Sometimes those who appear before us
either through ignorance or arrogance or a combination of both do nothing to
help themselves despite the best efforts of their representatives who have
their foot on the accelerator of remorse when their unmanageable clients are holding
heavily on the handbrake.
Gladstone was such a man. He was 24 with a long history of offending, unemployed
and by three women he had fathered four
children the oldest of whom we were told was six and the youngest four months
the mother of whom was pregnant yet again.
Six months previously whilst on a suspended sentence order now expired
he had committed two offences (one of which was either way) within twenty four
hours against the above mentioned girl friend.
A previous bench had sentenced
him to supervision and two requirements for those matters. He had been before
the courts twice since for breach of these requirements and each time the
original sentence had been revoked and he had been re sentenced with more
stringent requirements. He stood nonchalantly
in the dock with a knitted hat on his head, his hands in his pockets and his
jaws chewing gum at a furious rate. From
the bench it was remarked that some might think his action and appearance might
suggest he had little respect for the court.
His lawyer motioned him to take off the headgear, take his hands from
his pockets and to remove the gum. He
did what was advised with a clear indication of his contempt for those in
court. Lawyers generally go through the
motions seeking to mitigate the results of their clients` behaviour. Our Mr Rumpole displayed all his legal
eloquence as was his duty culminating in a plea that he be given that one more
chance to turn the behavioural corner. The
court probation officer was asked by the bench if he knew why a curfew had not
been suggested in previous PSRs. He replied
that as far as he knew Gladstone had explained his difficulty in compliance
with such an order insofar as he would not have been able to visit his then
pregnant girl friend with whom he did not share accommodation. Horace R confirmed that as per the situation just
described by the probation officer his
current relationship with his aforementioned pregnant girl friend precluded his
client`s compliance with a curfew order.
Apparently he lived with his mother whose house was some distance away. When
he concluded that the bench should consider a fine or a conditional discharge
in these unusual circumstances three experienced magistrates strained their facial
muscles so that their innermost emotions could be kept under control. Those
who describe our courts as a form of theatre have a point. All the world's a stage, And all the men and women merely players; They
have their exits and their entrances, And one man in his time plays many parts.
In the retiring room we considered that a
long and onerous curfew would be a just outcome. We called our L/A who after some hesitation
told us that owing to expiry of the original SSO when the breaches were
committed such a disposal was not lawful.
Now my memory might be a bit confused on that detail and if that explanation
is wrong I hold up my hand. The upshot
anyway was that we had to start again.
We decided to impose a custodial sentence suspended for a year for the original either way
matter with a very onerous curfew. A similarly suspended concurrent shorter custodial period was imposed
for the summary offence. After pronouncement
Gladstone indicated he wanted the curfew address to be that of the mother of
his youngest child and mother – to - be again, against
whom his activities had brought him to court in the first place. We ordered that the address on the court
list......his mother`s house, be the location of his home curfew. He seemed irritated.
