The British Justice System in practice
From a barristers blog http://learnfromthep.blogspot.com/ I hate the Law.....honest-ta-Gawd - it's getting on my knockers - it really is.. Being a Barrister is just no good anymore – why don’t I get a proper bleedin’ Job? This week I have had two cases adjourned – yesterday because the Court had listed 3 cases on the same day and took 5 hours to decide what to do – whilst I sat with my lunatic client discussing football and the evils of the Police; today – the defendant wasn’t sure that she was insured for the Court case and my clients couldn’t guarantee that they would receive damages if they won. So – P got sent home. What bollocks is this? Still – let me tell you about a case I completed recently. I think we need a big debate at P Club – something to get our brain cells jigging it. Most of my clients are either mad (paranoid schizophrenia is the catch-phrase) or basically bad (plain evil). However, I do chase some serious Crims around the globe, which is quite satisfying. I de-*test*-('") those who rob and defraud big sums of money whilst setting up family members to take the Can if it all goes pear-shaped. Check out The Proceeds of Crime Act (and shiver with fear) But P Club – listen to the following little tale – and P will do it in parts. It’s not jam-packed with gore or action or intrigue – but it does say a lot about our society. You will not be titillated or thrilled – but I hope my little case will engender a major philosophical debate. MY CASE Our teacher had been charged with ABH (Actual Bodily Harm) against a pupil. A very serious matter –suspended immediately and had been sitting at home, fretting his heart away for 9 months; facing a prison sentence – and the end of his career. He was bricking it. So along comes The P. Our Scenario: Our teacher – teaching in a special school for emotionally disturbed and behaviourally “challenged” kids – those the State Schools couldn’t deal with. Coop them all up under one roof – let them smoke – swear – fight – and live it up. Give them lots of rope – few rules – many privileges. Teacher teaching one day in the class. Door smacks open mid lesson and in runs behaviourally “challenged” kid – kid smacks a kid in the face –spits in the face of another kid and calls the teacher: “Wanker” – “fudge packer” and “c***”. (What is a “fudge packer”?) Why did he do this? What's his game eh? Why so naughty? Dunno – nobody knows – but he is emotionally disturbed and “challenged” – so with that label he has to dish out a bit of shit now and again – just to keep it all going. Our teacher tries to protect the other kids – bundles nutty kid out of the room – nutty kid punches teacher in the face and knees him in the bollocks. A computer goes flying - and two other kids kick off. Mayhem - screaming and yelling - As kid is bundled out he falls into the courtyard outside the class – lands badly breaking his wrist and collarbone. ABH. Police are called and our teacher is charged with a serious crime. This is P’s case. Quite straightforward as ABH’s go – but the psychology was truly complicated (As we will discover). What-cha-think so far P Club? TO BE CONTINUED

MY CASE (2) And on we go.... The boy himself had given a statement about what had happened. The statement had been taken by the headmaster one hour after the event. Good evidence? Damn - YES. But the Prosecution had not disclosed it. Can you believe that? It was so obvious that they just wanted to nail this teacher – a man of impeccable character – no previous convictions for anything – a guy doing a difficult job – in a very difficult school. And they were hell bent on jailing the poor bugger – fair means or foul. The boy’s statement was tucked away in a list of Undisclosed Information – hidden from view. P had to request to see it and low and behold it basically supported the teacher’s version of events: the boy admits to kicking off – whacking a kid – trashing the room – hitting the teacher – cursing, screaming and yelling – also that the teacher bundled him out of the room – he fell over by accident and broke his wrist and collarbone. "It was an accident." The boy said so himself - a 15 year old - the victim without any mental illness said so. Of course he says that the teacher provoked him and that he should not have been manhandled in this way. But what the heck. So – I says to the Judge “Your Honour – this witness statement should be adduced as evidence as it gives the “victim’s” full account of what happened.” And the Prosecution objects; they say that the boy’s evidence is unreliable because he is such an unruly child and in the interest of justice it would not be right to reveal it to the jury. Well bloody hell – 50% of witnesses in British Courts are unruly and unreliable – but that doesn’t automatically disbar them from giving evidence. So the jury goes out and we have a full-scale legal argument in front of the Judge, who has to decide whether to admit this crucial piece of evidence. P is forced to bring a “Hearsay Application” on the basis that the boy is indeed unable to come to Court (because he certainly would not turn up), and if he did he probably would throw a tantrum and leg it from the dock. In the interests of Justice - it should be allowed as evidence. P stated that the Prosecution’s reason for excluding this evidence was farcical and disingenuous. If the statement had supported their case they would have exhibited it as their main line evidence….in the blink of an eye. The Judge agreed with me, and so in went the boy’s witness statement, which was to be read to the jury. But P Club…..look how keen the Prosecution were to nail this teacher. Can someone explain this to me.....from a sociological point of view? TO BE CONTINUED

MY CASE (3) So the Prosecution call 3 witnesses: two who saw what happened plus the headmaster who saw bugger all. However, P had to first deal with a problem: the Crown tried to bring in a witness statement from a teacher saying that our Teacher had roughed up kids before. So this was an issue for the Judge as P reckoned that this was “bad character” evidence by the back door. None of it was proven, he was never charged and in any case it was total bollocks. So we had more legal argument. The Judge refused to allow it on the basis that it was utter krap – He didn’t quite use those words but I know that he was itching to. First witness for the Crown He says he saw our Teacher lift the boy up by his shoulders and throw him 15 feet onto his back – just outside the classroom. He says he saw our teacher run up to the boy as he was lying on the floor in a foetal position and go as if to kick him. The teacher had a very angry expression when he did this. So – he gets in the witness box. I could tell that he was old school and arrogant – obviously didn’t like our teacher and more importantly didn’t like Mr Pineapples. Mr P has a bit of a London accent – a bit of a cockney – born within the sound of Bow Bells. He’s thinking: who the bloody hell is this so-called barrister? He’s not one of us – no public education - no Eton, Harrow or Oxbridge; He’s a barrister by dint of primitive animal cunning; Sponsored through Bar school by the Kray Twins or Mad Frankie Frazer. So – I lay the accent on a bit thicker – he gets prickly – and defensive. I suggest that his witness statement is full of errors, wrong and incomplete – which he denies and with a sad shake of his head assures the court that his statement is 100% accurate. This is GREAT – because P has noticed a typing error: instead of saying he was 20 yards from the scene – the statement says – 200 yards from the scene. This must mean he was standing as far away as the school car park. This is impossible. But he wasn’t prepared to admit an error to this cockney wide-boy and when I read the statement he did not correct the 200 yards cock-up – he had dug himself self into a hole and wasn’t prepared to eat humble pie to get out. So far so good. Hurling the boy through the air He then assures us that the boy was picked up and hurled backwards through the air (his words) – so P says that the boy is 5’ 5” and 10 ½ stone – the teacher is 5’ 8” and 11 stone. Strangely the boy was gripped by his shoulders. “Were you surprised by this Herculean feat of strength?” “No – not at all” he says. I could see that the jury were. “Any injuries to the back of his head?” “No” “Bit surprising?” “No, not really” The pretend kick “The boy was in a foetal position and wouldn’t have seen the kick?” “Oh he saw it alright” "But the boy had his hands over his head in a foetal position?" "He could see alright." “How do you know?” “He must have” “But you were 200 yards away weren’t you and not close enough to see anything?” “I could see what was going on” “He wasn’t kicked was he?” “No” “So all of this is irrelevant isn’t it? SILENCE The Angry Face “Would you be angry if you’d been called “wanker” “c***” and “fudge packer”. “No” “Kicked in the -*test*-('")icles and punched in the face?” “No” “Why not?” “I am a better teacher – we can’t allow ourselves to get upset by these things.” “Perhaps a tad inconvenienced?” “No”

MY CASE (4) WITH KNUCKLES What was slightly surprising about this case was what occurred on the way to my car after the excitement of day one in the court. Never happened to me before or since. Very much a one off - so not going to make a very big fuss of it - just one of those things. This case was in a city with a port – a large city – a rough-house sort of place - a great city for being a defence barrister (so they say) as most of the jury are criminals themselves and are likely to be sympathetic to fellow crims (so they say). I don’t believe a word of it myself. But this place is not the sort of place, which attracts the finer elements of society. Anyway – there I am walking back to my car in the deserted multi story when two oiks walk out of the shadows. One youth – short hair – tattoos (I know – just a typical British youth) – the other was older – fat geezer. Gawd this sounds clichéd. Old geezer goes: “You’d better not get that f****** paedo off....” So I says: “Sorry – who are you again?” Old Geezer goes: “Never mind that – you get that f***** off and we’re going to f****** hammer you…and him….” So I says: “Well that’s something to look forward to.” So next thing – youth with the knuckles punches me in the face. Catches me above my left eye – I wasn’t expecting it – but if you’re going to be a smart-arse then its best to either get your retaliation in first or run. Anyway – I just legged it – all the way back to my car. They didn’t follow me. I don’t know who the hell they were – and I have never troubled myself to find out. No point fighting back – can you imagine the headlines: “Barrister for accused teacher, assaults family of child in car park” (Presuming - that's who they were...but I don't know). Not a case winner. So the next day in court – I appear with a nasty cut above my eye (I had a bit of scar-tissue there – and it ripped open) and bruising all around it. I could see the judge eyeing me suspiciously – but the jury seemed amused. Being British nothing was said and we JUST CARRIED ON No - I havent pressed charges - and not going to either - what's the bleedin' point.

MY CASE (5) THE NICE GIRL WITNESS The second witness for the prosecution was a young support teacher who was in the class with our teacher when all this kicked off. In this sort of special school -each class must have two teachers present. Her evidence was that our teacher did not handle the situation in accordance with the restraining method of “Team-Teach”, which gives instructions on how to deal with unruly kids. Her evidence was that: -He grabbed him (the boy) around the back of the neck (not allowed by “Team Teach”); -Threw him out of the classroom in a very violent and dangerous manner; -Continued to abuse the boy outside of the classroom. She got into the witness box. Trouble was – she was such a nice ordinary girl – one who commands the sympathy of decent folk i.e. the jury. Her manner was hesitant, a little timid, but nonetheless forthright. No point laying into her – the jury would hate me and be embarrassed for her. Best I could do was to lay some incendiary devices and detonate them later in my closing speech. So I ask her some questions: Grabbing boy by the back of the neck “Was the boy violent and aggressive?” “Yes - he was dreadful.” “Were you frightened?” “Not frightened but concerned for the other boys in the class.” “They need protecting and important to get him out of the classroom?” “Yes, very important.” “The safety of the others was a priority?” “Yes” (DEVICE PLANTED) “It all happened so quickly?” “Yes” “To operate perfectly within Team Teach, can be very difficult, with such an aggressive violent boy? We can’t expect teachers to get it 100% perfect.” “No, it’s not easy” (DEVICE PLANTED) Threw him out of the classroom in a very violent and dangerous manner “Why didn’t you help Mr Jones (our teacher – not real name) in dealing with the boy?” “I had to control the other boys.” “Quite rightly, and you had a major task to contend with? Could have got out of hand very quickly?” “Yes, very easily”. “Had to focus on the other boys?” “Yes” “Watching them was important at that time?” “Yes – I was worried what might happen.” “More focused on them than what was happening between Mr Jones and the boy?” “I had to be” (DEVICE PLANTED) “You didn’t see the boy being picked up and hurled out of the room did you?” “No but I saw him lying on the floor outside as if he had been pushed” “As if he’d been pushed. So you didn’t see him being thrown or pushed out of the room?” “No – but its obvious he had been pushed” (DEVICE PLANTED) “Given the general mayhem and his aggression he could have fallen over by accident?” “It’s possible.” (DEVICE PLANTED) Continued to abuse the boy outside of the classroom “You stayed in the classroom to protect the other boys?” “Yes” “Didn’t venture out?” “No – I had to keep the boys in the classroom” (DEVICE PLANTED) “And there was lots of yelling outside?” “Yes” “The boy and Mr Jones?” “Yes – and others” “So – lots of voices – all a bit confusing?” “Yes” (DEVICE PLANTED) “You didn’t see Mr Jones abuse the boy, verbally or physically because you were in the classroom focused on the other boys.” “No I didn’t – but I was told about it.” “Who told you?” “The Headmaster.” “I wont ask you what he said, but you personally didn’t see what went on outside?” “No” (DEVICE PLANTED) I thought she was a well-meaning teacher but had been subjected to a little persuasion. I was very content with how her evidence went and she was non-the wiser – I had not attacked her – called her a liar – or tried to wreck her story. It required stealth.

MY CASE (6) THE HEADMASTER GIVES EVIDENCE Sorry folks for the long delay between posts – but there have been some issues back in Italy which The P has had to deal with. Totally back now….and on with the show. The Headmaster was called as a witness. He seemed a very decent chap – but nervous in the witness box. The other side’s barrister leads him gently through some of the evidence, and out of the blue the headmaster starts talking about our chap's earlier assaults on kids. Weird - because he had been told by his barrister not to mention any of this; and I was assured that he would not. Well up I stands – very quick – I do not want the jury to hear this. I demand that the Judge sends them out whilst we sort out a legal matter. Out they go. I argue that this is “Bad Character” evidence by the back door and should not be admitted. None of the allegations are proven and certainly our chap has never been charged for any crime....ever. The Judge agrees with P – and the Headmaster is advised to stay off the subject. The sick thing is that I had already had this matter dealt with in the Court before the headmaster appeared. So eventually I get to cross-examine the headmaster. He certainly was nervous and smiled weakly at me as I rose to my feet. I acknowledged him with a nod and a half smile. Like I said – a decent bloke – doing a difficult job – no way am I going to tear into this chap. So I give him respect and take things calmly and slowly. The Jury would expect no less. It transpires that he did not witness the incident – was in his office at the time – just saw the aftermath. Found kid lying on the floor crying, sobbing and teacher wandering about wondering what to do...bemused and befuddled. So I asks him what was the point of his evidence. Apparently it was to explain to the Court the strictures and mechanics of “Team Teach” – the system for controlling wayward and unruly kids. So I says to him: “So difficult to prevent your hand moving from the child’s back and arm isn’t it? – Especially when he’s struggling.” “Yes” “Not fool proof is it – “Team Teach” “No” “You weren’t surprised to see the boy sobbing on the floor – it’s quite usual to see upset kids at this school, isn’t it?” “Quite usual” “You didn’t see the teacher hit the boy?” “No” “Throw him to the floor?” “No” It transpired too that in the aftermath, although the child was looked after - picked up and ailments administered to, the poor old teacher was left to get on with it; he was asked to return to the class,on his own, to carry on with the lesson. This was against the rules of the school: he needed another teacher present with him, as all of the children are disturbed and "behaviourally challenged". On that day He was later suspended - without being afforded the opportunity of putting his version of events. I put all of this to the Headmaster who meekly agreed that they had got it all wrong, dealt with it badly, and had let the teacher down through lack of support. And that was it. But as the headmaster was getting out of the witness box – he turned to the jury and said: “I would never employ this man again….he has hit other children……he is not right…..” He had to be forcefully removed and was still shouting and pointing at our teacher as he was ejected from the court. What a scum- bag. The Jury heard and saw the whole bleedin' thing.

MY CASE (7) THE TEACHER Nearly there P Club....keep with it....the dénouement is imminent. Let me tell you about my client: the schoolteacher. He was a very normal, unassuming sort of geezer - not demanding, not slagging anyone off, just straightforward - a normal bloke - keen on sport - loved football, loved his wife - loved being a teacher. I really liked the man. We got on like a house on fire – he even laughed at my jokes – and went along with everything I said. Some clients can be a total pain in the arse. He did appear at times a tad listless, slightly disengaged from the process - his mind distracted. But he was keen to answer my questions and to assist me in any way. Obviously - he was stressed out by the whole thing and had not enjoyed his suspension from work, knowing that his career and reputation were hanging in the balance. He managed to hide his stress very well, but he was nervous – by Gawd – I could tell that. He was accompanied to court by supporters - and his wife came too. The whole gang of them were great - buzzing with anticipation and eager for our chap to win. Barristers cannot train their clients on what to say in the witness box - coaching is forbidden in the UK. But I always say this to my clients: "Tell the truth - simply tell it like it happened. Don't get annoyed by the other side's barrister - don't get angry and upset. You will be attacked, and called a liar, but you mustn’t let it get you down. At all costs do not get angry because that's what they want - a reaction - to prove that you are a voluble and violent man. Regard it all as a bit of a game, and never ever take personal offence as to what is said. The barrister has no personal dislikes he’s just doing his job." The teacher got up there and was as good as gold - came across as sincere and hardworking - he told it just like it happened; no guilding the lilly and no colouring of detail. He had indeed been let down by the school and judged before the facts were known - but he did not attack the headmaster in any way - on the contrary he uttered words of support throughout his evidence. The Crown’s barrister was totally krap – as weak as dishwater – a wimp of the highest order. Some barristers should have been solicitors – they lack personality in the court – lack courage and the biting will to win.The Crown Barrister attacked him - called him a "violent aggressor", "a liar", and "a bad teacher and a danger to children". But our chap just took it mildly and said that he was sorry to hear those words. I also called 2 other teachers in the school to give character references for him. They declared that he was a thoroughly sound teacher, who cared deeply about the kids, worked long hours and was passionate for his job. The man did extremely well, and I know that he made a very good impression on the jury. AND THAT FOLKS - WAS IT....THE EVIDENCE WAS DELIVERED. So to my closing speech

to be continued

This is very interesting, Dog! Don't forget to post the rest! :)

you mean there`s more bear :wink: reading this , all this sort of thing does to me is raise my blood pressure :cry:

MY CASE (8) THE CLOSING SPEECH Must take this carefully. Truth is – a lot of barristers are stuffed shirts – have never mastered the art of being likeable as well as persuasive. Too much up their own arses to be real, normal and human. They prefer to sound like barristers – educated chaps; addressing a jury in a reserved and distant manner. I don’t like that. Better to win people over with a bit of wit – a touch of eloquence – some magic and charm. Of course the meat of the matter is the evidence but the delivery is the sugar that sweetens the pill. Let the boring buggers be boring – Mr P is never that. Dullness don’t win votes on a jury. Anyway. In a criminal trial before a jury – I always start with a mantra: “The defendant doesn’t have to prove anything – the prosecution brings this case and they must prove it beyond a reasonable doubt so that you are sure….sure….that the defendant is guilty of this crime. You must not rely on gut feeling, or a mere sense of guilt, but must look to the evidence. That evidence can be direct or circumstantial. You must rely on the evidence and the evidence must support the prosecution case so that you are sure of this man’s guilt. You cannot leave an important case like this to chance, there is too much at stake.” I always kick off with that stuff – a jury might not necessarily know it. The judge will include this in his summing up – but it sounds better from me. I then rabbited on about how difficult a teacher’s job has become – how society has seen deterioration in standards of behaviour – the lack of respect – the rise in knife crime – blah…blah…. It’s all true – all verbiage bollocks – but it would have a profound effect on a sensible jury. Most ordinary folks would support a teacher, and I make it clear that I support all of the teachers who gave evidence in this court. I then remind them of this kid’s behaviour – unprovoked – the foul words that were spoken (I say them again....and observe the jury grimacing). I say that this is the sort of thing teachers have to put up with everyday…they need and deserve our support. And here’s the important bit: the summary of my main points – I signpost them right at the start – give them titles – headings – and take each in turn slowly. I say – I have THREE main issues – THREE – and they are simple points – here they are: 1. Being hurled to the floor; 2. Being grabbed around the neck; 3. The evidence of the boy. I watch as the jury members write the three issues down – and underline them on their pads. Then they wait….patiently for me to start with issue number one. It’s there blinking at them on their writing paper – the paper demands words. I am winning already. They are with me – I am simple – at their level – I am one of them. Point One: Being hurled to the floor I detonate my bombs throughout. Who saw what happened? One teacher only…..nobody else….and he was standing 200 yards away (of course he bloody wasn’t ! he was 20 yards away…..but was too hard headed to correct his error….and the prosecution were as dim as a 10 watt light-bulb to take issue with it). And he says he saw – the lad (who was 10 1/2 stone and 5’ 5”) being hurled through the air backwards but miraculously sustained no injuries to the back of his head. It cannot be true, and I point at the defendant – “look at the defendant – he’s not a big man – not a latter day Arnold Swarzeneger (bit cheesy I know) – to have done this – he needed a piece of magic or Herculean strength. It just didn’t happen – how could it have? We must reject this evidence, as being entirely implausible.” “Ultimately – it’s his word against the defendant’s – a 50/50 scenario – not enough to convict this man. What can tip the balance? The evidence of the boy himself”. See later….. BING-AND-A-BOOM! Point Two: Being grabbled around the neck The evidence was that it’s easy with a struggling and lunatic kid to lose grip and to momentarily fall outside of “Team Teach”. There were no markings around the neck. The headmaster confirmed the fallibility of the Team Teach system. Point Three: The evidence of the boy And I read out his statement – slowly. The statement does not say that the teacher attacked him but it says it was an accident..... ALL SIMPLE ….COMPELLING STUFF. Finally P appeals to their common-bloody-sense, and what a guilty verdict will mean for society: A kid kicks off – trashes the room and attacks a teacher….and..THE TEACHERS GETS PUT INSIDE……NOT THE KID. The kid swaggers off – boasting to his mates. What a symbol of our society – what a message…...what a mess. We must resist this at all costs. END OF SPEECH. The judge sums up the evidence fairly. AND OUT GO THE JURY

More! More! Gi's more! :wink:

MY CASE (9) THE VERDICT The Jury go out. P has a little chat with our teacher – he presses me for my opinion – I say “It’s all gone very well…but one never knows” – he then recounts some of the things I said in my closing – “Herculean strength” – “the message a guilty verdict would send to society”. He liked it all – some of his friends compliment P on the way the cross-examination was carried out – “very clever” – “you nailed it”. I say nothing more. Anyway – these are tense times – I hate the wait whilst the Jury is out. P goes for a wander – a swift walk around the Court – then out into the park – keeps his eye open for the nutters – just in case they want another pop. I can’t go too far in case the verdict comes back. So I give it half an hour. As I walk back into Court the usher is waiting at the door – “Verdict is in”. We take our seats; I look around at our teacher – he is ashen faced – gives me a nod – his family are all there – in the public gallery – tense – apprehensive. In they walk – 12 good men and true. The Foreman stands and we have the usual verbal formalities. I maintain an impassive expression throughout. Verdict is announced: “Not Guilty”. The Jury look at me and I retain the expression – win or lose – the same impassive expression. It’s my shield. There is a bit of a commotion and I turn to see our teacher standing to his feet – gives me the thumbs up – beaming – I also see the headmaster storming out of the Court – with some others. Outside I speak to the teacher – he is overwhelmed – his wife and friends are hugging and kissing him and then they all gather around – thanking me, shaking my hand – unsure whether to hug me too – they fidgit and decide not to. There is talk of champagne and celebrating. But not for me. As I go to leave the teacher says to me; “The little bastard deserved it….the little shit.” With that. I go back to the Robing Room to get changed and to think things over. THERE IS AN AFTERMATH

So I walk back to the car – carrying my blue bag and all of the papers. I was worn out despite the fact that all I had done was wait for the decision. The Head Master pulls out of the car park – sees me, stops and winds down his window. “He’s done it before you know. It’s bloody ridiculous to see him get off like that. Do you know his history?” Well, actually I did. I knew what he had, in the past, been accused of, and what the disciplinary reports had said about our teacher. To summarise, let the record show that: 1. After provocation he had attacked a teenager in the school, and had caused some physical injury, although not serious. There had been an internal enquiry, and our teacher was disciplined. The boy did not wish to press charges; 2. He had spat at a child, again after provocation – there followed another internal enquiry – with a caution given to the teacher; 3. On a school trip there had been an altercation and a child (16 years old) had his nose broken – there was circumstantial evidence, which pointed towards our teacher – no one was saying anything and so the matter was dropped. Our case was the forth incident. I knew all of this before I went into Court – and had fought tooth and nail for these matters to be hidden from the jury. The Judge decided that they were highly detrimental and that the case should be brought on its facts alone. So – P Club – the case was not as clean, straightforward as it appeared. I said to the headmaster that I did know the teacher’s history and could understand why the case had aroused so much emotion. With that – the headmaster swore and sped off. I got to my car and drove home. Another day at the Office. As for our teacher – his last comments to me were that he was going to have a serious chat with the headmaster - to put him straight - to ensure that his career was put back on track. Our case is now at an end P Club…..hope you found it entertaining, enlightening and enriching. Justice in the raw. http://learnfromthep.blogspot.com/