I've had my eyes opened...

Oh Jaxjacky, I was just offering a reflection...not intending to start a statistics competition.
I play tennis on Friday mornings. At a certain time a 'crocodile' of teenagers passes by on their way to do keep fit on the adjacent field, chattering happily together as they go. Each and every one of them politely and happily shouts 'Bonjour!' to us. Compare and contrast, without reference to your statistics.
This is what prompted my discussion with my friend.

Maybe fancythat means a Magistrates Court? the accused is still legally represented and ‘speaks” when giving evidence. Court rooms are places of discipline and follow set procedures, no one speaks unless it’s their ‘turn’. The Judge is the exception, s/he can intervene or make comment. Making a comment is rare -so every party takes account

It was a Crown Court in that case.

He may have pleaded guilty or been found guilty earlier.

There is no such thing as a ‘low level’ Crown Court. It either is a Crown Court or it isn’t.

If there was no jury perhaps the accused had already pleaded guilty, or been found guilty at an earlier hearing, and this was a sentencing hearing?

You have made some very unpleasant accusations on the basis of no knowledge whatsoever of what was actually happening.

It was at a low level Crown Court.

There was no jury if that makes things clearer.

He wouldn’t get a note, he could pass one to his lawyer if he wanted.

It sounds as though the man declined to give evidence, assuming this actually was a trial - your lack of understanding of what went on leaves me uncertain that it was. Committal proceedings or a bail hearing perhaps? If you don’t know, having been there, we certainly don’t. But no trial is a fait accompli and I’m very disappointed that you should think it would be.

Anyhoo. That is what I saw.

In the Magistrates Court, things were only slightly different. A little more interaction between the acused people.

As the op says, eyes were opened.

I expect them to speak at least!

In one I saw, the man was in a box at the back.
I didnt see the beginning of the trial.
I think the man may have nodded once and that was it. He may have been asked 1 question?
Maybe he had declined to give evidence?
It all seemed a fait acompli.
He got no note.

The parties see their lawyer for consultations outside the courtroom. They sometimes pass notes to their lawyer during the case, on a point the prosecution has raised or which has come out of a witness’s evidence. The accused gives evidence unless they have declined to do so - being asked questions isn’t being ignored is it? It is however singularly unlikely that the lawyers will need the input of their clients on a point of law. I don’t know what input you expect non-lawyers to have during a trial.

I don’t know anything about court room lawyers but I worked in child protection for 14 years. In my experience social workers are either excellent and go the extra mile or are horrendously incompetent. There didn’t seem to be anything in between

fancythat

well that is what i mean really.

it was above their heads.

they look like bit players in their own sentencing.

Attending court is quite an eye-opener - I used to take groups of students into court to see how it all worked.

Well done vampire for exposing these wrongs.

well that is what i mean really.

it was above their heads.

the accused is rarely well versed in legal procedure, the rules of evidence etc.
how could he she be consulted in the court.

I must have come across wrong.

I didnt mean fixing.

I meant, that the accused is barely consulted in the courtroom.

The cases I saw, the judge checks something with 1 barrister, asks another about law number whatever in a law book, or named case a v b from 1976 or something.
The accused barely gets looked at or consulted during proceedings.

Nodded occasionally and that was about it.

I didn't see any evidence of fixing. I saw barristers talking and chatting but they're only like any other people who work in the same environment. Footballers and other sportsmen are friends with each other. It doesn't mean that they're fixing matches or races.

Once in court they did the best they could for their clients whether as prosecutor or defender. The jury made the decision as to guilt.

fancythat Of course they are likely to know each other and could well be friends, they all want to do their jobs well and have a reputation to uphold so do not make deals that would be detrimental to their clients.

There a two brothers who are barristers in our family, they get on very well but are competitive when it comes to their professional reputations.

Vampire 💐 to you for standing and speaking up.
Lawyers advocate the truth, they are professionals and bound to act as such. So FancyThat. I don’t believe for a moment there is any corruption of pre sorting out between themselves.

That’s utter nonsense fancythat. Of course a lot of lawyers know each other and are friendly outside the courtroom. They show one another professional respect. They don’t ‘sort out cases between themselves’. That really is a scurrilous slur on the profession. You see lawyers chatting and think they’re stitching up the accused? Think again. Each has a duty of care to their client.

Are you suggesting there’s no law in the way cases are settled, fancy that? Lawyers take the next case, whether they’re defending or prosecuting makes no difference to the way they work

I used to read some lighthearted books written by policemen.
They opened my eyes.

As to court cases, I once visited a few as an observer[went with someone who wasnt sure if she wanted to enter the legal profession or not].
What I found the most profound was, the legal people all knew each other. Obvious really. I just hadnt thought about it.
So cases almost appeared to be sorted out between the legal people, no matter which side they were defending or prosecuting. Felt like the person being accused was almost an irrelevance.

Jaxjacky

Crime rate in Europe 2023 specki4eyes
1Catania, Italy64.6
2Marseille, France64.4
3Birmingham, United Kingdom63.1
4Coventry, United Kingdom63.1
5Charleroi, Belgium62.8
6Naples, Italy62.6
7Montpellier, France61.6
8Liege, Belgium59.4
9Grenoble, France58.7
10Nantes

Crikey. Birmingham worse than Naples. I remember, when we used to travel round Europe; when we went through Naples it was a case of lock the car doors and drive through as quickly as possible. And, if you get stuck in a traffic jam hope that no one steals your car tyres while you’re not moving! As for the other points, I know of a family in which something that someone in the family did is completely brushed under the carpet; it’s as if they’re all in denial. As for teaching I’m so glad my daughter left the profession. Abuse from parents on a regular basis and fear of being stabbed.

Sadly I’m not surprised vampirequeen there is a cult of denial, across the whole range of society, ‘my son/daughter/husband et al, has done xx for charity, a good role model etc, etc’
What you have done is admirable, difficult and thank goodness in this instance the perpetrator was penalised.

Crime rate in Europe 2023 specki4eyes
1Catania, Italy64.6
2Marseille, France64.4
3Birmingham, United Kingdom63.1
4Coventry, United Kingdom63.1
5Charleroi, Belgium62.8
6Naples, Italy62.6
7Montpellier, France61.6
8Liege, Belgium59.4
9Grenoble, France58.7
10Nantes

Thanks vampirequeen for what you and mr v tried todo for these children.
Thanks also for posting about your experience of the court abd the way the convicted man’s family continue to deny any offences.
The evidence must have been very strong for conviction to occur. Horrible to think of