The Defence Brief

Alison Saunders, the Director of Public Prosecutions I wrote recently about the spate of acid attacks and the proposals for dealing with them suggested by some MPs . Today, I want to talk about the comments by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Alison Saunders. Ms Saunders comments appear to show that she is somebody who has no understanding of the role of the CPS or the law itself. Now Ms Saunders is a very experienced prosecutor and lawyer. She has risen to the very top of her organisation and I do not for a minute believe that she does not understand what the CPS does or what the law is regarding acid attacks. According to the Guardian newspaper, Ms Saunders said that there is a strong public interest in her authorising the CPS to give out the strongest punishments to acid attackers. I suspect she didn’t say that exactly since it’s not a direct quote and is most likely badly paraphrased by a journalist. But, it’s worth saying that the CPS do not give out punishmen...

Justin Henshaw-Bryan As a specialist motoring solicitor I spend a lot of time talking to the Crown Prosecution Service about charging decision - usually trying to get them to reduce or drop the charge against my client. But, in this case, I think they got the charge badly wrong. Earlier today Justine Henshaw-Bryan was imprisoned for three-years (she won’t serve anywhere near that long) after she chased cyclist Damien Doughty in her car before deliberately running him over as he attempted to escape her by getting out of the road. You can view the footage here but be warned it isn’t nice: Ms Henshaw-Bryan pleaded not guilty to a charge of causing serious injury by dangerous driving and was banned from driving for four and a half years. But the big question for me is why she was charged with that offence at all. Her driving was certainly dangerous and she did cause serious injury, Mr Doughty spent three days in intensive care, but her actions were also very deliberate. ...

The UKIP agenda - pic mercilessly stolen from someone on Twitter I don’t normally spend my time blogging about political party manifestoes mainly because a. we don’t have elections that often; and b. because they are usually pretty vague and unexciting. But UKIP have today published their integration agenda as part of their 2017 General Election manifesto. To say it is extreme and ill-thought out is understatement even for a party whose policies usually lack both subtlety and common sense. In fact, it’s so extreme that I didn’t believe it was real until I saw it being reported by several reliable news organisations with quotes from party leaders. First, they plan to ban “face coverings in public places”. An interesting idea and one I’ve never understood because it will require exemptions for bee-keepers, police on riot/terrorist duties, people who live in really cold places like the north, motorcyclists, the list goes on and on. It’s also really difficult to ban “face ...

Although most my work is in drink driving offences , I do also handle a lot of dangerous and careless driving offences too – although I don’t advertise this service, dangerous driving and drink driving can often go hand in hand. With that in mind, I’ve been fascinated by the case of James Ellerton, the Liverpool police officer who deliberately crashed a police van into a motorcyclist. PC Ellerton was investigated by the Independent Police Complaints Commission who referred the case to the Crown Prosecution Service for a decision on whether to charge PC Ellerton with dangerous driving. He was charged and subsequently tried at Liverpool Crown Court where a jury acquitted him despite the Crown alleging that his actions were excessive and in breach of police policy. I should admit that my first reaction was that his actions must be sufficient for a conviction of dangerous driving but clearly the jury disagreed and having considered the press reports I have changed my opinion...

A justice system Kafka would recognise When I read The Trial by Kafka and Nineteen Eighty-Four by Orwell, I took them as warnings of how a bad justice system wrecks lives of those caught up in it. Sadly, some Members of Parliament and the House of Lords seem to view the books more as a guide to how they would like our Criminal Justice System to run. Today, I read of plans to hide the names of accusers and witnesses from defendants in a large number of cases. Victims of sexual offences, such as rape, have had the right to lifelong anonymity for many years now. This means that it is a criminal offence to publish information that will lead to a complainant being identified. A Bill currently being considered by Parliament would extend that anonymity to bar defendants and their lawyers knowing the name of the person accusing them. This would apply not only in sexual offences, as has been reported in the press, but also in violent offences. The anonymity currently offered to ...

Do we make it too easy for dishonest witnesses to lie? When a matter comes for trial the procedure is for the prosecution to call their evidence and prove that the defendant is guilty of the offence(s) against him. In ye olden days, the prosecution would call witnesses who could say, “I saw X do Y” and would then use this to build the case against the defendant. The accuser would give evidence before the judge, jury and defendant – the defendant would face his accuser and the accuser would face the accused. I’ve always thought that this is a good idea – in my opinion it’s much harder to lie to the face of somebody who knows you to be a liar than it is to lie to somebody with no knowledge of the facts. Don’t believe me? Go have an affair, send your wife the photos of your liaison and then deny it to her face and see if she can see through your lies – go on, I double dare you and we all know you can’t get out of a double dare! Also, assessing a witness’s credibility...

A typical Magistrates' Court - no defence brief in sight due to legal aid cuts Not long ago, I wrote about mitigation given in the case of a celebrity who had been convicted of drink driving.   I return to the topic today after seeing what should have been a car crash of a plea in mitigation, but was saved by the “inexperience of the bench” – those were the words of another advocate who witnessed the hearing. I want to say at this point that I don’t write these posts in the hope of shaming another advocate or because I want to show off. I write them because I think it is important for all of us who appear before the courts to be reminded once in a while that everything we say (and the things we choose not to say) are important and proper consideration should be given to everything. That often does not happen when people view offences as “not serious” or “unimportant”, but while a drink driving or TWOC may be minor in the grand scheme of things it will be impor...