Simple Speedy Summary Justice
As Defence solicitors we are constantly faced with pressure from the Courts and the Prosecution to make quick decisions about people’s guilt or innocence based on initial disclosure from the Prosecution. Pressure is being brought by District Judges, Magistrates, Court Clerks, David Cameron and anybody else who thinks they have got a voice on the subject to force Defence solicitors to make instant decisions about whether people are guilty or innocent.
All the time we hear from District Judges the immortal words “your client knows whether or not he is guilty”.
This takes away the fact that we live in a democratic society which says the Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as I have said great pressure is put on people to plead guilty and pressure is put on Defence solicitors to help clients make that wonderful decision that they are going to plead guilty. It is only when you start to challenge Prosecution evidence that people find out that not always what the police and/or Crown Prosecution Service and/or Court Clerks tell you is actually correct. We recently had a case where a lady was insistent that the drink drive procedure had not been carried out correctly with her.
We investigated fully and when we requested a doctor attend to give evidence as to what he had or had not done with regard to the procedure, after five months of prevarication the Prosecution eventually sent us a Notice of Discontinuance.
It had fallen in the too hard to do tray in actually getting somebody to investigate and obtain a statement from a doctor.
Where is the simple speedy summary justice in that? Maybe the lady was guilty and had the Prosecution actually done more than simply asking the Defence to roll over at the first hearing and gone on to investigate their case, they could have proved she was guilty but as it turned out when the hard work tray got too high the Prosecution capitulated.
The moral of the story is often stand up for yourself and see if the Prosecution can prove the case as it will be in your interests in the long run.
The Might of the American Police
I was just over in the Florida division of Sweetmans Solicitors (on holiday in Orlando) when I came out of the Florida Mall to be confronted by someone eager to get in to check out the bargains in the men’s department at Dillards.
I soon realised he was not rushing in to check out the bargains to be had in the Hawaiian shirt department. He was in actual fact trying to get away from a group of 40 police officers.
He was grappled to the floor under my feet and immediately placed in handcuffs to be yelled at to keep his head facing the floor and not look at any of the police officers. Immediately the police officers arrived on the scene and the man was face down in the concrete, all the 40 police officers who were on the scene put on black hoods over their heads. It was quite amazing to see that 40 police officers had stopped three men in one car who were obviously a team of professional shoplifters but then for them all to don black masks seemed to be somewhat over the top.
Perhaps it was to protect them from the army of holidaymakers quickly getting out their cell phones to video the incident to upload onto YouTube so that their faces could not be identified if there were any allegations of misuse, mistreatment of the prisoner.
I suspect that many of the police officers in the United Kingdom would wish that they would be issued with black ski masks so that when they arrest anybody, the chance of CCTV or passers-by videoing them abusing prisoners would be averted.
This clearly must be a development from the 1992 Rodney King case when several Los Angeles police officers were identified as attacking Rodney King, leading to massive riots in downtown LA. If only the police in Wigan, who recently beat up a man leaving a nightclub could have been blessed with the use of a face hiding police issue mask.
Clearly there is something wrong when the police feel it necessary to hide their faces in public.
Temporary speed limit restriction leads to speeding tickets withdrawal
Liverpool Police have recently had to withdraw speeding tickets imposed against motorists contravening a 20mph speed limit because the Home Office Order reducing the speed to 20mph from 30mph had expired in 2008.
What an absolute travesty of justice this is for the police to have been continuing for the last four years to enforce speeding tickets against motorists contravening this speed limit. How many people have fallen foul of this and unfortunately totted up and been disqualified for six months for an offence that the Prosecution could never prove?
What this goes to show is the fact that the Prosecution do not prove offences anymore.
The Prosecution should always in every speeding case where there is a temporary reduction of the national speed limit be forced to provide evidence that the reduction in the speed limit has been lawfully obtained from the Secretary of State.
This should be one of the primary documents that the Prosecution are forced to serve on the Defence in every criminal motoring case to show that the speed limit reduction is lawfully in place. This is an example of where the rules of disclosure from the Prosecution and the fact that the Courts are rushing towards speedy simple summary justice are letting the majority of people down.
How can the Prosecution in Liverpool have gone for four years without anybody in the Prosecution Office ever looking to see whether or not the Order was in place?
I suspect there will have been many solicitors in Liverpool who have asked for disclosure of the Order who have been told that it does not undermine the Prosecution case. Clearly it does undermine the Prosecution case and assists the Defence and should have been disclosed in every case.
The problem is that many people will have simply accepted a fixed penalty notice from police officers not knowing that the police officer was acting in ignorance of the law.
The moral of this story is that in every case where a motorist is charged with an allegation of speeding they should seek confirmation from the Prosecution that the speed limit is correctly enforced and in place.
We have a lot of clients who are regularly on the telephone concerning the speed limit across Tower Bridge in London which has been reduced to 20mph. We certainly from now on will be demanding confirmation that that speed limit is correctly in place before anybody goes to Court charged with breaching the speed regulations across the bridge.
Crash death policeman drove at twice the speed limit
Having just read an article on the BBC News website of a policeman who was driving at twice the speed limit without lights and sirens in a 30mph zone and kills a student it is incredulous to me that this police officer simply faces an allegation of causing death by careless driving. To be driving at twice the speed limit without lights and for no good reason would in the mind of the average person constitute an allegation of dangerous driving. Whilst speed itself does not make an offence dangerous on its own the aggravating feature of the policeman doing it for no reason and without lights or sirens in his position of responsibility must in the minds of most people make this tragedy fall into the category of causing death by dangerous driving.
Is this another example of one rule for the police investigating themselves and one rule for the rest of society.
The trial continues in this case but I am sure the family of the deceased, Mr Jamie Haslett would possibly agree with me that the loss of their son’s life in such tragic circumstances cannot be met with a potential sentence limited to two years’ imprisonment.
Private cash needed to boost road network
The BBC recently reported that the Prime Minister David Cameron has realised that there needs to be improvement to the road infrastructure within the UK.
The Government is looking at ways to increase the use of private sector money to add to our over congested road system.
What a joke.
If the private sector is allowed to invest in the road system they will want a return on investment. This will mean increased road toll charges for the already overstretched motorist. How much do we have to pay to tax, insure and fuel our vehicles at this stage all of which have taxation included and then to add insult to injury to pay a private contractor for driving along the road. The private contractor will also get greedy and then they will also get involved in more enforcement to raise cash from motorists. This will effectively allow private companies to police our roads and pick further on the innocent motorist who taxes, registers and insures his car in his own name.
Why does not David Cameron realise that the only way to make our road system better is for the police to enforce lane discipline and good and considerate driving as opposed to hounding the already overstretched motorist.