A frequent and most important function
at Magistrates` Courts is the question of bail. The starting point for most
bail decisions is that a defendant has a right to unconditional bail. Like many
of life`s choices sometimes these decisions are more difficult than others. A conversation with a former colleague
recently reminded me of a particularly interesting case.
The defendant from West Africa was
making his first appearance in court and was represented by the duty solicitor.
He was charged with possession of a false identity document with the intention
of using it [a passport], an indictable only offence and a false driving
license. He had been on police bail since his arrest. When asked in court to
identify himself he gave his name as per the court list but a different
address. There would be a formal adjournment until his next appearance and the
CPS prosecutor was asked if there were any observations on bail to which the
reply was, "Your worship he`s been on police bail and turned up today....no
objections to unconditional bail." Unsurprisingly his representative
agreed. My colleagues and I were surprised. In view of the charge he was
questioned about his time in the country and the nature of his "new"
address. Two years in England and he pays a friend £200/month to live in his
flat. He had no documents with him to confirm those details. We decided that we
needed more information and instructed the prosecutor to inform the appropriate
police officer to make enquiries about the address. By now it was 12.45pm. The
defendant was reminded he was still on bail and was told to wait outside the
courtroom until he was called back in. Five minutes later the officer returned
and the prosecutor told us the address did indeed exist and was above a Chinese
takeaway in an adjoining borough. A defendant is rarely questioned directly in
a situation like this [bail] when he has a legal representative acting on his
behalf. The duty solicitor was told that we intended to ask the defendant upon
his return to descibe the location of the address given specifically its
position above the Chinese takeaway. The "duty" told us he would
intervene if the question[s] became "improper". During this time our
legal adviser was of the opinion that we were "overdoing it" with our
concern and respectfully told us so. Bail is a magistrates` decision not that
of the legal adviser and he apparently contented herself that he had said
enough. The usher who was suffering a twisted
ankle was asked to summon the defendant. He went outside the courtroom and returned a minute later stating that the defendant was not in the corridor
outside and so had made a call over the Tannoy. Knowing of the usher`s
difficulties the "duty" offered to scour the upper floors for his
client although the Tannoy could be heard all over the building including the
lavatories. A minute after one o`clock he returned to the courtroom after
confirming the usher had made a second call on the Tannoy. The defendant had
absconded! A warrant without bail was issued.
Sometimes the combined legal opinions
of a prosecutor and legal adviser are less sensitive to a situation than a
J.P.`s nose for the nasty smells emanating from a defendant`s utterings.
I imagine the “Professionals”, feel that it doesn’t matter, either he turns up or he doesn’t. If he does then the court process rolls on, if he doesn’t then he’s proved he should be on remand, and anyway it will be someone else's problem.
ReplyDeleteThe cynic in me can almost hear the duty solicitor saying, "Walking out of the court was a mistake, my client doesn’t understand English enough to be clear he was expected to wait".