24. Sep. 2010. @ 08:22:23 by TheJusticeofthePeace
There are various arguments for
the increasing deployment of District Judges [magistrates` courts] throughout
the country. Indeed a few months ago there was indignation amongst J.P.s when
advertisements were published seeking applicants for thirty new appointments;
since modified to thirty applicants to be available if the need arises. I will
not rehearse now these arguments but a case from the retiring room will, I
hope, illustrate why a bench of three is a safeguard for every defendant.
A few weeks ago a middle aged Kosovan man was in the dock. He had pleaded guilty many months and appearances previously to driving with excess alcohol but had put forward a “special reason” defence of having had his drink spiked by a fellow countryman. He had admitted to drinking two glasses of wine but claimed that a further non alcoholic cocktail had had alcohol introduced to it without his knowledge. A previous bench had set a date when his case would be tried. He had indicated that he would call two witnesses. As is usually required in such matters an expert would prepare a paper and give evidence on the ramifications of the spiked drink. The other witness, the court notes indicated, would be the person who did the spiking! Represented by the duty solicitor on his last but two appearance he agreed to the directions re the witnesses and a date was set. On his next appearance alone he had told the court he could not afford to pay a lawyer and also to pay for the expert. A final date was set when he appeared before me and my colleagues. He duly turned up with a barrister who explained why he was asking for a further adjournment.
Firstly he was at pains to tell us that he was mindful of costs to the public purse if we refused his application and he had to appeal at Crown Court. He was told that the court appreciated his concern for the Coalition`s problems in reducing the deficit and then allowed him to continue with the irony not lost on him. Apparently the “spiker”, we were told, had just lost his mother and he had left two weeks previously for Kosovo for the funeral. “When had he been made aware of his witness`s inability to attend”? was the question put. After some hurried consultation we were told that the previous day the witness’s wife had phoned the defendant telling him her husband had leftEngland
Our bench was split. It was our final decision that the application be granted; the expert submitting his report within six weeks and a recommendation that apart from acts of God the matter would go ahead on the next occasion. So this drink driver will retain his license for another couple of months until his defence is tried. If he succeeds he carries on; if not he will be disqualified for at least twelve months.
Colleagues reading this and others also might consider whether or not the bench was naïve in making the decision it made. My point is not the decision itself but that it was made by three people. A District Judge might have taken one position or the other but for defendants a jury of three is more of a safeguard against a rogue decision than a single individual acting as both judge and jury.
A few weeks ago a middle aged Kosovan man was in the dock. He had pleaded guilty many months and appearances previously to driving with excess alcohol but had put forward a “special reason” defence of having had his drink spiked by a fellow countryman. He had admitted to drinking two glasses of wine but claimed that a further non alcoholic cocktail had had alcohol introduced to it without his knowledge. A previous bench had set a date when his case would be tried. He had indicated that he would call two witnesses. As is usually required in such matters an expert would prepare a paper and give evidence on the ramifications of the spiked drink. The other witness, the court notes indicated, would be the person who did the spiking! Represented by the duty solicitor on his last but two appearance he agreed to the directions re the witnesses and a date was set. On his next appearance alone he had told the court he could not afford to pay a lawyer and also to pay for the expert. A final date was set when he appeared before me and my colleagues. He duly turned up with a barrister who explained why he was asking for a further adjournment.
Firstly he was at pains to tell us that he was mindful of costs to the public purse if we refused his application and he had to appeal at Crown Court. He was told that the court appreciated his concern for the Coalition`s problems in reducing the deficit and then allowed him to continue with the irony not lost on him. Apparently the “spiker”, we were told, had just lost his mother and he had left two weeks previously for Kosovo for the funeral. “When had he been made aware of his witness`s inability to attend”? was the question put. After some hurried consultation we were told that the previous day the witness’s wife had phoned the defendant telling him her husband had left
Our bench was split. It was our final decision that the application be granted; the expert submitting his report within six weeks and a recommendation that apart from acts of God the matter would go ahead on the next occasion. So this drink driver will retain his license for another couple of months until his defence is tried. If he succeeds he carries on; if not he will be disqualified for at least twelve months.
Colleagues reading this and others also might consider whether or not the bench was naïve in making the decision it made. My point is not the decision itself but that it was made by three people. A District Judge might have taken one position or the other but for defendants a jury of three is more of a safeguard against a rogue decision than a single individual acting as both judge and jury.
No comments:
Post a Comment