75ZT Community

...not funny but maybe thought provoking.

I chaired the trial today of a chap accused of two counts of section 39 assault by beating. More often referred to as common assault on his partner, ie. domestic violence.

The defendant chose, as was his right, to defend himself.

I don't intend to go into the details of the alleged offences. Suffice to say it wasn't pleasant. What I would share with you is the way in which the trial was conducted.

The prosecution called, amongst others, his partner and their two children, both boys, one of seven years and the other eight years. Their evidence was considered vital to the prosecution case as they were witnesses to both incidents. Usual precautions were taken in that the children were examined by live video link rather than face to face in the Court room.

Unfortunately, the defendant had no regard for their tender years, and following a very gentle examination in chief by the prosecutor, the defendant tore into them with such ferocity that we had to halt the trial on several occasions to advise him regarding his cross examination technique. He just managed to stay on the right side of the divide however, and we were unable to interfere sufficiently with his examination of each of the children that he reduced them both to tears. The prosecutor had done her best to put them at ease in what must have been a bewildering experience and it seemed that the defendant took great delight in wrecking what little confidence and trust of the Court that they had. In fact, the eldest, at one point, said "Why don't you love me any more daddy?" The defendant also managed to sneak in the comment "Wait until I get you at home" to the youngest. He had the sense not to try that one again but had plenty of other stunts.

The partner had agreed for the children to give evidence first so that their ordeal would be over as quickly as possible and was therefore forced to remain outside the Courtroom, although she could apparently clearly hear the children crying via the video-link. Something we didn't discover until she came to give her own evidence.

Both the injured party's parents were in Court as was the father of the defendant, each of whom were reduced to tears by the viciousness of the defendant's comments in examination.

She had been offered the chance of a screen but had refused as she thought the defendant had the right to see his accuser.

If we thought the children had had it rough, his cross-examination of his partner was nothing short of brutal and it quickly became clear that he was scoring points rather than conducting a valid cross-examination. The prosecutor was on his feet almost permanently, objecting to the inquisition. The injured party was reduced to, quite frankly, a gibbering wreck.

Late this afternoon, the prosecutor, after having called several other witnesses, explained that there were no agreed statements to be read as the defendant had insisted upon the attendance of every single witness and with that, closed the prosecution case.

Our clerk then invited the defendant to open his defence case, at which point, with a smirk on his face he said

"Oh no, I've had my say and I've got what I wanted. You don't get the chance to have a pop at me. I'll change my plea to guilty."

Luckily, his threat to the youngest child allowed us to remand him in custody, even against the background of the crass new rules for remand.

The press were not allowed to report his name owing to the over-riding requirement to protect the identity of the children.

The Court awaits a pre sentence report.

I think you must have bitten your lip a few times Paul. Very frustrating. The man is a bully and a coward.

One very sick, and I don't mean unwell, individual. I sincerely hope he gets the max sentence he's entitled to as he did not plead guilty at the earliest opportunity and, as for threatening a child with violence!

Unfortunately Mick, as I think I've mentioned before, Section 39 is a summary only offence so we can't send it to the Crown Court for greater sentence and we are limited to six months custody for each offence up to a maximum of one year, which, in the light of my liberal views seems oddly insufficient.

As you know, I am convinced that custody doesn't have any rehabilitative function and as such is expensive, self-defeating and pretty much useless, but this is one of the cases where the only effective function of custody, that of retribution, seems appropriate.

Mike, in my view, all domestic violence offences are those of a bully and coward.

Anybody want to be a Magistrate?

What a complete and utter arshloch. While his cowardly useless putrid self is inside, I hope his Partner and Kids get the help to move away so that he is left with what he deserves when he comes out. That being nothing. Without a doubt, his anger will be turned on them when he is released and sadly they could become yet another statistic

"Anybody want to be a Magistrate" Only if they bring back Hanging

Back in the good old days, Magistrates could sentence to death you know

raistlin wrote:Back in the good old days, Magistrates could sentence to death you know

I wish they would again, especially with some of the terrible stories you read almost daily in the papers.

I have absolute admiration for you Paul in cases such as this. I would not be able to keep my emotions in check and....

Was he trying to be "clever" do you think? The good old days were perhaps harsh, sometimes too harsh but in a case such as this I hark back to them.

Gary, he knew he was going to custody as there was not a snowball's chance in hell that he'd be found not guilty based upon his defence so he decided to take one last chance at hurting his family.

Could he not have been done for contempt? Because it seems he's manipulated the court for his own ends?

No Gary, he was very careful to push only so far and no further.

In addition, the defence must be given the widest latitude in the way they conduct their defence.

We stepped in where we could though.

Thanks Paul

Borg Warner wrote:I have absolute admiration for you Paul in cases such as this. I would not be able to keep my emotions in check and....

Was he trying to be "clever" do you think? The good old days were perhaps harsh, sometimes too harsh but in a case such as this I hark back to them.

I fully agree with both Bold bits.

I remember doing Jury service, ok so it is Crown not Magistrates, but one Defendant did everything in his power to delay proceedings and I do mean EVERYTHING. He openly threatened the Jurors, Judge, Courtroom staff. Constantly swore and became abusive in a horrific way. Even his Solicitor sitting next to him put his head in his hands by the end of day four and you could see quite clearly he was asking himself why he had been lumbered with this case lol. He was one of three being prosecuted in the same case and even the other two looked tired of his constant stupidity.

The Case did end up being thrown out, as he eventually managed to get to the Jurors, well, one of them. That was the Third time the Case had been heard. Never understood why he was not thrown out the room and the case heard without him. He was clearly and deliberately using delaying tactics, for whatever reason.

The Case was 22 Years ago and was for Conspiracy to commit Arson, Fraud and Murder.

Just a comment really on the Law..
When the great train robbery criminals were brought to justice, some faced 30 years in prison. Because the good old British people sort of regarded them with a kind of Robin Hood mentality, the cry went out that, in this country a monetary crime is treated with far more seriousness than a personal injury crime. Anyone offering to jail these criminals were offered a new identity, but in rape, murder, GBH or any such crime, you are on your own. This hasn't changed over the years.
I feel that this woman and her children should be offered this new identity and the husband should be jailed.