From
childhood we are conditioned to fairy tales and “happy endings”; when the hero
gets justice and the villain gets his comeuppance. When we begin to
understand the world`s realities we appreciate a sense of
satisfaction in these outcomes. However as we mature most of us
realise that life is not a fairy tale and that some heroes don`t get
justice and some villains get away with their villainy. So it is
sometimes in court.
Recently
we had a case where the outcome depended upon the evidence of two
unsavoury characters who happened to be man and wife and a defendant
whose tale of woe was such as to arouse sympathy in even the most
hardened of magistrates. We were forced to accept the evidence of
the complainants partly because the defendant however hard he tried
just could not provide a telling response. Indeed subsequent to his
sentencing we discovered that as had been alluded to in the evidence
of the complainants our defendant had some weeks previously been
found guilty in his absence of a strict liability driving offence
occasioned by the actions of the complainants.
We
suggested to him unofficially that an out of time application to
appeal against that other sentence might be an action to consider.
For
us the matter was a salutary reminder that the facts presented at
trial were the basis of our decision making however disagreeable we
might have considered the outcome.
Was he unrepresented?
ReplyDeleteHe was represented under s38
Delete