section 172:Norfolk case dismissed
Discussion
Attended court this morning (2/2) for a sec 172 only. Sat in the back for a little while, then down to business
Transcript follows:
Clerk: There is one charge before the court today, that on the 20th August 2003 at Norwich having been required to by or on behalf of the chief constable of police of Norfolk constabulary you did fail to give information on which it was in your power to give in which might have led to the identification of the driver of a vehicle namely ford xxxxxx was alleged to have been guilty of an offence. To that charge to you plead guilty or not guilty?
Me: I plead "Not Guilty"
Clerk: Not guilty
Clerk: When I can find a trial date, we can go straight to fix the date for a PTR
CPS Lawyer: It may be one of those where if this gentleman is prepared to tell me why he's saying he's not guilty maybe i'm able to take a view on that today.
Magistrate: Absolutlely
CPSL: If that helps Mr P.....
Me: Certainly, by all means, I am keen to comply as much as possible
CPSL: It's one of those where we are in open court and i’m saying to you that maybe if I hear you're saying you’re not guilty and vie had a chance to look at the file it maybe we can proceed today or I’ll bin the thing.
Me: Yes, fair enough. Do I need to stand?
CPSL: Clearly Ma'am, you're aware I have no file
Mag: Ah
CPSL: It was an MCA matter, can I have the file please, wasn’t expecting a not guilty.
Clerk:*laughing* hands CPSL some paperwork
CPSL: Right Mr P.... again, you're not on oath, if you could just give me an indication, why do you say you're not guilty.
Me: Because the requirements of Section 172 of the Road Traffic act have been complied with.
CPSL:*pause* Now I've no axe to grind, it's just whether I can deal with it today, when you say they have been complied with?
Me: The section 172 form requires the driver of a motor vehicle to provide information to the chief of police regarding an alleged offence. That information has been provided and provided to the chief constable of Norfolk Police on 2 occasions. Once, by the owner of the motor vehicle to nominate me as the driver, and by myself as the driver. You will find however the form remains unsigned as there is no legal requirement under section 172 to do so.
CPSL: I don’t agree with Mr P...., I think it's old law?
Me: Are we going to Broomfield?
CPSL: Mr P...., what I’m saying is, my view is neither here nor there, your court file doesn’t show ANY form, signed or otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to deal with it today. I’m happy to show you what we have here.
Me: With me I have Broomfield, Yorke & Mawdesely, PACE and a receipt letter from the Police showing the form was returned.
CPSL: Can I ask.....again, Ma'am, I'll stay on my feet, it's one of those, erm, clearly I've got nothing in my file regarding Mr P.... If you'll remember the Dwight Yorke case etc, it came up last year regarding the argument and public policy, do you comply if you don’t sign it, if you don’t sign it, we can’t evidence it etc etc etc. There is nothing on my file, there is nothing to say this gentleman returned it, maybe there’s evidence on the police file and maybe Mr P.... can write in and give us more information on which to make a decision. I am not an Eastern Lawyer; I’ve stepped in today, as Mr Ivory is ill. What I would suggest is that, rather than fix a trial today, I think what would actually assist, if Mr P.... wants to write with the copies of the receipts he has from the police. If the Police have lost something and he has a copy of the receipt from the Police i’m happy to continue, now that we are possessed of the matter if you actually send copies to us, I could make enquires, and if I’m satisfied with what you have said.
Me: Im More than happy to deal with this today, I have letters with me from Norfolk Constabulary to show the form was received and am more than happy to quote case law regarding signature requirements of S.172.
CPSL: Im sure you can, you wouldn’t be making me proceed today if you couldnt. Much as I would have liked to have helped you gentlemen, I'll need an adjournment. It’s the usual course of practice Ma'am.
Me: I strongly object to an adjournment on the grounds that the Crown has had more than enough time to prepare for the trial.
CPSL: Obviously Mr P....., you don’t understand the workings, this is the first 3 minutes I have had the file, we are not possessed of them until a plea goes in either way.
Me: A Plea was submitted 2 months ago
Mags: Perhaps we can have our legal advisor here to advise us on how to proceed. Take a seat please Mr P....
Me: Thank you
Clerk: It is the courts point of view which seems to be the case, matters first came to court on the 17th of December last year, where there was no appearance by Mr P...., in fact you did write to the court indicating a Not Guilty Plea
Me: That is correct yes
Clerk:*Mumbles*, the case was therefore adjourned until today, so from that point of view, Mr P..... Was notified by the court that the case was to be adjourned until today.
Me: Again, that is correct; I phoned this establishment on Friday to find out if this was to be a PTR or a trial. I was told this was to be the full hearing.
Clerk: Did they actually say "trial"
Me: No, the words "full hearing"
Clerk: The court also notified the police to send the file to the crown prosecution service, and at that particular point, the CPS were not involved with the case. I can check if you wish to see if the court did notify the police, but if the court file is marked to the effect. I will check to see if the police did provide the file and it's somewhere in your office, having not been allocated to today's court.
CPSL: I'll quickly make enquires, but as you're aware ma'am, this is the first time I have heard of the matter and contrary to all common belief we are actually independent of the police, that is our remit, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to make enquiries but.....
Mags: The confirmation Mr P.... has got, is that worth looking at?
Me: I have letters from Norfolk Constabulary showing the s.172 notice was received.
CPSL: Do you have any letters from the CPS?
Me: I do not
CPSL: Just from the police
Me: I have had no contact with the CPS at all
Clerk: I just need to check with the office to make sure the court did actually contact the police to send the file to the CPS. It seems as though they didn’t. If it is that they didn’t, it's your decision Ma'am to actually go ahead with this case. Mr P..... was informed by this court that to all intents and purposes the trial was to take place today, that’s by the wording of the adjournment, which of course makes it difficult because the Police haven’t sent the file to the crown prosecution service, which hopefully will contain all the letters which Mr P.... has mentioned, so can I just check that we did actually send the file to the CPS.
Mags: Let’s have a comfort break.
(30 mins later after a conversation with the CPSL regarding his adjournment position in that he hadn’t got a file and didn’t have a clue where I was about to come from)
Clerk: Ma'am, from the courts point of view I did check with the court record on the 17th December, there is a form which is sent to the police to forward their files to the CPS, this form was completed on the 17th December which does include Mr P..... Name. I Believe the CPS is now going to request you adjourn this case for another day
CPSL: It’s right, and it’s proprietary, that what I want to do in Open court is repeat a conversation I have just had with Mr P.... What I did was explain to Mr P...., and you can understand why I'm doing it with someone who is unrepresented, it was my understanding that the wrong notice has been sent to him from the court and that it would have never been a trial following a not guilty plea, you had to prove under section 9 that there is no plea, or fix a starting date, but that is an issue with the court, and the court can clarify that. I have spoken to the Police and they are making their own enquiries (phone chirps) and this may now be the message if you will allow me ma'am...
CPSL:I can tell you that D***** Sh******* from the Norwich Police station that the CPS was never sent the file, and again I say this in Open court, because its with the safety camera team, who are making statements as we speak. Not withstanding that, what they are saying is "Yes, we have never sent you this file" as a result of that Ma'am, I have no file and clearly have not had a chance to prepare for this today. Ma'am, it is my adjournment request and the request is in very simple terms, if you look at balancing the interests of justice then your starting point is that the CPS is independent of the police, we have never been possessed of this matter, the matter has been communicated between the police and the court, my understanding is that the wrong notice was sent to Mr P....., Mr understanding is that the police are making enquiries. Mr P..... If this matter does not go ahead today will have been greatly inconveniced, nothing I say can go against that, of course he's been greatly inconveniced. He's here and he's here having had an adjournment notice saying his trial is going to go ahead today. He's here, with what looks like Lots of well researched case law to put forward his case today and i’m here as a prosecutor who wasn’t even aware of the matter until he walked through the door and said "I’m here for a trial". Ma'am, the reason I’m going to repeat part of a conversation I had with Mr P.....What I said to Mr P..... Was I would try to look at the matter pragmatically, based on everything I have said is based on the fact that you have every right for this matter to be heard today. What I said to Mr P…. is that if he took the view that there was no criticism of us as an Independent entity and it was wrong of me to deal with case law as a trial today in this matter because clearly I'd never heard of the thing then if it is an argument on case law alone, and this was the discussion that took place as to whether you have to sign the form, and if that is the only issue “Do you have to sign the form to comply with section 172”, then I would suggest, what would normally happen is a court would say “Skeleton Argument”, to support the case law. what I suggested to Mr P…. is if he should make an application to adjourn and we would listen to that and give it full merit, but if you went against the application and decided that it was right in the interests of justice to allow me to at least consider the trial issues on another day, then perhaps the sensible thing to do would be to list this for a matter of weeks only with Mr P…. serving the crown with his case law to do two things. 1) If his law is good and his law is intact, I have no doubt in my mind on a section 172 matter in terms of the other things that we deal with of perhaps more gravitas, that we would take a sensible pragmatic view and if not, and if it’s a case where we disagree with his case law, we could actually serve case law back upon Mr P….. That would actually set out why we reject the case law proposition. Again referring to the conversation with Mr P….. In your absence, I do not feel this is one where we benefit from live evidence. I think I understand exactly where Mr P…. is coming from, he’s saying, I returned them, I didn’t sign them, you can’t use them as evidence, I have case law which says “I don’t have to sign it and I have complied”. We could actually fix a small hearing for 3 or 4 weeks, allowing for service of the case law, the crown will either take a view in the interim, or we can have the hearing then, at least fully prepared with a skeleton argument in front of the court and your colleagues could make the decision whether they accept Mr P….. View of the law, or the crowns view of the law. It’s for that reason Ma’am, that I have repeated everything and I know I’ve got at length to repeat everything I said to Mr P…. while you were gone, that I would apply for an adjournment, because I am not ready and I don’t think the crown can be criticised as an independent entity. Now I hand over to Mr P…. who I have explained has full right to put the application that this should be heard today
Me: I appreciate the prosecutor’s openness in discussing with you that which he discussed with me. I find it odd that he has not received any statements from the Police and the safety camera partnership unit, as I have. I have two statements in my position from members of the safety camera team stating that the forms had not been returned “satisfactorily” which makes me wonder why the crown themselves have not received these statements. I have also queried Norfolk Constabulary on their legal position and received a reply. They seem to be communicating with me, why are they not communicating with the CPS? Again I strongly object to any adjournment today on the grounds that I have been informed that this is the hearing and I have come prepared for the hearing and as my friend here has pointed out, it does greatly inconvenience me to be here and it will greatly inconvenience me again should you choose to accept this adjournment
Mags: Anything else Mr P…..
Me: No, that’s it, thank you.
Clerk: Your position Ma’am is whether or not to adjourn this case, from a procedural point of view, Mr P….. Has done nothing wrong, he has attended court today expecting a trial and the adjournment notice did actually state that. The breakdown in communications appears to be between the Police and the CPS, but if there is anyone to blame for this matter, it would not be the CPS but the police. So it is up to you if you feel in the interests of justice, it would be better to adjourn the hearing or in the interests of justice allow the matter to proceed today
*recording unclear*
(2 min pause)
Mags: The bench has decided that in the interests of Justice, we wish to proceed this morning
CPSL: I offer no evidence, you know I can’t proceed; I have nothing in front of me
Mags: Would you stand Mr P….. In that case, your case is dismissed, you are free to leave
Me: Thank you ma’am
Transcript follows:
Clerk: There is one charge before the court today, that on the 20th August 2003 at Norwich having been required to by or on behalf of the chief constable of police of Norfolk constabulary you did fail to give information on which it was in your power to give in which might have led to the identification of the driver of a vehicle namely ford xxxxxx was alleged to have been guilty of an offence. To that charge to you plead guilty or not guilty?
Me: I plead "Not Guilty"
Clerk: Not guilty
Clerk: When I can find a trial date, we can go straight to fix the date for a PTR
CPS Lawyer: It may be one of those where if this gentleman is prepared to tell me why he's saying he's not guilty maybe i'm able to take a view on that today.
Magistrate: Absolutlely
CPSL: If that helps Mr P.....
Me: Certainly, by all means, I am keen to comply as much as possible
CPSL: It's one of those where we are in open court and i’m saying to you that maybe if I hear you're saying you’re not guilty and vie had a chance to look at the file it maybe we can proceed today or I’ll bin the thing.
Me: Yes, fair enough. Do I need to stand?
CPSL: Clearly Ma'am, you're aware I have no file
Mag: Ah
CPSL: It was an MCA matter, can I have the file please, wasn’t expecting a not guilty.
Clerk:*laughing* hands CPSL some paperwork
CPSL: Right Mr P.... again, you're not on oath, if you could just give me an indication, why do you say you're not guilty.
Me: Because the requirements of Section 172 of the Road Traffic act have been complied with.
CPSL:*pause* Now I've no axe to grind, it's just whether I can deal with it today, when you say they have been complied with?
Me: The section 172 form requires the driver of a motor vehicle to provide information to the chief of police regarding an alleged offence. That information has been provided and provided to the chief constable of Norfolk Police on 2 occasions. Once, by the owner of the motor vehicle to nominate me as the driver, and by myself as the driver. You will find however the form remains unsigned as there is no legal requirement under section 172 to do so.
CPSL: I don’t agree with Mr P...., I think it's old law?
Me: Are we going to Broomfield?
CPSL: Mr P...., what I’m saying is, my view is neither here nor there, your court file doesn’t show ANY form, signed or otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to deal with it today. I’m happy to show you what we have here.
Me: With me I have Broomfield, Yorke & Mawdesely, PACE and a receipt letter from the Police showing the form was returned.
CPSL: Can I ask.....again, Ma'am, I'll stay on my feet, it's one of those, erm, clearly I've got nothing in my file regarding Mr P.... If you'll remember the Dwight Yorke case etc, it came up last year regarding the argument and public policy, do you comply if you don’t sign it, if you don’t sign it, we can’t evidence it etc etc etc. There is nothing on my file, there is nothing to say this gentleman returned it, maybe there’s evidence on the police file and maybe Mr P.... can write in and give us more information on which to make a decision. I am not an Eastern Lawyer; I’ve stepped in today, as Mr Ivory is ill. What I would suggest is that, rather than fix a trial today, I think what would actually assist, if Mr P.... wants to write with the copies of the receipts he has from the police. If the Police have lost something and he has a copy of the receipt from the Police i’m happy to continue, now that we are possessed of the matter if you actually send copies to us, I could make enquires, and if I’m satisfied with what you have said.
Me: Im More than happy to deal with this today, I have letters with me from Norfolk Constabulary to show the form was received and am more than happy to quote case law regarding signature requirements of S.172.
CPSL: Im sure you can, you wouldn’t be making me proceed today if you couldnt. Much as I would have liked to have helped you gentlemen, I'll need an adjournment. It’s the usual course of practice Ma'am.
Me: I strongly object to an adjournment on the grounds that the Crown has had more than enough time to prepare for the trial.
CPSL: Obviously Mr P....., you don’t understand the workings, this is the first 3 minutes I have had the file, we are not possessed of them until a plea goes in either way.
Me: A Plea was submitted 2 months ago
Mags: Perhaps we can have our legal advisor here to advise us on how to proceed. Take a seat please Mr P....
Me: Thank you
Clerk: It is the courts point of view which seems to be the case, matters first came to court on the 17th of December last year, where there was no appearance by Mr P...., in fact you did write to the court indicating a Not Guilty Plea
Me: That is correct yes
Clerk:*Mumbles*, the case was therefore adjourned until today, so from that point of view, Mr P..... Was notified by the court that the case was to be adjourned until today.
Me: Again, that is correct; I phoned this establishment on Friday to find out if this was to be a PTR or a trial. I was told this was to be the full hearing.
Clerk: Did they actually say "trial"
Me: No, the words "full hearing"
Clerk: The court also notified the police to send the file to the crown prosecution service, and at that particular point, the CPS were not involved with the case. I can check if you wish to see if the court did notify the police, but if the court file is marked to the effect. I will check to see if the police did provide the file and it's somewhere in your office, having not been allocated to today's court.
CPSL: I'll quickly make enquires, but as you're aware ma'am, this is the first time I have heard of the matter and contrary to all common belief we are actually independent of the police, that is our remit, so as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy to make enquiries but.....
Mags: The confirmation Mr P.... has got, is that worth looking at?
Me: I have letters from Norfolk Constabulary showing the s.172 notice was received.
CPSL: Do you have any letters from the CPS?
Me: I do not
CPSL: Just from the police
Me: I have had no contact with the CPS at all
Clerk: I just need to check with the office to make sure the court did actually contact the police to send the file to the CPS. It seems as though they didn’t. If it is that they didn’t, it's your decision Ma'am to actually go ahead with this case. Mr P..... was informed by this court that to all intents and purposes the trial was to take place today, that’s by the wording of the adjournment, which of course makes it difficult because the Police haven’t sent the file to the crown prosecution service, which hopefully will contain all the letters which Mr P.... has mentioned, so can I just check that we did actually send the file to the CPS.
Mags: Let’s have a comfort break.
(30 mins later after a conversation with the CPSL regarding his adjournment position in that he hadn’t got a file and didn’t have a clue where I was about to come from)
Clerk: Ma'am, from the courts point of view I did check with the court record on the 17th December, there is a form which is sent to the police to forward their files to the CPS, this form was completed on the 17th December which does include Mr P..... Name. I Believe the CPS is now going to request you adjourn this case for another day
CPSL: It’s right, and it’s proprietary, that what I want to do in Open court is repeat a conversation I have just had with Mr P.... What I did was explain to Mr P...., and you can understand why I'm doing it with someone who is unrepresented, it was my understanding that the wrong notice has been sent to him from the court and that it would have never been a trial following a not guilty plea, you had to prove under section 9 that there is no plea, or fix a starting date, but that is an issue with the court, and the court can clarify that. I have spoken to the Police and they are making their own enquiries (phone chirps) and this may now be the message if you will allow me ma'am...
CPSL:I can tell you that D***** Sh******* from the Norwich Police station that the CPS was never sent the file, and again I say this in Open court, because its with the safety camera team, who are making statements as we speak. Not withstanding that, what they are saying is "Yes, we have never sent you this file" as a result of that Ma'am, I have no file and clearly have not had a chance to prepare for this today. Ma'am, it is my adjournment request and the request is in very simple terms, if you look at balancing the interests of justice then your starting point is that the CPS is independent of the police, we have never been possessed of this matter, the matter has been communicated between the police and the court, my understanding is that the wrong notice was sent to Mr P....., Mr understanding is that the police are making enquiries. Mr P..... If this matter does not go ahead today will have been greatly inconveniced, nothing I say can go against that, of course he's been greatly inconveniced. He's here and he's here having had an adjournment notice saying his trial is going to go ahead today. He's here, with what looks like Lots of well researched case law to put forward his case today and i’m here as a prosecutor who wasn’t even aware of the matter until he walked through the door and said "I’m here for a trial". Ma'am, the reason I’m going to repeat part of a conversation I had with Mr P.....What I said to Mr P..... Was I would try to look at the matter pragmatically, based on everything I have said is based on the fact that you have every right for this matter to be heard today. What I said to Mr P…. is that if he took the view that there was no criticism of us as an Independent entity and it was wrong of me to deal with case law as a trial today in this matter because clearly I'd never heard of the thing then if it is an argument on case law alone, and this was the discussion that took place as to whether you have to sign the form, and if that is the only issue “Do you have to sign the form to comply with section 172”, then I would suggest, what would normally happen is a court would say “Skeleton Argument”, to support the case law. what I suggested to Mr P…. is if he should make an application to adjourn and we would listen to that and give it full merit, but if you went against the application and decided that it was right in the interests of justice to allow me to at least consider the trial issues on another day, then perhaps the sensible thing to do would be to list this for a matter of weeks only with Mr P…. serving the crown with his case law to do two things. 1) If his law is good and his law is intact, I have no doubt in my mind on a section 172 matter in terms of the other things that we deal with of perhaps more gravitas, that we would take a sensible pragmatic view and if not, and if it’s a case where we disagree with his case law, we could actually serve case law back upon Mr P….. That would actually set out why we reject the case law proposition. Again referring to the conversation with Mr P….. In your absence, I do not feel this is one where we benefit from live evidence. I think I understand exactly where Mr P…. is coming from, he’s saying, I returned them, I didn’t sign them, you can’t use them as evidence, I have case law which says “I don’t have to sign it and I have complied”. We could actually fix a small hearing for 3 or 4 weeks, allowing for service of the case law, the crown will either take a view in the interim, or we can have the hearing then, at least fully prepared with a skeleton argument in front of the court and your colleagues could make the decision whether they accept Mr P….. View of the law, or the crowns view of the law. It’s for that reason Ma’am, that I have repeated everything and I know I’ve got at length to repeat everything I said to Mr P…. while you were gone, that I would apply for an adjournment, because I am not ready and I don’t think the crown can be criticised as an independent entity. Now I hand over to Mr P…. who I have explained has full right to put the application that this should be heard today
Me: I appreciate the prosecutor’s openness in discussing with you that which he discussed with me. I find it odd that he has not received any statements from the Police and the safety camera partnership unit, as I have. I have two statements in my position from members of the safety camera team stating that the forms had not been returned “satisfactorily” which makes me wonder why the crown themselves have not received these statements. I have also queried Norfolk Constabulary on their legal position and received a reply. They seem to be communicating with me, why are they not communicating with the CPS? Again I strongly object to any adjournment today on the grounds that I have been informed that this is the hearing and I have come prepared for the hearing and as my friend here has pointed out, it does greatly inconvenience me to be here and it will greatly inconvenience me again should you choose to accept this adjournment
Mags: Anything else Mr P…..
Me: No, that’s it, thank you.
Clerk: Your position Ma’am is whether or not to adjourn this case, from a procedural point of view, Mr P….. Has done nothing wrong, he has attended court today expecting a trial and the adjournment notice did actually state that. The breakdown in communications appears to be between the Police and the CPS, but if there is anyone to blame for this matter, it would not be the CPS but the police. So it is up to you if you feel in the interests of justice, it would be better to adjourn the hearing or in the interests of justice allow the matter to proceed today
*recording unclear*
(2 min pause)
Mags: The bench has decided that in the interests of Justice, we wish to proceed this morning
CPSL: I offer no evidence, you know I can’t proceed; I have nothing in front of me
Mags: Would you stand Mr P….. In that case, your case is dismissed, you are free to leave
Me: Thank you ma’am
Defendant 
Am I to understand that this approach by the CPS lawyer, i.e. not proceeding, avoids setting a precedent in the interpretation of the s172 signing law?
In not allowing the issue to be "judged", then is it still clearly open for them (well, the police, really, I expect) to proceed against others, without being in contempt?
Naturally, you will gather that I'm not a lawyer...
In not allowing the issue to be "judged", then is it still clearly open for them (well, the police, really, I expect) to proceed against others, without being in contempt?
Naturally, you will gather that I'm not a lawyer...
A good result for a hasty driver. Even though I am 'Old Bill' I am not a fan of speed camera's and speed detection per say and it nice every now and then for the 'little person' to win. It just goes to show that being well prepared is 9/10ths of the law.
Having worked with (some would say against) CPS for many years I would say in the defence of the police that the papers were almost cetainly sent to CPS days if not weeks before.
By offering 'no evidence' all CPS were saying to the court was ' I am not ready@. That being that if, as they did, the court decided to proceed then the lawyer had no option but to pull the trial.
Having read at great length into R V's Broomfield and other similar matters it is not just a matter of not signing the form but also includes an element of not filing in the form yourself as well.
Well done anyway.
Ming the Mischievous
Having worked with (some would say against) CPS for many years I would say in the defence of the police that the papers were almost cetainly sent to CPS days if not weeks before.
By offering 'no evidence' all CPS were saying to the court was ' I am not ready@. That being that if, as they did, the court decided to proceed then the lawyer had no option but to pull the trial.
Having read at great length into R V's Broomfield and other similar matters it is not just a matter of not signing the form but also includes an element of not filing in the form yourself as well.
Well done anyway.
Ming the Mischievous
- Streaky Offence committed.
17.12.03 PTR - Not Guilty entered.
Case set for hearing 2.2.04.
CPS no Prosecution file with real evidence. Had to reply on copy MCA Forms sent out from Clerk.
CPS when tasked not in a position to proceed because of missing file.
Abuse of the Court by CPS.
Dismissed - Correct decision by Their Worships.
Procedure fault as opposed to the unsigned form.
DVD
17.12.03 PTR - Not Guilty entered.
Case set for hearing 2.2.04.
CPS no Prosecution file with real evidence. Had to reply on copy MCA Forms sent out from Clerk.
CPS when tasked not in a position to proceed because of missing file.
Abuse of the Court by CPS.
Dismissed - Correct decision by Their Worships.
Procedure fault as opposed to the unsigned form.
DVD
d up, case dropped"
Fantastic. Always a good ploy to object most strongly if there is an adjournement for whatever reason. You tend to find that a stipendiary magistrate will be much less permissive of cock ups from CJU/CPS than a lay bench.
Wise monkeys tend to dither trying in vain to progress. A stipe tends to take the view that if professional Police Officers/support staff/CPS lawyers can't get a simple matter right, it doesn't merit the his and the Courts time.
We have one absolutley fantastic circuit judge who sits a Basingstoke Mags. He is bloody terrifying. Scrotes abscond from Court when they see he is in the chair. He locks people up for almost everything.
But, that said, he threw out about 30 prosecutions for No TV Licence once because someone had cocked up the admin.
Wise monkeys tend to dither trying in vain to progress. A stipe tends to take the view that if professional Police Officers/support staff/CPS lawyers can't get a simple matter right, it doesn't merit the his and the Courts time.
We have one absolutley fantastic circuit judge who sits a Basingstoke Mags. He is bloody terrifying. Scrotes abscond from Court when they see he is in the chair. He locks people up for almost everything.
But, that said, he threw out about 30 prosecutions for No TV Licence once because someone had cocked up the admin.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff