King of the Road ITV 8pm
Discussion
Even the crumpet from Brake summed it up nicely. He can only get people off because of badly worded legislation and sloppy prosecution procedures. There are probably many more cases where, as Freeman pointed out, a decent defence solicitor would be able to get the case thrown out on a technicality or procedural error.
I don't think it's cunning, he's just doing his job. Think about it, you get pulled for drink driving, go see a solicitor, what would he say? Most likely he'll tell you to put on your best suit, go to court, plead guilty, grovel to get the fine as low as you can and accept that you are going to be banned.
This guy looks at it from a different angle. Yes you may well be guilty but has the prosecution done their job properly? I am willing to bet that in a lot of 'open and shut cases', the precise letter of the law isn't followed. I don't mean that the police don't do their job properly (you can leave that to the CPS!), but there may well be tiny little details that get missed. In the vast majority of cases, it won't matter because the guy will plead guilty anyway, or plead not guilty but without any real argument.
An example is in something like continuity of evidence. In my job I gather evidence that is used in prosecutions. Sometimes, I will take photographs of something. Digital photographs are frowned upon because of the ease with which they can be edited, so we are talking genuine film here. I take a photograph and put in a statement that I have done so, I then take the film from the camera and give it to a processing person. That fact also goes in the statement. The film is processed and the pictures are given back to me along with a statement from the processing person saying that I gave them the film, they processed it and gave the pictures back to me. I then present the photgraphs as exhibits in the case. If any part of that procedure wasn't followed, so there was no continuity, a smart defence solicitor could have the pictures declared inadmissable. Depending on what it is a picture of, could mean that there was then no case to answer because there is no evidence.
Just because you get caught doing something illegal, doesn't mean you are going to get done for it. That depends on how good a solicitor you can afford. By all accounts, this guy is good!
This guy looks at it from a different angle. Yes you may well be guilty but has the prosecution done their job properly? I am willing to bet that in a lot of 'open and shut cases', the precise letter of the law isn't followed. I don't mean that the police don't do their job properly (you can leave that to the CPS!), but there may well be tiny little details that get missed. In the vast majority of cases, it won't matter because the guy will plead guilty anyway, or plead not guilty but without any real argument.
An example is in something like continuity of evidence. In my job I gather evidence that is used in prosecutions. Sometimes, I will take photographs of something. Digital photographs are frowned upon because of the ease with which they can be edited, so we are talking genuine film here. I take a photograph and put in a statement that I have done so, I then take the film from the camera and give it to a processing person. That fact also goes in the statement. The film is processed and the pictures are given back to me along with a statement from the processing person saying that I gave them the film, they processed it and gave the pictures back to me. I then present the photgraphs as exhibits in the case. If any part of that procedure wasn't followed, so there was no continuity, a smart defence solicitor could have the pictures declared inadmissable. Depending on what it is a picture of, could mean that there was then no case to answer because there is no evidence.
Just because you get caught doing something illegal, doesn't mean you are going to get done for it. That depends on how good a solicitor you can afford. By all accounts, this guy is good!
Interesting programme. From his point of view the police and cps are incompetent and he exploits the fact, as any good lawyer would. He actually says if he was Lord Chancellor he would cut the aquittals dramatically by introducing better training of police & cps. Let's hope he never is.
The woman from BRAKE was the kind of whinging cow one would expect from that organisation - pretty? I don't think so, stupid? yes.
The woman from BRAKE was the kind of whinging cow one would expect from that organisation - pretty? I don't think so, stupid? yes.
Joe911 said:
The woman from BRAKE was the kind of whinging cow one would expect from that organisation - pretty? I don't think so, stupid? yes.
I actually expected her to be scathing of the lawyer - but she seemed pretty realistic and was blaming the police and courts too.
I thought she was - scathing of Nick as well
I'm sure if BRAKE could they would have him dis-barred.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff