Another tale by Raistlin


User avatar
Raistlin
A friend of mine in the North West of England was chairing a trial yesterday, where the defendant was charged with causing death by careless driving.

Not the easiest of trials to run. Quite a bit of tension in the Court as you might imagine, with the relatives of the deceased looking for closure and the defendant accused of taking the life of another.

CPS said they were ready to proceed with all witnesses present. Defence advocate leapt to her feet and suggested that they had not been given disclosure of most of the prosecution evidence. A point which Andrea raised with the CPS advocate who rifled through his papers, muttering and shaking his head and clearly trying to be seen to be doing something when in fact, the question was simple. Had the CPS given the defence advance disclosure or not? She reminded him of the simplicity of her question, requiring an answer of yes, no or don't know.

Eventually he conceded that which had become obvious to Andrea and her colleagues almost immediately. Disclosure had only been partially completed.

What this means is that the evidence not disclosed cannot be adduced by the prosecution and, apparently it clearly blew the prosecution case out of the water. He then applied for an adjournment to make full and proper disclosure to the defence. Something which the defence can object to although normally, other than a cursory comment, such an application is not contested. Certainly in such an important case. However, the defence advocate got to her feet and made it clear that the application was opposed, on the grounds that this was the second hearing of the trial, the first hearing having been adjourned because the CPS had not made full disclosure.

The defence advocate took her seat saying as she did so that the defence were ready to proceed with the trial.

As this was the second occasion that the very same thing had occurred, the Bench had no choice, in the interests of justice, but to insist that the prosecution case should begin, at which point the CPS advocate rose to his feet and asked leave to offer no evidence, leaving the Bench with no option but to find the defendant not guilty.

Andrea and her Bench don't know whether the defendant was guilty or not. Nobody does. The trial wasn't heard. If he was not guilty he has been robbed of his chance to prove it in Court. If he was guilty, he is a very lucky individual.

What of the family of the deceased? No closure for them I fear.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 29 Nov 2012, 19:55 #1 

User avatar
takestock
Such a sad story Paul, they appear not to be interested in the truth or justice, only in winning the case.
Photobucket = Tossers

Dave....

Posted 30 Nov 2012, 12:00 #2 

User avatar
MN190
It's not about winning or the truth and more about justice.
Without full disclosure what else is missing? It could just as easily also be vital evidence that proves the defendant is not the guilty party that is being hidden.
Given this was the second time you would have thought the prosecution would have learn't after the first time!

Posted 30 Nov 2012, 19:07 #3 

Last edited by MN190 on 30 Nov 2012, 20:01, edited 1 time in total.


Jumper
Reading elsewhere, apparently it’s not a rare occurrence. I wonder if CPS improver barristers are allowed to ‘practice’ on the unfortunate defendants with impunity and do not have to suffer the indignity of regular appraisals with the ultimate sanction of dismissal.

I had to appear as a witness for the prosecution when a drunken veterinary surgeon caused extensive damage to my house. (No, he didn’t have his hand up the letter box). After his defence made a big deal of his false claims to be seeking rehabilitation, and then trying everything to discredit me and malign my character, the CPS barrister didn’t even call me for rebuttal! Result: case dismissed for lack of evidence. Nobody, apart from me and the four coppers who ‘restrained’ him on the night, showed the slightest concern. If I had been wealthy rather than handsome and had engaged my own eagle, he would, given his record over 30 years, have gone to prison. Never again.

Posted 30 Nov 2012, 19:56 #4 

User avatar
Borg Warner
Alas no closure for either side; as you say Paul is the defendant guilty or not(?), the deceased's family wish for justice and therefore closure for them with a guilty (one would assume) verdict. Not good for the CPS either, serves only to highlight their error as well as "what are we paying them for" thoughts . Also the police would no doubt feel exasperated; they feel a crime has been committed and someone should be convicted. Everyone loses on this one I suggest?

How common is this Paul?

Gary M

Posted 30 Nov 2012, 20:04 #5 

User avatar
Raistlin
Borg Warner wrote:How common is this Paul?


Do you really want to know Gary?
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 30 Nov 2012, 20:27 #6 

User avatar
Borg Warner
raistlin wrote:
Borg Warner wrote:How common is this Paul?


Do you really want to know Gary?


Not really, but?

We watch the current crop of "real like" police documentaries, you know the ones we mean. Find it exasperating the number of possible culprits let off because of either lack of evidence or technicalities.

Go on then, how many?

Posted 03 Dec 2012, 13:39 #7 

User avatar
Raistlin
Perhaps this might sound somewhat cynical and possibly a cheap shot, but I tend to treat any case in which the cps have managed to achieve the required standard as a bonus.
Paul

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website
Image

Posted 03 Dec 2012, 14:09 #8 


Top

cron