Every so often what initially appears to be a fairly routine matter before the court evolves, very rapidly, into something completely different.
A situation like this happened in the not too distant past.
A man, who I'll call Mr Turner for sake of argument, was in the cells for breaching his bail conditions.
He was awaiting trial, having denied smashing the downstairs window of his former partner, who I'll refer to as Miss Charlton. For reasons that will become apparent I should mention that Miss Charlton was considered an associated person to Mr Turner, as defined within section 62(3) of the Family Law Act 1996.
As far as criminal damage goes, it was at the less serious end of the spectrum. The allegation was that Mr Turner had walked past Miss Charlton's home in the dead of night, lobbed a brick at her front window and then fled the scene. A dazed Miss Charlton, still half-asleep having been rudely awoken from her slumber, looked outside just in time to see the perpetrator disappearing into the distance.
Mr Turner denied the offence and had been granted conditional bail prior to his trial in about one months' time. The conditions imposed were as follows:
- No contact, either directly or indirectly, with Miss Charlton;
- Not to enter the named street where Miss Charlton resided.
Mr Turner was a frequent flyer within the criminal justice system and had recently been incarcerated in relation to other matters.
Entirely by coincidence Miss Charlton's car was stopped by police the day after Mr Turner's release. Mr Turner was found sat alongside her in the passenger seat. Mr Turner was duly arrested for breaching his bail conditions, spent a night in the cells and was put before the remand court the following morning.
Mr Turner admitted the breach, but given the circumstances he couldn't plausibly deny it. It was Mr Turner's second breach. The Bench had been persuaded to rebail him on the same conditions after the earlier breach.
The prosecution put forward an account that Miss Charlton was terrified of Mr Turner and wanted to cease all contact with him. This despite him being a passanger in her car, at her invitation, at the time of his arrest. You often get contradictory and inconsistent accounts when it comes to domestic-related cases.
According to the prosecution Mr Turner had, for a second time, demonstrated a complete disregard for his bail conditions and should therefore be remanded in custody. As Miss Charlton is an associated person, Mr Turner could be refused bail, despite there being no real prospect of custody in relation to the criminal damage.
The Bench retired to consider matters. It has to be said, I was slightly incredulous at the brass neck of Mr Turner, him being released from custody and only a few hours later breaching his bail conditions in such a flagrant and deliberate manner. On this occasion, the Bench was of the view that Mr Turner should be remanded in custody until his trial in a month or so.
The Bench returned to court and the Presiding Justice, not me on this occasion, started to announce the decision.
The PJ had just got to the "that being the case, we do not think there are any conditions we can impose that would allay the concerns of the prosecution..." part when the defendant, sensing his freedom ebbing away, chirped up "right boss, can I just admit it now?"
The Legal Advisor addressed the defendant: "Mr Turner, are you now saying you wish to change your plea in relation to the criminal damage?"
"Yes, love", replied Mr Turner - "But I'm not giving her any more money. I've already paid for the window."
With that we accepted Mr Turner's guilty plea and proceeded to sentence him to a fine. Crucially, it also allowed us to make the restraining order Miss Charlton was seeking.
Given Mr Turner's admission that he had already paid for the window, we considered it inappropriate to award any further compensation.
Mr Turner had clearly been playing the system from the get-go, denying an offence he knew full well he had committed. He was no doubt hopeful that the trial would collapse when Miss Charlton failed to attend to give evidence.
The time, inconvenience and needless public expense incurred by such dishonesty is very frustrating indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment