@ 08. Jul. 2010. – 16:12:11
Applications for legal aid for appeals at Crown Court have to be made at the Magistrates` Court where the original hearing was held. This procedure is fairly recent according to His Honour when I was sitting on an appeal not so long ago.
I had been reminded of the history of legal aid when sitting in the justices` room with a colleague from another bench prior to the case being called.
The appeal was against conviction and sentence for driving with excess alcohol. She was of previously good character. The appellant who was unrepresented before us and, she said, at the Magistrates` Court where it seems legal aid had been refused. She told us she was a recent immigrant from Bosnia. By her appearance she was a strict Moslem although her face wasn`t covered; an escape for His Honour who would have had to decide whether a fully veiled person in her position was appropriate in the circumstances. Her religious observance was pertinent to the case as we discovered.
She had accompanied as a passenger two [non Moslem] friends to what she thought was a cafe but in reality was a bar. The driver had parked nearby. Never having drunk alcohol she offered to sit outside in the vehicle whilst her friends had a drink. Shortly afterwards one of them brought her out a can and a packet of crisps. The friend was doubtful if she was legally parked and asked the appellant who had a valid license to move the car a short distance to an unregulated parking spot. So after emptying the can, she was thirsty, she drove off to be stopped by police after a short time owing to a broken rear light. The officer`s notebook reported a smell of alcohol, she was breathalysed and taken to the station where the reading was 79 in breath. So far so good.....but what was the basis of her appeal? Eventually the judge teased out of her that she hadn`t known she had been drinking alcohol; she had never in her life had an alcoholic drink....not exactly unknowingly drinking a spiked drink.....the coke and vodka defence as His Honour termed it. Crown counsel offered to speak to her "off the record" in an attempt to expedite matters. The upshot was that she asserted now that in addition she had driven only about 20M. She had not mentioned this on arrest, at the station. There was no way of knowing if these factors had been stated at the original hearing where she had pleaded guilty. So there were two grounds....short distance travelled and a variation of a spiked drink defence. Without representation for the lady or the presence of the arresting police officer for the Crown it was impossible to continue. A young barrister awaiting the following case offered her assistance to the court and at this stage the clerk advised his honour that legal aid to the dock from the Crown Court was no longer possible; an appellant had to apply at Magistrates` Court. The young counsel nevertheless offered her services. However the conclusion was that the matter would have to be adjourned for the police officer to give evidence re distance followed which was not in his notebook and that legal aid would be necessary on both means and interests of justice.
So a saving of the cost of legal aid at the lower court will have led to greater costs at Crown Court. Whether the outcome would have been much different if a duty solicitor had interviewed her at the outset and discussed the possibilities is open to question but the fact remains that we as magistrates are going to have to get used to increasing numbers of un-represented defendants.
I had been reminded of the history of legal aid when sitting in the justices` room with a colleague from another bench prior to the case being called.
The appeal was against conviction and sentence for driving with excess alcohol. She was of previously good character. The appellant who was unrepresented before us and, she said, at the Magistrates` Court where it seems legal aid had been refused. She told us she was a recent immigrant from Bosnia. By her appearance she was a strict Moslem although her face wasn`t covered; an escape for His Honour who would have had to decide whether a fully veiled person in her position was appropriate in the circumstances. Her religious observance was pertinent to the case as we discovered.
She had accompanied as a passenger two [non Moslem] friends to what she thought was a cafe but in reality was a bar. The driver had parked nearby. Never having drunk alcohol she offered to sit outside in the vehicle whilst her friends had a drink. Shortly afterwards one of them brought her out a can and a packet of crisps. The friend was doubtful if she was legally parked and asked the appellant who had a valid license to move the car a short distance to an unregulated parking spot. So after emptying the can, she was thirsty, she drove off to be stopped by police after a short time owing to a broken rear light. The officer`s notebook reported a smell of alcohol, she was breathalysed and taken to the station where the reading was 79 in breath. So far so good.....but what was the basis of her appeal? Eventually the judge teased out of her that she hadn`t known she had been drinking alcohol; she had never in her life had an alcoholic drink....not exactly unknowingly drinking a spiked drink.....the coke and vodka defence as His Honour termed it. Crown counsel offered to speak to her "off the record" in an attempt to expedite matters. The upshot was that she asserted now that in addition she had driven only about 20M. She had not mentioned this on arrest, at the station. There was no way of knowing if these factors had been stated at the original hearing where she had pleaded guilty. So there were two grounds....short distance travelled and a variation of a spiked drink defence. Without representation for the lady or the presence of the arresting police officer for the Crown it was impossible to continue. A young barrister awaiting the following case offered her assistance to the court and at this stage the clerk advised his honour that legal aid to the dock from the Crown Court was no longer possible; an appellant had to apply at Magistrates` Court. The young counsel nevertheless offered her services. However the conclusion was that the matter would have to be adjourned for the police officer to give evidence re distance followed which was not in his notebook and that legal aid would be necessary on both means and interests of justice.
So a saving of the cost of legal aid at the lower court will have led to greater costs at Crown Court. Whether the outcome would have been much different if a duty solicitor had interviewed her at the outset and discussed the possibilities is open to question but the fact remains that we as magistrates are going to have to get used to increasing numbers of un-represented defendants.
No comments:
Post a Comment