CLOWN PROSECUTION SERVICE
Discussion
Once again, the CPS have shown themselves to be complete clowns, by failing to come to court properly prepared.
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/115080...
That aside the CPS, not for the first time have made a balls up for which the tax payer is going to end up footing the bill.
A few years ago now, AGTLAW was representing a neighbour of Mr Gill in a motoring case that hinged on an unsigned calibration certificate, and the CPS claimed not to know that the calibration evidence was being disputed - despite a clear statement to that effect having been presented to them in court at the previous case management hearing. The adjournment led to costs against the CPS.
So WHY is the tax payer still paying for these basic errors... why are the individuals not having the costs docked from their wages? Or better still why are we not getting CPS staff of sufficient calibre?? The no hope-ers should be fired!
http://www.thewestmorlandgazette.co.uk/news/115080...
The Wezzy Gezzy said:
THE trial of a zoo owner accused of allowing a wild animal to escape has been adjourned for legal reasons.
David Gill, owner of South Lakes Safari Zoo in Dalton, appeared at Furness Magistrates Court today charged with allowing a Sacred Ibis bird to escape into the wild on three occasions last year between July 19 and October 30. He denies the charges.
Gill was facing three charges of contravening section 14 (b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
This means that Mr Gill was accused of allowing an animal listed as being unsuitable for release in the UK to escape from his possession.
But the court found that the Sacred Ibis is not on the list of animals deemed unsuitable for release and that Mr Gill should have been charged with contravening section 14 (a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - allowing an animal that is not a resident of, native to or a regular visitor to the UK to escape.
Judge Gerald Chalk said: "The Sacred Ibis is not in the list of animals on Section (b) and so the charge should have been on Section (a). The Crown Prosecution Service failed to notice that until today."
The error was noticed by Mr Gill's defence team which notified the Crown Prosecution Service on August 14 but received no reply which means that the CPS could now be forced to pay Mr Gill's legal costs.
Mr Gill has never denied the bird belonged to him but allowing it to escape may not amount to a criminal offence if it can be proven that the Sacred Ibis species is a regular visitor to the UK or indeed lives here permanently.
Steve Walker, for the defence, said: "I am entitled to defend whether or not this bird is native or regularly visits the country and I can't because the charges have been changed."
Mr Walker also went on to say that there were large colonies of the Sub-Saharan bird in Belgium and France and there have been reports of sightings in Norfolk.
Judge Chalk ruled to adjourn the case.
He said: "I can't allow the trial to proceed if it puts prejudice on the defence - they were pushed to challenge if the Sacred Ibis contravenes Section 41 (a) but they weren't advised to do that. It is certainly the fault of the Crown Prosecution Service in allowing the charge to go forward and in not responding to a letter from the defence dated August 14. I allow the adjournment."
The case will now be heard at Kendal Magistrates Court on November 19.
The defendant in this case is rather gung ho in his business, but the bird concerned returned to it's home, it did not escape into the wild and not return, so I am not sure any interest is served by bringing a prosecution - more of an issue when licensing was beig considered I'd have thought.David Gill, owner of South Lakes Safari Zoo in Dalton, appeared at Furness Magistrates Court today charged with allowing a Sacred Ibis bird to escape into the wild on three occasions last year between July 19 and October 30. He denies the charges.
Gill was facing three charges of contravening section 14 (b) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
This means that Mr Gill was accused of allowing an animal listed as being unsuitable for release in the UK to escape from his possession.
But the court found that the Sacred Ibis is not on the list of animals deemed unsuitable for release and that Mr Gill should have been charged with contravening section 14 (a) of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 - allowing an animal that is not a resident of, native to or a regular visitor to the UK to escape.
Judge Gerald Chalk said: "The Sacred Ibis is not in the list of animals on Section (b) and so the charge should have been on Section (a). The Crown Prosecution Service failed to notice that until today."
The error was noticed by Mr Gill's defence team which notified the Crown Prosecution Service on August 14 but received no reply which means that the CPS could now be forced to pay Mr Gill's legal costs.
Mr Gill has never denied the bird belonged to him but allowing it to escape may not amount to a criminal offence if it can be proven that the Sacred Ibis species is a regular visitor to the UK or indeed lives here permanently.
Steve Walker, for the defence, said: "I am entitled to defend whether or not this bird is native or regularly visits the country and I can't because the charges have been changed."
Mr Walker also went on to say that there were large colonies of the Sub-Saharan bird in Belgium and France and there have been reports of sightings in Norfolk.
Judge Chalk ruled to adjourn the case.
He said: "I can't allow the trial to proceed if it puts prejudice on the defence - they were pushed to challenge if the Sacred Ibis contravenes Section 41 (a) but they weren't advised to do that. It is certainly the fault of the Crown Prosecution Service in allowing the charge to go forward and in not responding to a letter from the defence dated August 14. I allow the adjournment."
The case will now be heard at Kendal Magistrates Court on November 19.
That aside the CPS, not for the first time have made a balls up for which the tax payer is going to end up footing the bill.
A few years ago now, AGTLAW was representing a neighbour of Mr Gill in a motoring case that hinged on an unsigned calibration certificate, and the CPS claimed not to know that the calibration evidence was being disputed - despite a clear statement to that effect having been presented to them in court at the previous case management hearing. The adjournment led to costs against the CPS.
So WHY is the tax payer still paying for these basic errors... why are the individuals not having the costs docked from their wages? Or better still why are we not getting CPS staff of sufficient calibre?? The no hope-ers should be fired!
I'm not sure whether it's relevant here, but are you aware how few people they have to prepare / prosecute?
The Mags' prosecutor will literally see the file on the day of the trial. The last one I spoke to who was prosecuting a case I was a witness in had three handed to him at 09:00 he'd never seen before.
The Mags' prosecutor will literally see the file on the day of the trial. The last one I spoke to who was prosecuting a case I was a witness in had three handed to him at 09:00 he'd never seen before.
La Liga said:
I'm not sure whether it's relevant here, but are you aware how few people they have to prepare / prosecute?
The Mags' prosecutor will literally see the file on the day of the trial. The last one I spoke to who was prosecuting a case I was a witness in had three handed to him at 09:00 he'd never seen before.
What are you saying? The CPS isn't fit for purpose? The Mags' prosecutor will literally see the file on the day of the trial. The last one I spoke to who was prosecuting a case I was a witness in had three handed to him at 09:00 he'd never seen before.
We've been trying to tell you that for ages.
This is a sacred ibis, a very dangerous bird by all accounts!
while taking my (then) 4 year old son to Sydney zoo for his birthday, we allowed him to choose what he wanted for his 'lunch' he chose a hot dog. just about to have his first bit and.... along walks a sacred ibis, and stole the sausage out of the bun and took off....
17 years later this is still remembered by him. These birds can scar for life, and we really should have given him trauma counselling.
having said they are so common here they are classed as a pest.
while taking my (then) 4 year old son to Sydney zoo for his birthday, we allowed him to choose what he wanted for his 'lunch' he chose a hot dog. just about to have his first bit and.... along walks a sacred ibis, and stole the sausage out of the bun and took off....
17 years later this is still remembered by him. These birds can scar for life, and we really should have given him trauma counselling.
having said they are so common here they are classed as a pest.
La Liga said:
81k people in prison would disagree.
I'd have to look at more data, but I think the majority of cases will run smoothly and properly. It's not hard to find bad examples in a sample size of that many.
A bit of a distinction needs to be made between the CPS in the Magistrates' Court (who are often very poorly prepared - they usually turn up at court with no idea of what they're going to be prosecuting that day) and the people they use for more serious stuff in the Crown Court, who tend to be a little more organised.I'd have to look at more data, but I think the majority of cases will run smoothly and properly. It's not hard to find bad examples in a sample size of that many.
In my experience the caseworkers who prepare the paperwork and make the charging decisions for summary offences seem to have only a vague grasp of the legal system of this country. I came close to having one on the witness stand in a S.172 case I was defending (for myself) because she didn't seem to understand. They folded before it got that far though, which was a little upsetting.
Most summary charging offences are made by the police, I believe. CPS direct will make them, otherwise.
I don't even know if the CPS have "caseworkers" who prepare the files. The police do the files, they are checked by a police department (very few of them with a vast quantity of work) who just do files and their upgrades, then it goes to court. Someone looks at it if there's a NG plea and may add CPS notes, but I'm not sure if this is the prosecutor who appears at the first hearing.
The issue is time. Whoever is prosecuting CC trails will have more time and, I imagine, Paralegals to help them. Even then I've heard of QCs having very limited time for CC preparation.
I don't even know if the CPS have "caseworkers" who prepare the files. The police do the files, they are checked by a police department (very few of them with a vast quantity of work) who just do files and their upgrades, then it goes to court. Someone looks at it if there's a NG plea and may add CPS notes, but I'm not sure if this is the prosecutor who appears at the first hearing.
The issue is time. Whoever is prosecuting CC trails will have more time and, I imagine, Paralegals to help them. Even then I've heard of QCs having very limited time for CC preparation.
Ozzie Dave said:
This is a sacred ibis, a very dangerous bird by all accounts!
while taking my (then) 4 year old son to Sydney zoo for his birthday, we allowed him to choose what he wanted for his 'lunch' he chose a hot dog. just about to have his first bit and.... along walks a sacred ibis, and stole the sausage out of the bun and took off....
17 years later this is still remembered by him. These birds can scar for life, and we really should have given him trauma counselling.
having said they are so common here they are classed as a pest.
At the risk of being traumatised by a whoosh parrot. while taking my (then) 4 year old son to Sydney zoo for his birthday, we allowed him to choose what he wanted for his 'lunch' he chose a hot dog. just about to have his first bit and.... along walks a sacred ibis, and stole the sausage out of the bun and took off....
17 years later this is still remembered by him. These birds can scar for life, and we really should have given him trauma counselling.
having said they are so common here they are classed as a pest.
What. The. f
k. I can't talk for all forces, of course, but such files in my old force area would be prepared by an outsourced unit, forced on the police under PFI, which would deal with the initial paperwork and correspondence. They supply the case papers to the CPS. From what I hear, the prosecutor would be lucky to get them by 0900 on the day.
But that's no reason not to criticise the terribly underfunded CPS in the search for a cheap headline.
Mind you, when the police prosecuted their own offences, some forces used an inspector in court and he would be given papers that were still being completed well into that day's sitting.
But that's no reason not to criticise the terribly underfunded CPS in the search for a cheap headline.
Mind you, when the police prosecuted their own offences, some forces used an inspector in court and he would be given papers that were still being completed well into that day's sitting.
They might be underfunded, but in each case I illustrated, they were warned/alerted before going to court, but chose to ignore this and turn up in this case with an incorrect charge, and in the older case apparently unprepared, and as a result lost some of that funding in unnecessary costs.
I was a witness for the CPS last year and provided the police at the time of the incident with video footage of a car crash I was involved in (handed them the memory card). The CPS couldn't find the footage on the day so had to rely on my witness testimony instead, luckily they brought up another independent witness that was driving behind that verified my version of events and the other driver was convicted at crown court of DWDCA.
If I'm ever in another crash where it's not my fault I shan't be handing over the footage until I've made multiple backups.
Whilst waiting for my case they had a case where a driver was speeding and he got off as the CPS didn't let the officer that arrested him know that he was due that day in court.
If I'm ever in another crash where it's not my fault I shan't be handing over the footage until I've made multiple backups.
Whilst waiting for my case they had a case where a driver was speeding and he got off as the CPS didn't let the officer that arrested him know that he was due that day in court.
un1corn said:
Didn't his defence team drop the ball by advising the CPS early?
Wouldn't they have been better using that in court and bringing it up as a defence?
I suspect they can only defend the charge that is brought, not a charge that should have been brought.Wouldn't they have been better using that in court and bringing it up as a defence?
The new charge will have a defence of it's own.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff