Police In Court.

[slane1280]

I am studying for GDL (just started) and attended crown court to watch proceedings. I was surprised a police officer being allowed to sit next to the prosecutor, it also materialised he was the investigating officer therefore, the main witness too. He was allowed to hear everyone’s evidence before he gave his own. Furthermore, the defence wanted to call an unscheduled witness, and the Judge allowed this. The officer offered his services to go and phone the witness, the Judge allowed this. Low and behold the officer came back saying the witness was unavailable due to child minding issues therefore, it was agreed to read out the statement only. I find the whole thing quite unsavoury as it has now been mentioned that the officer "persuaded" the witness that there was actually no need to attend.
Is all this allowed? I know the "persuasion" is not if in fact it did occur, what about sitting in, making the call etc?
I am no expert however, I hope that I can do a better job than the defence advocate did that day. Didn't seem to be supporting his client very well.

[KARL]

Your surprise and concern is understandable. Similar and worse occurs all the time, not least in civil cases, and the resulting "justice" is at best questionable. For example, claim and counter claim make up the sum total of any civil case and therefore it must surprise at least some when by the court's findings someone wins 75% of the argument (i.e. the points at dispute) but is ordered by the court to pay 75% of the opposite side's costs.

[FredPuli43]

Let's just analyse this from counsel's viewpoint. The officer in the case is commonly in court while other evidence is given. Prosecuting, I often had him court That's because what he is says isn't affected by what other witnesses say, we know what he'll say, it won't be affected by what they say, and it is not contentious in real terms. That is not always so, but often is. The defence know he's in and can always ask for him not to be; you ask them whether it is all right for him to be there. Defending, I would be well aware, and would say no otherwise. It is often a help to everyone to have him in court; from the prosecuting counsel's point of view, he understands and knows the case better than some CPS clerk, and the same may apply to defence counsel , who has him on tap as proceedings as going along and have details cleared up without having to get messages sent out.

How was a witness 'unscheduled'. If she was fully bound [subject to a requirement to attend] she'd attend. If she was conditionally bound [not so required] that was because the defence didn't want her there and were happy for her statement to be read out as evidence.. They were not challenging anything in it and had nothing material to ask her. Now it may happen that there is some detail which she could give, and which is not clear from the statement but it is not particularly important. Then we hold any ambiguity or missing detail in the defence's favour; here, if they really wanted the witness, what could be her evidence, not in her statement, was suddenly important to them, they could have had her brought, if not then ,on the next day. If the potential evidence was case turning and had not been foreseen, then she would have been. "Child care issues" would not stop that whether there were any or not. I think we can conclude that the evidence was not, but just something which defence counsel thought he might like to ask about if she was available, but if not, it didn't matter. She hadn't been fully bound by the defence's request, so it can't have seemed that there was anything important that she could say; if it was apparent that there was, they'd have had her bound to attend

[FredPuli43]

Karl, the 'winning side' may have refused an official offer to settle the case on the same terms or more favourable ones to the claimant at an earlier stage. In that event, they will pay the costs from that point; the idea is that they have wasted time and costs when they could have settled on the same or better terms, at that earlier stage. "Interest republicae est sit finis litium" is the rule; "It is in the interests of the State that there should be an end to litigation"

You also get 'costs thrown away', costs wasted by one side being negligent or incompetent in making wasteful delays or applications without merit. And it is rare for every penny of the winner's costs to be received by them, because, even with the best lawyers, the court won't allow every penny.

[tonywiltshire]

If you are going to make the law your career many things may surprise you at court, unlike Karl I think both civil and criminal courts usually arrive at what I would consider to be the correct decision and costs are usually fair, it is unusual for costs awarded to cover the full amount particularly where the cost officer has a hand, but do remember the claimant & defendant in a civil case will have been made aware of the costs involved and the likelihood of success The courts are used to people who “gild the lily” which can include police officers.
My best wishes with your conversion course

[slane1280]

I am grateful for the responses, thank you, have I chosen the right career path:)
On the subject of the witness, I believe they were not bound in any capacity as the defence (legal aid) missed them off the list. Only when it was pointed out that they may have evidence of interest did the defence ask for them to be called, Judge allowed. Their evidence, I'd presume was important hence why they were called. When they didn't attend it was agreed that part of their statement would be read. Through your experience, is it normal to allow the police/main prosecution witness to put a call to a defence witness and engage? What would happen should it come to light that said officer did prompt the witness not to attend? I love this law thing! So many questions....

[slane1280]

Fred, just re-read your reply, thank you. Are you saying that the Court position regarding police is one of, they do no wrong? Why are they allowed to remain when other witnesses are not. All are bound by their statements in the same way as the Police are.

[FredPuli43]

Believe me slane, nobody with experience of defending or prosecuting believes the police can do no wrong. Sometimes when prosecuting it is quite embarrassing what they admit to!

Practice is about being practical without compromising justice. And what I have described is practical common sense which meets that criterion.

Don't understand your reference to Legal Aid. Almost every defendant has legal aid in a criminal case nowadays. The richest might be asked for a substantial payment afterwards in serious cases, but nearly all defendants are on it if they so wish. If they weren't ,criminal practice QCs would starve!

Don't get what you are saying about the witness. If the witness had made a statement, part of which was read out, that statement must have been disclosed to the defence before. Statements don't arise out of thin air. It has either been part of the prosecution bundle and part of the evidence for them, upon which they will rely at the trial, or it falls into the category of unused material. Either way , the defence are aware of the witness. In the instant case, it can really only have been the former.

Now, it does sometimes happen that a further witness becomes, unexpectedly, desirable and necessary. For example, the defence may be taking a line which nobody could reasonably have foreseen (sometimes even by them; defendants can be most imaginative on the day) and which can be dealt with by some witness. Then the prosecution should rush off, get the evidence in a statement, serve it on the defence, and call the witness. But that's not your case, by the sound of it.

[FredPuli43]

And, I suppose, in the end you have to adjust to the fact that the barristers, solicitors, and judges have far more experience than you do, however strange what they do may seem to someone who has only read books. There will be a reason, but only doing the job for a while allows you to see what it is.

[FredPuli43]

And, as my last afterthought, "It's a funny old game" as Jimmy Greaves was apt to say about soccer. You will be eternally surprised by how the unwinnable becomes winnable and the winnable becomes unwinnable, and by the twists and turns each trial takes. But there is no substitute for being there, in the thick of it, with the fate of someone being dependent on, perhaps, just one question from you or one closing speech. Pressured ? Yes, but it is pressure you come to live by. If you want that, you are on the right career path. If you want to be solicitor in that field, you get your enjoyment and stress from getting the ammunition, and that can be hard enough.

Good luck in your course.

[KARL]

In the case I had in mind, the defender was sued by the pursuer who never offered any settlement and the case clattered along with the pursuer dragging it out as he could (ten years). The court went against normal procedure at the pursuer's request but still found 75% in favour (overall) for the defender (overcharging, carrying out work against instructions, unacceptable standard; the one point the pursuer won on was that the court decided the pusuer was still due some money beyond what he had been paid, a fraction of what he demanded). In that case it was very clear that the defender's counsel was primarily concerned with keeping their client's costs down in the belief that an individual always has an uphill struggle in court against a company (with deeper pockets). Everybody is entitle to have faith in the system, just as I do not.

[FredPuli43]

Just be grateful the case wasn't in the United States, Karl. In the UK , 'costs follow the event' and the winning side is entitled to all the costs that the court allows. In the US, each side bears their own costs.