![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
mcgillianaireI attended my first British court hearing this afternoon. It was part of our Criminal Law Tutorial homework. We were instructed to attend a criminal hearing at a Crown Court or Magistrates' Court and answer some questions about it. I went with a group of friends to Southwark Crown Court near London Bridge. We sat in court for about an hour, observing a prosecutor questioning one of the defendants accused of controlling prostitution for gain, three counts of unlawful wounding, ABH (actual bodily harm) and possession of a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence. During the prosecution, the defendant denied all the charges. Unfortunately, I couldn't stay to watch the rest of the afternoon's proceedings but from what I did see, I'm sold! If you thought the theory was good, wait till you see it in practice!
Southwark Crown Court was opened in 1983 with fifteen courtrooms, making it the fourth largest court centre in the country. It is a desginated serious fraud centre and from what I'm told, it is second in stature to the Old Bailey (officially called the Central Criminal Court) when it comes to hearing criminal proceedings of the nature we observed this afternoon. If that's the case, I will most certainly be paying it a visit in the not-too-distant future. And given the proximity of the Old Bailey, I will also be paying it a visit soon.
There were quite a few little interesting things that I saw today. Firstly, the defendant had access to a translator who stood next to him the whole time. At one point the judge interrupted the translator and reminded him that he could only offer translation services. I'm not surprised the judge interfered because it looked distinctly like the translator was telling the defendant in Albanian: "deny it while you can, deny, deny, deny!" :P I was also surprised at how 'modern' the court was, with flat screen TVs (both were turned off) on either side of the side walls and laptops with MS Word open on the counsel's table. But it wasn't all like that. Despite a recent decision to allow counsel to get rid of their silk gowns and wigs in civil cases, the counsel in our case were in traditional attire, including the judge.
The case itself was quite fascinating. The prosecutor tried his best to poke holes in the defendant's original statement and even though the accused denied everything, he did let slip the following bits: he refused to refer to the girls in the brothel as prostitutes, instead insisted on using the term 'working girls', he refused to name the owner of the flat in which the brothel operated because it would compromise his own safety (an assertion he repeated several times despite the prosecutor flinging a name in his direction), and he claimed that he didn't run the brothel but worked there merely as a doorman or security guard. At one point he started throwing back questions at the prosecutor to which the prosecutor got annoyed and said we might as well all go home if he didn't stop. The defendant stopped asking questions, but not before he found himself in a sticky situation trying to explain why he had hid some prostitute timetable papers from the brothel under his kitchen sink, which he described as a safe place, while storing his passport in a drawer in his dresser. As the defendant put it, the passport was worthless because his visa had expired and therefore he was living illegally in the UK anyway. I really wish I'd heard the rest of the prosecution. You can read more about the background to the case and the charges laid upon the other defendants here.
Funnily enough, though my friends and I generally agreed about how interesting the case was, most of the jury looked bored. Only two ladies seemed engrossed in the case; one was dutifully taking notes, while the other perused the prosecution's folder of evidence. Thanks to my group attending the hearing the court was almost full. A few people thought we were journalists. I was tempted to play along...
Meanwhile, I have been unanimously acclaimed as my tutorial group's Class Rep. Nobody really stood against me and I suppose the initiative to create a Facebook Group for our class of 15 kids might've had something to do with it. You'd think in a group of budding-lawyers there'd be at least one other interested lad or lass. Nevertheless, I will have the distinct pleasure of communicating the praises and concerns of our group with the powers that be, but more importantly, I will be able to attend the bi-annual Class Rep Wine & Cheese.
Southwark Crown Court was opened in 1983 with fifteen courtrooms, making it the fourth largest court centre in the country. It is a desginated serious fraud centre and from what I'm told, it is second in stature to the Old Bailey (officially called the Central Criminal Court) when it comes to hearing criminal proceedings of the nature we observed this afternoon. If that's the case, I will most certainly be paying it a visit in the not-too-distant future. And given the proximity of the Old Bailey, I will also be paying it a visit soon.
There were quite a few little interesting things that I saw today. Firstly, the defendant had access to a translator who stood next to him the whole time. At one point the judge interrupted the translator and reminded him that he could only offer translation services. I'm not surprised the judge interfered because it looked distinctly like the translator was telling the defendant in Albanian: "deny it while you can, deny, deny, deny!" :P I was also surprised at how 'modern' the court was, with flat screen TVs (both were turned off) on either side of the side walls and laptops with MS Word open on the counsel's table. But it wasn't all like that. Despite a recent decision to allow counsel to get rid of their silk gowns and wigs in civil cases, the counsel in our case were in traditional attire, including the judge.
The case itself was quite fascinating. The prosecutor tried his best to poke holes in the defendant's original statement and even though the accused denied everything, he did let slip the following bits: he refused to refer to the girls in the brothel as prostitutes, instead insisted on using the term 'working girls', he refused to name the owner of the flat in which the brothel operated because it would compromise his own safety (an assertion he repeated several times despite the prosecutor flinging a name in his direction), and he claimed that he didn't run the brothel but worked there merely as a doorman or security guard. At one point he started throwing back questions at the prosecutor to which the prosecutor got annoyed and said we might as well all go home if he didn't stop. The defendant stopped asking questions, but not before he found himself in a sticky situation trying to explain why he had hid some prostitute timetable papers from the brothel under his kitchen sink, which he described as a safe place, while storing his passport in a drawer in his dresser. As the defendant put it, the passport was worthless because his visa had expired and therefore he was living illegally in the UK anyway. I really wish I'd heard the rest of the prosecution. You can read more about the background to the case and the charges laid upon the other defendants here.
Funnily enough, though my friends and I generally agreed about how interesting the case was, most of the jury looked bored. Only two ladies seemed engrossed in the case; one was dutifully taking notes, while the other perused the prosecution's folder of evidence. Thanks to my group attending the hearing the court was almost full. A few people thought we were journalists. I was tempted to play along...
Meanwhile, I have been unanimously acclaimed as my tutorial group's Class Rep. Nobody really stood against me and I suppose the initiative to create a Facebook Group for our class of 15 kids might've had something to do with it. You'd think in a group of budding-lawyers there'd be at least one other interested lad or lass. Nevertheless, I will have the distinct pleasure of communicating the praises and concerns of our group with the powers that be, but more importantly, I will be able to attend the bi-annual Class Rep Wine & Cheese.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-10-08 09:52 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-10-08 09:58 am (UTC)