Confirming name in court....
Discussion
Not wishing to go down the lines of the "free man of the land" arguments..... but why do courts have proceedings that only seemingly entail the defendant confirming their name and address?
Having never been involved with court proceedings before, and just going by what I regularly hear on the news, what is the point of wasting the court's time by just having a single session to confirm a person's name&address?
Having never been involved with court proceedings before, and just going by what I regularly hear on the news, what is the point of wasting the court's time by just having a single session to confirm a person's name&address?
i saw a video a while back where some gentleman who said that the courts are done by the laws of the sea, and that the person he was representing on the day was there "by name" using their birth certificate?
Guessing that's all wibble stuff though?
I was summonsed(sp?) a while back for council tax issues and when dealing with it over the phone making it clear i would like to attend to see how it all works, i was played down numerous times that i didn't need to attend as it would be sorted without me (i.e even if i argued the toss for whatever reason it wouldn't of mattered) I would of assumed they would of wanted me there to confirm my name and address etc?
Guessing that's all wibble stuff though?
I was summonsed(sp?) a while back for council tax issues and when dealing with it over the phone making it clear i would like to attend to see how it all works, i was played down numerous times that i didn't need to attend as it would be sorted without me (i.e even if i argued the toss for whatever reason it wouldn't of mattered) I would of assumed they would of wanted me there to confirm my name and address etc?
Edited by XslaneyX on Wednesday 11th March 13:59
AA999 said:
I guess that wraps up my query on that then, cheers 
Just a follow up question,...., again not wishing to go down the FOTL route, what would happen if the defendant did not confirm his name ?
Do the proceedings continue as per normal with little regard if the defendant speaks or not?
We arrested a bloke for a statutory public order offence. We gave him the name of Public Order Offender 1, there being other offenders, thinking it would be amusing to have POO all the way through the statements. It was not universally approved of.Just a follow up question,...., again not wishing to go down the FOTL route, what would happen if the defendant did not confirm his name ?
Do the proceedings continue as per normal with little regard if the defendant speaks or not?
This was on a Saturday morning. He appeared at court on Monday afternoon. As he failed to communicate his intention to plead, or anything, it was anticipated it would be a trial so that's why the court moved the case to later.
A not guilty plea was entered on his behalf. The arresting officer gave his evidence and the chap, continuing his silence, remained seated. The court awarded him 2 days, already served, and then the chap made an abusive remark. He then got another day for contempt of court. He then started to argue but the court said that he could not speak as his case was over, or something like that. By the time we turned up for work at 11am (after two hours training) he'd been kicked out of the cells.
No trace on prints.
Had he cooperated he would have been out Saturday evening, after the football, to return Monday for a bind-over, like his mates. I don't know if there was any follow up as he wasn't my prisoner.
Derek Smith said:
We arrested a bloke for a statutory public order offence. We gave him the name of Public Order Offender 1, there being other offenders, thinking it would be amusing to have POO all the way through the statements. It was not universally approved of.
That has made me laugh out loud. As did some of your book, which I've just finished reading. Thanks for writing it!timskipper said:
That has made me laugh out loud. As did some of your book, which I've just finished reading. Thanks for writing it!
Thanks for that. All authors are pathetically pleased with any praise.Can I ask you for a review on Amazon and a mention on Twitter?
All helps.
We got told off by the court inspector.
As for what happens if an offender doesn't give any means of ID, then the police can continue without it. Prints will be taken - if you didn't give your name in those days the police could get the court to order prints taken by force and would keep the offender on remand until they'd been checked.
I was told of one occasion in Bow Street where the police got an order from the magistrate to take prints and this was attempted in the court cells but the offender screamed in agony even before the police entered the cell.
The opinion of the court was asked and the stipendiary (legally qualified) magistrate came into the cell block to see the reaction of the prisoner for himself. He came up with the perfect solution: he adjourned the court so he wasn't bothered by the screams. Before doing so he advised the prisoner that the police had the power to use what force was necessary.
The chap cooperated.
Derek Smith said:
Thanks for that. All authors are pathetically pleased with any praise.
Can I ask you for a review on Amazon and a mention on Twitter?
All helps.
We got told off by the court inspector.
As for what happens if an offender doesn't give any means of ID, then the police can continue without it. Prints will be taken - if you didn't give your name in those days the police could get the court to order prints taken by force and would keep the offender on remand until they'd been checked.
I was told of one occasion in Bow Street where the police got an order from the magistrate to take prints and this was attempted in the court cells but the offender screamed in agony even before the police entered the cell.
The opinion of the court was asked and the stipendiary (legally qualified) magistrate came into the cell block to see the reaction of the prisoner for himself. He came up with the perfect solution: he adjourned the court so he wasn't bothered by the screams. Before doing so he advised the prisoner that the police had the power to use what force was necessary.
The chap cooperated.
Off topic - and completely silly. But I always wondered how you use force to take fingerprints? With DNA I can see it being easy, pin them down and take hair etc... But having used livescan - how would you possibly do that against someones will unless you drugged them? Can I ask you for a review on Amazon and a mention on Twitter?
All helps.
We got told off by the court inspector.
As for what happens if an offender doesn't give any means of ID, then the police can continue without it. Prints will be taken - if you didn't give your name in those days the police could get the court to order prints taken by force and would keep the offender on remand until they'd been checked.
I was told of one occasion in Bow Street where the police got an order from the magistrate to take prints and this was attempted in the court cells but the offender screamed in agony even before the police entered the cell.
The opinion of the court was asked and the stipendiary (legally qualified) magistrate came into the cell block to see the reaction of the prisoner for himself. He came up with the perfect solution: he adjourned the court so he wasn't bothered by the screams. Before doing so he advised the prisoner that the police had the power to use what force was necessary.
The chap cooperated.
I'm imaging a crazy situation where someone clenches a fist, and I'm sure it has happened. Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff