Two Cumbrian men appeared at Newcastle Magistrates' Court yesterday in relation to the criminal damage of the iconic Sycamore Gap tree and adjacent Hadrian's Wall.
Daniel Graham, 38, of Milbeck Stables, Carlisle denied both offences; Adam Carruthers, 31, of Church Street, Wigton did not enter a plea in respect of either matter.
News footage shows that the pair had gone to some lengths to conceal their identities, despite it being a very warm afternoon. Graham was wearing a balaclava and large-framed aviator sunglasses; Carruthers was wearing a face covering and hooded jacket, with the hood drawn as far forward as possible.
District Judge Zoe Passfield declined jurisdiction, saying: "This case is too serious to be heard in the Magistrates' Court."
She granted the pair unconditional bail until their next hearing at Newcastle Crown Court on Wednesday, 12th June 2024.
I am penning this as a bit of an addendum to yesterday's article, as a bit more information has been reported since then.
As proceedings are now ongoing, I shall keep this as circumspect as possible.
Yesterday, on the social media platform formerly known as Twitter, I mentioned that the valuation of the felled tree - £622,191 - could be a further point of discussion: "That's clearly a lot more than the cost of the timber, so it'll be interesting if the defence has any views on that figure - how can you financially quantify the historic/cultural loss? In those terms, the tree was priceless."
We now know the answer to that. Prosecutor Rebecca Brown told the court that the Capital Asset Value for Amenity Trees (CAVAT) tool was used for the valuation. This is a tool used by local authorities to calculate the value of a tree based on its age, type, size and accessibility to people.
Ms Brown has also told that court that the felling of the tree had caused "serious distress" and "economic and social damage".
In her representations about allocation, Ms Brown has highlighted the complexity of the case. Generally speaking highly complexed cases, or those where there are unusual points of law, should be allocated to the Crown Court, as has happened in this case.
In describing the complexities, Ms Brown has mentioned that the Crown is relying on evidence from cell site analysis (e.g. mobile phone location data), automatic number plate recognition, botany, evaluation of the tree (whatever that means) and image enhancement.
I have been asked about Carruthers' decision to withhold plea. This occasionally happens with matters destined for the Crown Court. It is not ideal, because the Crown Court always wants an indication of plea prior to a defendant landing on their doorstep - the defendant does, after all, know whether or not "they did it".
As Carruthers has withheld his plea, the court will proceed on the basis that he might later deny the offences.
What are the advantages of doing that? Well, prior to yesterday's hearing the defendants would only be aware of the summary of the case against them. This is a relatively brief outline of the Crown's view of what happened. It will mention the evidence the Crown has, but does not delve into matters in any great depth.
Graham has denied both offences, so is now entitled to disclosure of the evidence on which the Crown relies and any unused material it might have. Unused material is anything the Crown has which it does not rely on in evidence, but which may be of some assistance to the defence (Post Office: Take note).
By withholding his plea, thereby making the court assume not guilty, Carruthers will be entitled to the same level of disclosure as if he had denied the offences.
This gives Carruthers' legal team the chance to pore over the Crown's case and evaluate the weight and quality of evidence against him. Having done that, Carruthers will be in a better-informed position to enter a plea at the next (Crown Court) hearing. He will definitely be required to enter a plea on that occasion.
It should be noted, however, that should Carruthers plead guilty at the next hearing, he would not be entitled to the third off his sentence that he would have received had he pleaded guilty at the first opportunity. He would probably get a quarter off instead, as it is still very early in the proceedings.
If, however, matters proceed to trial and result in a conviction, clearly there would be no reduction at all to the final sentence.
As I said, the next hearing is at Newcastle Crown Court on Wednesday, 12th June 2024. There may be further developments then.
No comments:
Post a Comment