We've had quite a few agents acting for the CPS recently, particularly in the trials court.
Agents are self-employed on a fee-paid basis, which affords a degree of flexibility and convenience that employment might not. They take the cases they are given and have a lot less discretion and manoeuvrability than an employed CPS prosecutor.
A brand new barrister, Mr Glover, was acting as a CPS agent in the trials court. I was the Presiding Justice on this occasion. Mr Glover, about a fortnight into his second six of pupillage, was sharp as a pin. Well dressed, articulate, knowledgeable, measured and incisive, I am sure he will enjoy a long and successful career at the Bar.
Sadly today was not going to be Mr Glover's day, through absolutely no fault of his own. As an agent you can only play the cards you are dealt and there wasn't a royal flush anywhere to be seen.
Case 1:
The first trial on the morning's list, scheduled for a 10 am start, was in relation to a public order offence. The defendant was accused of an offence under section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986, namely that he had used threatening behaviour that caused fear or provocation of violence.
This being a trial we didn't know a whole lot about the circumstances, but by 10 am it became apparent that the advocates were in dialogue and we would not be making a prompt start. It was also apparent that this was the third listing of this particular case, which strongly suggested the trial had been adjourned previously.
Quarter of an hour later the Legal Advisor came to update us. The defendant and witnesses had all arrived, but there had been a problem with disclosure and the defence solicitor, Mrs Green, was seeking an adjournment.
With that we headed into the courtroom to hear Mrs Green's application for an adjournment.
Adjournment on the day of trial is to be avoided if at all possible. Relisting the trial for a later date is delaying justice, the whole premise of summary justice being that it is speedy and efficient. It also causes additional expense, administrative burden and inconvenience to the parties. Witnesses who have attended on the day of trial, might not be so willing or able to attend at a later day. The court will only grant an adjournment if it considers it in the interests of justice to do so.
Mrs Green is a regular before the court. Another highly-skilled, very capable advocate who is held in high regard by clients and peers alike. Mrs Green explained that the trial had previously been listed a month ago, but had been administratively adjourned to today due to her client being admitted as a hospital inpatient.
The first hearing, at which the case had been listed for trial, was now five months' ago. At that hearing the court made directions requiring that the prosecution serve on the defence any unused material or additional evidence a month prior to the trial date.
That included the body worn video footage of two police officers, which Mrs Green believed would be advantageous to her client's defence. However, for whatever reason and despite several reminders, the CPS had failed to provide that footage. The CPS said it was unable to comply, because the police had failed to pass the footage on.
"Thank you Mrs Green, that's very interesting," I said.
"Mr Glover, the Crown's view on this please."
Mr Glover rose to his feet and conceded that the Crown had failed in its duty of disclosure, despite several nudges of reminder along the way.
After a quick check with my colleagues, we were all in agreement that an adjournment was appropriate in the interests of justice. A new date was determined and agreed by all. New directions were made that the body worn footage in question was to be served and Mrs Green was to inform the court directly if the CPS again failed to do this.
Addressing the prosecutor, I said: "Mr Glover, please convey our appreciation to the witnesses that they have attended today and pass on our apologies that they have had a wasted journey."
Case 2:
The second trial of the morning involved a defendant accused of assaulting an emergency worker. Again, this being a trial we didn't have too much information but from the charge it was apparent the complainant was a police officer. Again, the mood music was ominous.
There were two police witnesses in this case and neither had turned up to the hearing.
Mr Glover rose to his feet: "Unfortunately Your Worships, the Crown has learnt that the complainant in this case, PC Wilson, is not actually on duty today. He is on holiday. The second officer in the case, PC Bell, is on duty, but I do not know her whereabouts.
"I wonder if you'd be kind enough to give me ten minutes to make some enquiries?"
The defence solicitor in this case, Mr Parker, a former police officer himself, was in agreement that some brief enquiries could be made as to PC Bell's whereabouts.
The Bench retired and I took the opportunity to express my disapproval to the wingers.
"I can see what's going to happen here," I said.
"PC Bell is nowhere to be seen, so the Crown is going to try to get the trial put off. Mr Parker will want to trial to go ahead, because the Crown won't be able to offer any evidence."
I told colleagues that the way the morning was going, I was going to have to say something about the Crown's performance to Mr Glover. They were in agreement that it was right to broach the issue later on.
The Legal Advisor, who was floating around in the background, chimed in with: "I'm sure they give these cases to agents, because no-one else at the CPS wants them."
Ten minutes later we returned to the courtroom. With anticipatory acuity sharper than Mystic Meg, I was absolutely right in my prediction - PC Bell was still missing in action; Mr Glover was seeking an adjournment; Mr Parker opposed that application.
Mr Glover recognised he was in a tight spot, but did his best with the argument that assaults on emergency workers, doing their public duties, are a very, very serious matter, so the trial needs to be adjourned in the interests of justice.
Mr Parker was like a coiled spring, ready to pounce into action: "Your Worships, this is an absolutely ridiculous state of affairs. My client, who strenuously denies the allegation, has attended in good faith wishing to get the matter dealt with today.
"Due to the Crown's oversight and dire lack of communication, which I appreciate is no fault at all of my friend (Mr Glover), neither of its witnesses are here to give their evidence.
"When I was a police officer I would never have failed to attend court, for fear of the repercussions of not doing so.
"Standards are clearly a lot lower these days, because some of these officers think they can do whatever they like."
"The Crown has given no acceptable reason for the absence of its witnesses, so my application is for the trial to proceed."
A quick huddle with my colleagues and it was agreed that we would refuse the application to adjourn and proceed with the trial.
As anticipated Mr Glover offered no evidence.
Addressing the defendant, I said: "As you've heard, the Crown has offered no evidence, so the allegation against you is dismissed. You are free to go."
The defendant and Mr Parker left the courtroom, which left only the Bench, Legal Advisor and Mr Glover.
Conclusion:
"Mr Glover, a word before you shoot off for lunch please," I said.
"I appreciate you are in a difficult position as an agent, so please do not think any of these comments are directly at you personally. That is certainly not my intention.
"Please note the court's displeasure at the manner in which the Crown has dealt with its cases this morning.
"When the court directs the Crown to do something, it expects it to be done. Indeed there are a lot of lawyers at the CPS getting paid a lot of money to ensure that happens.
"When a matter is listed for trial the availability of police officers is always confirmed. That being the case, it is troubling that a police officer is now on holiday when his attendance was required here today.
"Similarly, the second officer has simply failed to appear, despite being on duty, when she was aware her attendance was required.
"Please convey these comments to the CPS and ensure they are aware of the court's dissatisfaction and frustration."
No comments:
Post a Comment