The
current case management form used in our courts followed the guidance
from the Senior Presiding Judge in 2009; “Applying the Criminal
Procedure Rules”. The underlying principle is quite simply that the
innocent are acquitted and the guilty convicted. There are still some
defence solicitors who refuse to be bound by these rules. However in
practice it is very difficult to confound them when they insist on
putting the prosecution to proof. Be that as it may occasionally a
word or two on the form can mean the difference between acquittal and
conviction.
Some
months ago it seemed opportune to sit in the well of our court over
which one of our D.J.s was presiding. A small group of men was
alleged to have caused criminal damage on a deserted high street at
around 3.00a.m. All but one of the group admitted the offence on the
morning of trial and the singleton not having answered his bail was
tried in his absence. Prosecution relied upon CCTV the images on
which were not of the highest resolution but appeared to show the
defendant`s active part in the alleged offending. At the police
station where he had a lawyer there had been a “no comment”
interview and a pre prepared statement affirmed the defendant`s
denial of knowing the others in the group and his being there. Before
the prosecutor closed her case the District Judge asked to inspect
the case management form completed on the 1st listing for the
defendant who on that occasion was represented. He then commented for
all to hear that written in the unmistakeable flowing black ink of a
fountain pen equipped lawyer in the appropriate section 8 box was
ticked “yes” to the statement; “The defendant was present at
the scene of the offence alleged.” He continued, “At 8.4 (
disputed issue) in the same ink was written, “presence admitted but
not part of group nor participant in alleged offence”. The
defendant was convicted in his absence and a warrant without bail
issued for his arrest. Unlike his co offenders when he would have been sentenced
he would have received no discount.
I'm confused: how can the case management form be considered evidence, especially when the deferent is not present and anything the solicitors says or writes would be hearsay?
ReplyDeleteSurprised the Legal Advisor didn't pick this up even if the DJ didn't. Oops, sorry. This may be one of the new procedures where no LA is present during a trial conducted by a DJ!
ReplyDelete