ChatterBank5 mins ago
Prisoner Absconds
The story about the prisoner walking out of the High Court yesterday raises a few questions. Who was supposed to be guarding him? Group 4? Also if he is so dangerous why have we not been told until today. What is the point of checking ports today? Does anyone agree with me that this story raises a lot of questions.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by grasscarp. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
Judges quite often keep defendants, who have been on bail until the trial, in custody during the trial or for key parts of it. A defendants will turn up for the trial, see how it's going, see that one witness has proved too good against him (contrary to expectations, when the defendant thought the witness had been squared !) and then decide to disappear.There's no profit in failing to attend the trial, that counts against you straight off next time and ensures custody when your captured, but during it might be your best hope.
Ah well. This judge can be wise after the event. Still, if he's convicted, this defendant will know in advance what he's facing on recapture.There's no reason for the trial not to go on, he having gone of his own free will. The House of Lords has ruled for the possibility of the absent defendant being represented nonetheless and his giving instructions to his lawyers.This presents the amusing possibility of Blake sending instructions during the trial via text or phone from some secret location (but may not be quite what their Lordships had in mind !)
Ah well. This judge can be wise after the event. Still, if he's convicted, this defendant will know in advance what he's facing on recapture.There's no reason for the trial not to go on, he having gone of his own free will. The House of Lords has ruled for the possibility of the absent defendant being represented nonetheless and his giving instructions to his lawyers.This presents the amusing possibility of Blake sending instructions during the trial via text or phone from some secret location (but may not be quite what their Lordships had in mind !)
No, Sandy he couldn't appeal successfully on the grounds that he didn't get a fair trial because he was no longer able to instruct his lawyers or he didn't know what was being said. He chose to abscond and therefore is deemed to willingly and knowingly take the consequences.
Whether his counsel and solicitors decide to continue to represent him in his absence is a matter for them.If they leave the court and take no further part they won't be criticised for that professional decision. Sometimes counsel remains because the trial is nearly finished; it's reached summing up, for example; and he can act without specific further instructions but often he can't because he has no case he can put in questioning witnesses on matters arising.
Whether his counsel and solicitors decide to continue to represent him in his absence is a matter for them.If they leave the court and take no further part they won't be criticised for that professional decision. Sometimes counsel remains because the trial is nearly finished; it's reached summing up, for example; and he can act without specific further instructions but often he can't because he has no case he can put in questioning witnesses on matters arising.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.