Today. At a provincial magistrates court somewhere in England, a trial was due to take place. It was, in the scheme of things, not the most important trial in the history of British jurisprudence. Towers will not shake nor the heavens fall as a consequence of this case. But it was a trial, and it does matter. It matters to the defendant, for one, as was evident when he attended court approximately on time, in a state of some small anxiety. It matters also, presumably, for the aggrieved, given that he also attended. Though, it appeared that it did not matter sufficiently for him to attend sober. The prosecutor in the trial found herself at an immediate disadvantage, as the august offices of the Crown Prosecution Services had contrived to send her the case papers via an email attachment that was corrupted and could not be opened. Her clerks and herself had advised the CPS of this minor problem the day before. The CPS had immediately sprung into inaction and done nothing. The prosecutor attended on the morning of the trial unaware of any of the facts of the case. Prior to the court starting, she endeavoured to get the CPS to send her some papers she could actually read. At that point, the defence solicitor, a strikingly handsome fellow with a steely gaze and a beard that is not in the slightest bit ridiculous, suggested that whilst she was doing that, she may wish to ask the CPS about the evidence which had not been disclosed. There were a few bits and pieces that were missing, but key amongst them was the CCTV. It clearly existed, because it was mentioned to him by the police prior to the defendants interview at the police station, a mere three months ago. It was mysteriously missing from the evidence that had been disclosed. The defence solicitor, showing the courtesy and patience for which he is rightly renowned, apologised for mentioning it on the morning of the trial, and offered as his meagre justification the fact that disclosure had only been performed by the CPS the day before, a mere 5 weeks late, and it is occasionally hard to determine what is missing from disclosure when disclosure has not yet been received. The prosecutor diligently set about trying to obtain some evidence, and in only slightly more time than it would have taken for the papers to have been physically transported to court slung under the wings of an arthritic pigeon, someone at the CPS office achieved the apparently Herculean task of attaching a .pdf document to an email and sending it. There was, of course, no CCTV. There was no mention of the CCTV in the file, and it was clear that no one at the CPS had looked at it. The defence solicitor observed that this left the prosecution in some difficulties, due to the new disclosure protocol which now existed, and which the Magistrates Clerk had explained to him about 5 minutes earlier but about which he now effortlessly gave the appearance of having known about the whole time. The protocol states that when the CPS are late in providing disclosure, and where there are missing items that might support the Defence, the CPS must seek an adjournment, and if that is refused, they must offer no evidence. Back to her court office went the prosecutor, to have a conversation on the phone. This was necessary because, in a masterstroke of policy-making, the CPS no longer permits anyone who actually appears in court to make any decisions. They have to phone people in an office somewhere, so that people who dont appear in court, ever, can make them. It is, in terms of isolating management from the consequences of their actions, a piece of pure silvery genius. To court once more returned the prosecutor. She had been instructed to proceed with the case. She was not to seek an adjournment and she was not to offer no evidence. I dont understand, said the defence solicitor, confusion clearly showing on his face, which, it might have been mentioned earlier, is strikingly handsome. What about the CCTV? The prosecutor explained that it wasnt relevant. The defence solicitor enquired how the CPS could say it wasnt relevant if no one had seen it. The prosecutor relayed the directions that had been given to her by someone in an office somewhere: if it was relevant, it would be on the file. As it wasnt on the file, it couldnt be relevant. It was, at that point, not yet twelve noon, so the defence solicitor was at least two hours from being drunk enough to fully comprehend thinking of such a philosophical nature. He considered asking the aggrieved for help, as he had been drunk enough since he had arrived at court that morning, but the poor soul had quietly passed out on one of the benches outside court, and it seemed cruel to wake him. There was not a soul within the courtroom who didnt think that the CCTV might be relevant. The prosecutor, the clerk, the magistrates, the defence solicitor, and even the defendant - who had understood maybe one word in five of all that had been said that morning - all thought it might be relevant. The only person who thought it definitely wasnt relevant was someone in an office somewhere who had never seen it. An observer might ask, then, whence this person in an office had derived the knowledge that it was not relevant. The answer, is that people count things. To the uninitiated, that may appear a non sequitur, but it is not. People count things. They count cases which are adjourned because of an application by the CPS. They count cases where the CPS offer no evidence. They count these things, and they send the numbers to other people. The people who get sent the numbers think the numbers are important, and they get upset if they dont like the numbers they get sent. These people like their numbers in nice tidy lines. They like numbers more than people because people dont live in nice tidy lines. They wish people did stay in nice tidy lines, maybe in a big stadium. Perhaps all looking toward another person whos standing on a podium making a speech. There might be some flags. Theyd like that. But they dont like bad numbers. Bad numbers make them sad, and when they get sad, they make everyone who works under them sad, because thats how management happens. And thats how the person in an office somewhere knew the CCTV theyd never seen wasnt relevant. It wasnt relevant, because if it might have been theyd have had to drop the case. And that would have made the numbers bad. And the person who gets sent the numbers would have been sad. And the person who gets sent the numbers would have made the person in an office somewhere sad too, because thats how management happens. The case got adjourned. The Defence Solicitor asked for it, not the CPS, and that keeps the numbers good. The Defendant went home, still not really knowing what happened. All the witnesses went home too. The CPS will phone them at some point explaining that their morning was wasted because the defence asked for an adjournment. Someone might have woken the aggrieved up. I dont know. He might still be there, sleeping peacefully on a bench, dreaming of a better world.
Posted on: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 23:26:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015