I think I've mentioned previously that I really enjoy sitting on trials, although it's something that happens fairly infrequently these days.
A few weeks ago I was fortunate enough to be chairing a trial court.
The first case listed that afternoon looked like a definite runner, with all parties in attendance and ready to make progress. As it was the fourth listing, we were also keen to make progress if at all possible.
The defendant was accused of being the driver of a vehicle and failing to provide a specimen of breath for analysis. It is an offence under section 7(6) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 for a person suspected of committing a drink/drug drive/in charge offence to fail to provide a specimen for analysis without reasonable excuse.
Reading the preparation for an effective trial (PET) form, we could see the defendant's not guilty plea was on the basis that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to provide - a fear of needles. This is a fairly common defence offered in these cases. It would be our job to determine the legitimacy of that claim.
The PET form, you might remember, includes very limited information about the defendant and alleged offence, so as not to prejudice the trial at hand. It does include the names of any witnesses. Police witnesses tend to be identified as "PC 1234" or "PC 1234 Jones" at most. The reason I mention this will become apparent later on.
Before our arrival the advocates were chewing over the finer details, as they tend to do at the last moment. The legal advisor came to the retiring room with word that the defence advocate, Miss Green, would be seeking an adjournment because of an issue with evidence.
We went to the courtroom and Miss Green explained that she was seeking an adjournment because her client had failed to obtain any documentary evidence of his needle phobia. She was reliably informed by her client's GP practice that such documentary evidence existed, but it had not been provided in the month since they were asked for it. Even if they had been provided, the relevant medical records would take additional time to read and interpret. Miss Green was seeking another month to achieve this.
The prosecutor, Mr Brown, was understandably perplexed by this request, knowing that the same issue had been raised at the third hearing some four months previously. Why then, with the benefit of four months to play with, had the defence waited three months before requesting the necessary records?
It was a fair enough question and one at the forefront of our minds too.
Additionally, Mr Brown highlighted that all three of his police witnesses were in attendance, which is no mean feat in itself. The prosecution was ready to proceed, the defence had been warned that the matter would proceed, so the trial should proceed without the defence's medical evidence.
By this stage it was clear that the defendant was getting a bit twitchy. He was rocking uneasily in his chair and looking daggers at Miss Green, with the occasional head shake and sigh thrown in for good measure.
We retired to consider the adjournment, although it didn't take much conversation to establish that all three of us were in agreement that the trial should proceed.
Within five minutes we had returned to the courtroom and announced that decision, to the clear consternation of the defendant who was now visibly upset at the prospect of being unable to use his medical evidence.
On the back of our decision, Miss Green asked for a few more moments to speak to her client. As tensions were now raised, we decided to retire and give Miss Green the space and time she needed.
Around 10 minutes later the legal advisor came to the retiring room to say that the defendant had stormed out, having given Miss Green an almighty tongue-lashing. A family member had gone to try and calm him down, but the trial would have to go on the back burner for a while until he had settled. As chance would have it a pre-sentence report we had ordered that morning was now ready, so we could deal with that sentencing and reassess the trial situation in half an hour or so.
Half an hour later, having sentenced our PSR offender, we were sat back in the retiring room and the legal advisor knocked on the door with news that the trial was now ready to proceed.
We returned to the courtroom to see that defendant back on his seat, albeit still in a heightened state of agitation. Mr Brown rose to his feet, introduced the prosecution case and called his first witness - PC Black, the arresting officer.
In walked PC Black with the usher and the second he crossed the threshold of the courtroom I instantly recognised him as Jonny Black who I had enjoyed many a pint with at university!
I immediately declared this to the legal advisor and my winger colleagues and said that I would need to recuse myself from sitting on the trial. Given the way things were going, it came as little surprise that neither of the wingers were trained to take the chair in my place.
By this stage, the defendant, struggling as he was, must have been thinking that the whole world was conspiring against him.
We retired again to allow the legal advisor and advocates to discuss the best course of action.
Around 15 minutes later a rather sheepish looking legal advisor entered the retiring room with the words, "Your worships, the prosecution has taken the view, given the time of day, that it's maybe just better if you do grant that adjournment after all".
With that, we did - making doubly sure the case was relisted for a day I was unavailable!
What an absolute nightmare afternoon!
No comments:
Post a Comment