All the practices and procedures in the criminal justice system have been very carefully designed and developed precisely to ensure fairness. If you want to assert otherwise, OK: what procedures exactly do you say are unfair? and how do you say they could be improved? As one who has spent years working on criminal practice and procedure, I would really like to know what you mean.
I reckon he might mean things like Plod deliberately holding back various pieces of info / not disclosing info when requested to / tampering with info / withdrawing when the going is beginning to look a bit tough, offering no evidence (which if they had disclosed evidence in the first place, it may never have got to court in the first place) and the CPS prosecuting cases based on flimsy info which even Plod think is risky etc etc. I use 'info' rather than evidence, because a lot of the time it may not really be evidence (even though Plod and the CPS think it is). Then on top of all the above, the court process can be tripped up by any half decent lawyer in respect of dates of service; Plod failing to provide the info in time for the hearings.........and it goes on..... AL
Not that I have any first hand experience with "the criminal justice system" in question but I do believe that ones opinion of it very much depends on whether you're on the receiving end or the dispensing one! It's believe or not, I've heard a lot more fun to dispense justice rather than receive it. Not that some don't really and truly deserves what's coming to them but if you wind up meandering through any legal system but you shouldn't be in it, it's really easy to take on a not so kind or nice view of it. Judging by the choice of font and size I do believe you have vested interest in dispensing justice but I could be wrong, I frequently am.
* Courts know very well that some witnesses lie (or are mistaken, or change their story) including experts and police - so court procedures and processes are designed to deal with this. * There are two sides to every case, prosecution and defence, and they are both obliged to disclose their cases in advance (no ambushes) - by court procedures. * Evidence advanced by each side can be challenged and tested by the other side so procedure provides for this. Etc etc. You seem to imagine that nobody except you has ever thought about the problems and issues which arise in criminal trials. Well, I've got news for you ...
Don't you dare insult my intelligence and try telling me what I imagine.....you have no idea of what I am thinking..... ....I have enough experience of the matters referred to, both personal and from other sources from both sides of the fence........which I would rather not disclose in public...........by PM yes. .....I am fully aware that other people know how to play the system.... ..Mr Loophole is a prime example............he gets prosecutions of quite obviously 'guilty' parties thrown out of court, not because of lack of evidence but through the failings of Plod / CPS and lawyers to abide by the processes.....and after all, most of the CPS are only there because they didn't cut it as a barrister or high grade lawyer. IMO Pete, you have seen it from the lawyers side only.........
Well thanks, you seem to have made my points for me. If either party fails to disclose material the procedures require them to disclose, the material may be inadmissible altogether, or may be admitted but with an adjournment to allow the other party to consider it and respond, or there may be consequences in costs - it depends on the sort of material. Certainly if the prosecution cocks up its case, the defence probably wins; the reverse is also true. That's the nature of adversarial proceedings. You don't seem to have been able to point to any particular aspect of court practices and procedures which could be improved upon - but if you can think of any please let me know.
I see..........off in your intellectual snobbery mode again? I'm beginning to think you use it to try and disguise the fact that you are nothing more than a troll. How about the CPS employing personnel that can actually do their job properly and don't make half baked decisions to prosecute or not to prosecute when clearly they don't have a case; or if the evidence is sufficiently powerful enough, to ensure that all procedures have been followed before proceedings commence.........because it doesn't seem to happen now. How about that for starters? Plus some barristers shouldn't even be in their positions simply because they don't have a clue as to what they are doing, so the defence can run rings around them...........So, employ better qualified barristers. I could give you a prime example, so bad that it is laughable.........(even the judge smirked at the repsonse to the barrister's questions) but again not in public.
Can't post a link Pete as my android phone won't let me but Guardian last week. Shadow,your consistency is amazing.
The courts are in the position of neutral umpires, holding the ring between the various parties whatever the failings of those parties might be. You are saying that some people employed by the CPS or as barristers are incompetent at their jobs - well I am sure you are right, but that has nothing to do with the topic under discussion, which is the practices and procedures of the criminal courts. In any given case, at least one of the parties is incompetent, dishonest or worse; that is the nature of the business. It is no criticism of criminal court procedures to say that some of the participants are criminals, or incompetent, or whatever. By the way, feel free to throw in insults ("snobbery", "troll") if you wish - it tells readers more about you than about me.
Well its my opinion to which I am entitled, but it seems many agree............but 'snobbery' isn't an insult; its a state of the owner's mind, in the belief they are superior. 'Troll'; again not an insult but a description IMO of someone who is sitting, waiting on a forum to aggravate......... .........and I'm sorry to say you aggravate me, when you regularly jump in to correct someone that doesn't conform to your way of thinking or views, particularly when it appears you started the topic off just so you can display your debating ability with what appears to be a snide comment. It seems to me you ran the school and university debating societies, where you could control the audience to sate your demand for adulation and self amusement. As to the court procedures, you should know as equally as I, that process and procedures will not be adhered to if run by incompetents......and process and procedures are in serious need of updating, thus making it easier for incompetents to comprehend them. "Fuck me", said the King......"Who will rid me of this turbulent Pete?"
I think we can safely say that any profession you choose has people who are incompetent, dishonest, inexperienced. So whats news Arquebus ?....just like the rest of the world .....it is good to want to live in Eutopia but it will be some time before we get there.
The thing that never ceases to surprise me is that some barristers will take on a case where everything suggests that the defendant is guilty and they'll fight tooth and nail to prove they're innocent. I'd just sit in my office, examine the evidence, have a chat with the defendant and walk away from the case if I thought they were guilty.
Unfortunately Andy, there is money involved... Its not just about getting the defendant off it is in some cases, about lessening a sentence. Whatever your point of view everyone is entitled to a defence in court so some Barrister or Solicitor somewhere has to do it. I am sure there are those in the legal profession, who delay court procedures, entering a guilty plea at the last minute simply because the longer it goes on the more payments are available. That said, part of a judge's role is to ensure cases are dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible based solely on the evidence provided. It seems many of the issues around "plod" and CPS mistakes revolve around timescales imposed by the courts. Contrary to popular belief, there are whole departments set up within the Police to ensure cases legally comply with disclosure laws even before they get to CPS. If at a later stage anything is later found to be amiss, then quite rightly, people and organisations are brought to book.
Nope - the clearest message I'm getting is just how arrogant you are. Have you ever considered that members experiences have shaped their opinions, and therefore have value? Or is your default setting that you know the most, and are always right?
That's why I've spent the last 38 years making dodgy bits of machinery appear to work properly. Turbines don't murder children or mug pensioners so I don't mind making excuses for them :smile:
Well no, the whole point about debate is that you can't control it - everybody gets to say whatever they want to say. Everybody gets to express their opinions and make their arguments. And each opinion sinks or swims depending on its merits. That's what I love about debates.
You keep on asserting vaguely that court procedures need changing, and I keep on inviting you to say what exactly is wrong with them and what changes you would propose. Unfortunately you never seem willing or able to give a specific answer. I hesitate to say it, but ... doesn't that make you a troll?
