, sir. You are not the victim of an assault - perhaps you could get the victim to give us a call... What did you say? Well, when they get up off the floor out of their pool of blood could ask them to call us."
What this comes down to is sheer laziness on the part of the station officer.
The member of the public wanted to report a number of crimes. He said words to the effect of, "A person I work with has been defrauding a large number of companies out of thousands of pounds by using a false identity." The station officer replied, "Are you the victim?" The member of the public then explained that he felt it was his civic duty to report the matter to the Police, but no, he was not the victim.
The conversation then consisted of a five minute dialogue where the member of the public was told that because he was not the victim of the fraud he was not entitled to make a complaint, and that he should tell the victims of the fraud what was going on so that they could then decide whether or not to prosecute the matter. It was quite clear that the member of the public was unhappy with the advice as he repeatedly explained that he was a witness to several of the frauds and only wanted to help.
The member of the public was finally turned away, he walked past muttering, "Why do I bother to pay my council tax?" I did speak to the member of the public, as I knew him, and told him that if he did want to make the complaint he would be able to speak to someone that was interested in taking the complaint - he just needed to get past the barrier that the current station officer had created. He told me he would try again another time.I was somewhat surprised by the attitude of the station officer - they are the point of contact between the public and the police and she had given blatantly bad advice. The member of the public was entitled to make a complaint and the Police should have acted pro-actively in taking the information and then deciding what to do with that information when in possession of it.
The suggestion that only the victim could decide whether or not a prosecution should follow on from the complaint was completely wrong. I deal with many cases of domestic violence where the complainant withdraws their complaint but the prosecution continues on the say-so of the Crown Prosecution Service.It must be terribly demoralising for someone to make the effort to report a suspected crime to the Police to be told to go away. How would the station officer deal with a call from a member of the public who said, "I am witnessing a nasty assault, the man has just hit the other man round the head with a hammer?" Perhaps they might reply, "Sorry, sir. You are not the victim of an assault - perhaps you could get the victim to give us a call... What did you say? Well, when they get up off the floor out of their pool of blood could ask them to call us."
What this comes down to is sheer laziness on the part of the station officer.
Friday, March 14, 2008
How Odd
I read most of the media headlines published each day. there are a few stories every now and then that stick out. An article from the Times caught my attention today. Apparently a jury acquitted a man of murder and then some of the members of jury waited to see the Defendant to hug him!?
I have not heard of jury members hugging a defendant before. I have had a few hugs before when I have managed to get Client's acquitted of matters.
The jury system seems to be breaking down as jurors are either speaking out about decisions they did not agree with, or they seek some kind of fame from the trial that they were involved in. As an advocate who regularly appears at the Magistrates Courts I am used to the bench making decisions and then giving reasons for those decisions. A lot of the time the reasoning for the decision appears to be based on a 'stock' answer - but nonetheless they give a reason for their decision. Juries do not give reasons for their decisions, and in fact, that is the great mystery of the jury system. The deliberations in the jury room are matters that are not subject to any scrutiny, because the deliberations are confidential.
What will a jury member do next? Perhaps they can disagree with the majority verdict given and assist a defendant appeal against conviction based on their knowledge of the reasoning behind the decision?
A pensioner who was accused of killing his partner and then confessing to his pet cats was cleared of murder and manslaughter today – and then hugged by members of the jury before leaving the courtroom.
Mr Henton, 73, from Neath, South Wales, was accused of brutally bludgeoning his long-term partner, Joyce Sutton, to death after "snapping" in January 2006.
There were gasps from the public gallery at Swansea Crown Court as the forewoman of the jury declared Mr Henton not guilty of either murder or the alternative charge of manslaughter.
I have not heard of jury members hugging a defendant before. I have had a few hugs before when I have managed to get Client's acquitted of matters.
The jury system seems to be breaking down as jurors are either speaking out about decisions they did not agree with, or they seek some kind of fame from the trial that they were involved in. As an advocate who regularly appears at the Magistrates Courts I am used to the bench making decisions and then giving reasons for those decisions. A lot of the time the reasoning for the decision appears to be based on a 'stock' answer - but nonetheless they give a reason for their decision. Juries do not give reasons for their decisions, and in fact, that is the great mystery of the jury system. The deliberations in the jury room are matters that are not subject to any scrutiny, because the deliberations are confidential.
What will a jury member do next? Perhaps they can disagree with the majority verdict given and assist a defendant appeal against conviction based on their knowledge of the reasoning behind the decision?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)