Another tale. by Raistlin

User avatar
"An accused person has an absolute and inalienable right to bail..." (Bail Act 1976)

I sometimes wonder what planet Crown Prosecutors live on.

I was in Court on Tuesday and a chap was brought up from the cells remanded in custody by the Police.

What happened was that he'd been charged with several offences of sending obscene communications across public networks.
More specifically, he told his ex partner, via text, exactly where he intended to insert a hammer, amongst other things.

He was remanded on bail by the Police on condition that he should not contact the alleged injured party.

He left the Police station, drove straight to his children's primary school, where he waited until his ex had collected their three children and was about to drive them home. This was at normal school closing time and as you can imagine the place was full of children and parents etc.

He then drove his car at her car, hitting it several times in an attempt to force it off the road, on one occasion forcing her car to hit a pram, luckily, causing no physical injury to the baby therein although you can imagine the terror caused to all those people with their children in tow.

Eventually forcing her car to a stop, he jumped out and proceeded to demolish the front windscreen with a hammer, while his ex and his three children screamed in fear for their lives inside the car.

Eventually, having been confronted by a large crowd of angry people he fled the scene. He was eventually arrested and was charged with threats to kill, ABH (his ex had glass pieces in her face), dangerous driving, affray, section 4 Public Order Act, and one or two other charges. This of course was a few minutes after he had been bailed with a condition not to contact his ex.

After laying this out for us, the Crown Prosecutor explained that he didn't have any objections, in principle, to bail, "providing the defendant was given a stern telling off". "I am satisfied that Mr **** is not of a violent nature and that this was an unusual event".

The defence advocate sat there looking smug, as well she might, clearly having come to an accommodation with the CPS.

Meanwhile, on the Bench, my colleague and I were somewhat taken aback.

After the briefest of consultations we had absolutely no hesitation in remanding the individual in custody after having indicated that the case was suitable, just, to be heard in the Magistrates' Court and reserving the right to commit to Crown Court for sentence upon a plea or finding of guilt should it be in the interests of justice to do so.

Whilst pronouncing our decision to remand in custody, Mr ***** chose to have another "unusual" tizzy fit, such that it eventually took four dock officers to subdue him sufficiently to be safely returned to the cells and added a further charge of contempt of Court to his impressive list.

I wonder how I would have felt if I'd woken the next morning, having released him on bail, to headlines "Mother and three children savagely beaten by enraged ex-partner." or worse.

Come to that, I wonder how that particular Crown Prosecutor would have felt.

Cogito ergo sum... maybe?

Click the image to go to Nano-Meet Website

Posted 31 Mar 2016, 18:21 #1 

User avatar
Borg Warner
You're a very naughty boy, would suffice - not.

Thankfully Paul (your) common sense and sound judgement prevailed.

Gary M.

Posted 31 Mar 2016, 19:15 #2 

Should you not have also locked up the Crown Prosecutor to protect the public from an absolute idiot.

Perhaps this is the answer for the defendant and the Prosecutor:

That apart Mrs Lincoln, did you enjoy the play


Posted 31 Mar 2016, 20:36 #3