The defendant was there on his own trying to defend his own rights and plead his case.
This case that I was observing was a driving offence and was a summary case.
The defendant looked very apologetic as he did not want to lose his ability to drive. He explained that driving was part of his current employment. I felt that the defendant understood that he had to pay his fine as the lay magistrates didn’t deduct 6 further points from his license.
All 3 of the lay magistrates looked as very understanding, and worked very well together. I felt as though they came to a conclusion together and made it very clear to the defendant that it was not right to drive without insurance that is valid. They interacted with the defendant by allowing him to plead his case and explain himself and they have taken his situation into consideration.
My general impressions of the day’s proceedings at Brentford Magistrates court was that unexpected, the case was concluded swiftly as the hearing only took 20 minutes. I did feel that justice was served as all members of the lay magistrate understood each other, and took their roles very seriously.
Crown court
This court case got deferred by a magistrates court as this was a more serious offence and the maximum sentence that can be given by a magistrates court is 6 months. The trial started at 10.15 and there was one defendant with his lawyer and his custody officer. The reason why the defendant had a custody officer present was because he was on bail for this offence. The case that I observed at the crown court consisted of the defendant acting violently resulting the prosecutor to end up in hospital due to major injuries. The defendant has used a dangerous, violent weapon, a knife.
Because of this he had to be tried at the crown court. Before the witness took the stand to give his testimonial evidence, he had to take an oath that he would tell the truth. The testimonial evidence can be given in various forms such as a live television link or on a pre-recorded tape. The testimonial evidence ‘comprises statements of a witness made orally on oath or affirmation in court’ (M. Hannibal, 2002:p7). The defendant pleaded that he was innocent of using the violent weapon but admits acting violently towards the prosecutor, he explained that he did act violently towards the prosecutor but it was only in self defence. This is what you call a mixed statement. A mixed statement is ‘a statement which is partly exculpatory and partly inculpatory’ (M. Hannibal, 2002:p301) This evidence is valid as he confessed out of his own will. There are some cases where the statement given is not valid as evidence, this is due to ‘fear or prejudice’. An example would be that the defendant is hoping that if he does own up to the offences committed, it will limit the damages the he will face. There is a ‘hope of advantage’ as opposed to the moral advantages that are thought to be coming about. Thus the person in authority will imply that if he does confess ‘he will see to get him bail’. If that did happen it would not be seen as admissible in terms of evidence for the trial. (P. Shears, 1996:p 77)
There was one witness who took the oath and claimed that he had witnessed the defendant using the violent weapon against the victim. This is called the confrontation procedure, ‘The least favoured method of identification is the confrontation as it is felt to produce the least reliable evidence of identification.’ (M. Hannibal, 2002:149). I am not sure if this evidence would be reliable in this case as they have ask the witness if they could confirm they saw the suspect is the person responsible.
Because the trial that I was observing was continued from a previous trial, I missed the first trial.
The way that the defendant was, it seemed like he was adamant on proving his innocence on not using a violent weapon. He seemed careless about the prosecutor and it looked as if he was insensitive towards him. I felt like he was able to understand the proceedings of the day as he followed the case thoroughly. My impression of the judge seemed like he was able to understand the pleads of both sides and was making notes thoroughly throughout the case. The prosecutors looked as though they feared the defendant. It was almost as if he was looking for sympathy from the judge. The defence lawyer tried very hard to defend his client and make sure that he got a sentence just for using violence but not for the weapon he may or may not have used. The defence lawyer interacted with his client to reassure him and make sure that he stayed calm; he also explained the situation to him as the day proceeded.
My general expectations of the day’s proceedings were that I did not expect the trial to continue throughout the whole day. The trials at the crown court could take up to 6 months. So one hearing could take up a whole day and be continued over the next couple of days or months, this applies to this case. I do reckon that the jury was able to determine justice as they listened very carefully, although they would be making their decision at the end of the trial and I was only present for the second hearing.
Conclusion
Both courts were very interesting as they both were investigating serious offences. Although i found that the magistrates’ court allows members of the public to decide what happens if one commits a summary offence, I think that it is still necessary that they would have some knowledge of the legal system to make sure that justice is served. This way it would seem like any individual with no legal knowledge would be able to make a decision based on different summary offences made. Although 3 individuals would be able to make a decision over an individual, they can’t sentence a defendant longer than 6 months or fine them more the £5000. In any case that this does occur, the magistrates court would have to defer the case to the crown court. All defendants that have a hearing at a magistrates court will have the opportunity to defer their case to the crown court. They can do this if they feel that they have been treated unfairly, although this could also possibly back fire as their sentence or fine could be increased by the judge of the crown court compared to a magistrate’s court. I have learned that there could be various effects towards one action. I have also learned that magistrates’ court and crown court both are open to public and anyone can attend them anonymously if they wanted to. I gained the knowledge that any evidence given must be relevant and admissible, it also must be seen by both parties of the court, the defendants team and the prosecutors team.
I have also gained knowledge that in a magistrate’s court hearing, the defendant seemed more apologetic, whereas in the crown court the defendant seemed like he did not care. This might be because the defendant may know that they would be able to plead their case and might be able to reduce the damages that he would face, whereas at the crown court it may seem like the defendant does not seem to care, this could be because the defendant may know that he may face a longer trial as well as a longer sentence.
Bibliography
Books
-
Shears, Peter, Graham Stephenson, and Philip James. James. Oxford University Press, USA, 1996. Print.
-
Hannibal, Martin, Lisa Mountford, British Division, British Services, and Council Bibliography. British national bibliography. Longman Pub Group, 2002. Print.
-
Roberts, Paul, A. Zuckerman, Oscar Miller, Association Schools, and Mortimer Schwartz. Recommended publications for legal research. Oxford University Press, USA, 1985. Print.
Websites
-
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court