Arrived back
yesterday for a two o`clock start and yet again a complainant is
giving the CPS agent cause to request an adjournment. The upshot was
that he refused to identify himself. All the while the defendant was
looking quite smug behind the dock`s reinforced glass. The officer
in the case, under oath, identified the reluctant witness as the
person who had answered to his name at the address at which he was
living when inquiries had been made by the officer. The agent seemed
perplexed. She virtually asked the L/A in an audible aside as to
what could be done. The chairman queried whether we should call the
Spanish Inquisition. The case was dismissed and the defendant and
witness left the court together.
The remainder of our sitting was taken up by feeding off the crumbs of the four other courts sitting. Not sure whether our non trials go into the "ineffective" or "cracked" column of the statistics. Never mind......the three minor motoring offences for which one very stupid and two very arrogant defendants had appeared were in the "guilty after trial" column.
Eh? Are you suggesting that simply refusing to identify yourself is all you need to do to get off? Or a witness refused to identify themselves? Is prevarication not a route to the cells in your court.
ReplyDelete