My last sitting of the year provided a
bag well and truly mixed. With the
administration unable to provide more than about two thirds of the courts with
benches of three it was inevitable that work was distributed as and where there
was capacity to take it even although it required all involved to be available
past our closing time of 5.00p.m.
Raymond T was our first customer. He wished to make five statutory declarations
spanning a period from 2000 to 2008.
Owing to the complexity of his history, some apparent mental confusion
on his part and his previous court meetings
with the administration deep in the building`s bowels we had quite a number of
documents placed before us by the L/A.
His applications were some weeks beyond the 21 days knowledge rule. For four out of the five he was given the
benefit of the doubt based upon much confusion in the chronology from the court office and various other
factors. He was allowed to proceed out
of time. The fifth was shown to be based upon a false statement. He could not have been unaware of proceedings
because documentation showed unequivocally that he had been present in court on
that particular day. He was advised by
the L/A of the consequences if he insisted upon applying for that fifth stat.
dec. Wisely he declined. We ordered him to wait outside the courtroom
for the police liaison officer to “have
a chat” with him. We later were told that the admonishment
handed out had had a salutary effect.
Suspicion of lies being told in the
witness box is an everyday occurrence but evidence of such is unusual. Joanne B was before us to be tried on a
s.172....failing to give information.
She was found guilty. The
mandatory six points made her a totter.
Owing to her not being represented and the L/A being a little harassed
she was offered an opportunity to plead exceptional hardship before the
official disposal had been made. When
being questioned on her application she stated that the loss of her license
would mean the loss of her job. She was
informed that that did not constitute exceptional hardship and although she was
allowed to ramble to a certain extent she was unable to show anything else to meet the criteria required. She then completed her means form which when
passed to the bench had nil income declared in the appropriate column. When
questioned she told us that she had lost her job in August and was living on
her boyfriend`s generosity being yet for some reason to apply for JSA. The
bench retired with the L/A to consider this prima facia case of perjury. The bench was divided and the Christmas
spirit prevailed.
On this unusual day we also undertook
some video remand and bail cases from the local nick. Prisoner DS was down to be sentenced
subsequent to having had a PSR undertaken whilst he was Her Majesty`s
guest. His lawyer then told us that he
had just found out that that task had not been done. He was the only person in the courtroom who
was aware of that. We called a probation
officer who calmly informed us that the prison authorities had not been able to
provide the opportunity on the previously agreed date. He was surprised at our surprise. “This is happening all the time”, he
said, “I thought you would have been
aware of the situation.” We inquired
why there was not a “Non Report” in front of us or why the court had not been
informed. He shrugged, apologised and
asked to leave to attend another matter.
Thank you, readers, for spending some of
your precious minutes on this site.
Unless there are very interesting goings on before the year`s end upon
which I might be tempted to comment I hope to be back here in 2015.
A Very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
from J.P.
