|
Court:
|
C of L Maj court 3 |
|
Hearing date:
|
Wednesday 16/2/22 |
|
Bench (DJ or JPs)
|
JPs |
|
Charged with:
|
Sect 14 |
|
Represented by:
|
Hannah (Kelly’s)
|
|
Please outline key points in prosecution and defense cases.
|
Trial was cancelled and charges dropped. Prosecution lawyer asked police constable for details about the arrest and showed body cam footage. PC explained about following normal procedures for Sect 14 actions. She had not known about the 5 stages to follow until she arrived in the area. The body cam footage showed defendant face down, with arms handcuffed behind her back, being carried off by police officers. Defense lawyer asked questions about when the P.C. wrote her report, where it took place and who else was around at the time. Was told that she had been told to start writing the report whilst waiting for the police van to arrive to collect the defendants. Defense asked if she had completed the report by herself, in a quiet area, with no one around. P.C. replied that, as V.C. was calm and cooperating she was by herself with her. Many arrests had been made and the arresting officers, with their arrestee were separated by a few meters. . Information had been provided by sergeants who had been instructed by more senior ranks. She wasn’t sure what those ranks were. Defense lawyer asked about the ranks of the officers that the PC had interacted with. She said that there were lots of officers of differing ranks moving around the area. Moved on to asking about the fact that the P.C. had accessed paperwork relating to S. M/E (co-defendant) , on her laptop, in the court waiting room. Established that she had gone on to the website ‘Copper Files’ which allows police officers to access colleagues’ cases. She had ‘skimmed’ a number of papers relating to S.M/E, including a report by the superintendent who was heading up Bronze team and issued the Sect 14 on the day. He was also the witness for the prosecution with regard to S. ME. The P.C. said that she was concerned that she might be required to give evidence re the case of S.M/E. Said that she had not met the superintendent before and did not know that he was the superintendent involved in the case. Said that she had introduced herself to him in the waiting room and expressed her opinion that his report was ‘very long’. Defense lawyer asked her why she didn’t think to check with CBS in the building. She replied that she did not know where it was. P.C. was asked to leave the court room and not interact with the superintendent in any way. Defense lawyer suggested that the evidence should be inadmissible. Prosecuting lawyer said that the evidence of the arrest and breaking of Sect 14 was not in question and gave previous examples of cases where a police officer had breached court procedures but evidence against the defendant was still accepted. J.P.s left court to discuss . They decided that the evidence was inadmissible as the trial could not be deemed ‘fair’. |
|
Was defence evidence submitted in writing?
|
Not known, as the JPs did not reach the stage of considering the evidence.
|
|
Did defencewitness(es) give evidence in person? Were they cross-examined?
|
Defendant did not speak. |
|
What was the verdict?
|
Case dismissed |
|
What was the sentence?
|
N/A
|
|
What costs were awarded?
|
Travel costs awarded |
|
Please add anything else relevant.
|
Court Support –Shirley Defense lawyer has reason to believe that there may have been a superior officer at the site. There may have been a superintendent from the Silver Team. If that was the case, then the Bronze Superintendent did not have the right to establish Sect 14. She suggested that in any future trials, related to this action, this information could be requested. |
Charge
Outcome
Court date