Just the Legal Aid Agency casually insisting that a child is capable of running his own defence in a criminal court, cross-examining police officers and dealing with any arguments of law that might arise.
External Tweet loading...
If nothing shows, it may have been deleted
by @robedward90 view original on Twitter
So to recap: a child will be forced to defend themselves at a contested criminal trial - examining witnesses, analysing the applicable law, arguing legal applications and making speeches.
The child will be up against a fully legally qualified prosecution solicitor or barrister. All decisions at trial, including any legal arguments, will be decided by a bench of three non-legally qualified magistrates.
If the child loses the case, he could be incarcerated for up to 4 months.
How, you ask, in a civilised society has it come to this?
Well, it’s because justice minister after justice minister has spun lie after lie about how “expensive” legal aid is to the taxpayer.
So the public supported huge cuts to legal aid. And now, people who desperately need it can’t get it.
Like this child. Who is, by presumption of law, innocent. But whose life might be destroyed because we begrudge the few hundred quid it would cost for him to be represented.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
There has been quite a lot of anger at this story. I understand why - it instinctively feels as if the bar is being set even higher for victims of serious sexual offences to get justice. As if we’re giving up on them.
But if I may offer a counterpoint from my book [1/6]
Something missing from the reporting and commentary is the fact that independent reviews have shown that, in Rape and Serious Sexual Offences (RASSO) cases, the CPS misapply the evidential test more often than in non-sex cases. (Report here: justiceinspectorates.gov.uk/hmcpsi/inspect…) [2]
This is partly because of (understandable) eagerness to amend for an historically appalling indifference by police and prosecuting authorities towards often vulnerable victims of sexual abuse.
But it’s wrong to assume that prosecuting weak cases is without human cost. [3]
Obviously assaults on emergency workers are unacceptable. That is so obvious as to be trite, but for the avoidance of doubt, that is my starting point. Anything we can do to offer protection to emergency workers should be seriously considered. But this new law is not serious.
It seeks to do two things:
1) Create a new offence of “assault against an emergency worker in the exercise of their functions”.
2) Create a “statutory aggravating factor” for more serious assaults.
It’s a reasonable question (although the answer would be easily discoverable to a journalist):
Because all defendants sentenced to a standard determinate custodial term are automatically released on licence after serving half of their sentence (s244 Criminal Justice Act 2003).
There are certain offences and situations where, if a judge believes a defendant to be “dangerous” (defined as presenting a significant risk of causing serious harm), a defendant can be detained beyond the halfway point of their sentence. HOWEVER...
...It is worth reading the remarks of Mr Justice Holroyde, who sentenced Choudary. He indicated a clear view that Choudary was dangerous, and would continue to “spread his message”. But the offence of which Choudary was convicted was not one to which the dangerous laws apply.
These stories are becoming increasingly popular with the media. Criminal steals big wodge of money, soft judge only makes them pay a fraction of it back.
When someone financially benefits from a crime, the Crown Court has the power to make what is called a “confiscation order”. It has two parts: (1) The “benefit” - ie what has the person had. (2) The “available amount” - what assets does the person currently have.
The court makes a confiscation order in the lower of those two figures. A person will only be ordered to pay what they can actually afford, as failure to pay can mean the person is imprisoned, and it’s not very fair to imprison people for not paying what they haven’t got. BUT.
“No other sanction”. Well that’s a lie right off the bat. The news report is here. And we can see that the court imposed a community order, a restraining order and costs. There would also be “requirements” to the community order, such as unpaid work or a rehabilitation programme.
It’s important to note that there are few facts given. The charges aren’t even specified (“assault” is not an offence), and no information is given about the reasons given by the court for passing that sentence.