Cycling UK Forum

Bearing in mind the thread title, I think it's worth considering how this case came to be heard in the Crown Court. It's no doubt the case (as I've already posted) that the CPS prefers summary trial where it's possible, and I think they'd say where it's appropriate. One measure of that appropriateness is whether magistrates have the power to pass a sufficient sentence. Afaik, the magistrates' max is still 6mos which is broadly in line with the guidelines quoted higher up (by MartinC.) The CPS has decided that putting the boot in and causing the type of injury in this case amounts to causing actual bodily harm contrary to s47 of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861. That's an indictable offence (ie triable at Cown Court) max impt 5yrs, but it's also triable summarily with the consent of the accused. I suspect that what's happened is that the defendant has been so convinced that he acted within his rights that he's been determined to fight the case. In a summary trial, heard either by a district judge (an experienced lawyer) or magistrates advised by somebody with legal training, a defence based on this type of "provocation" would almost certainly fail. That would leave hoping to sway a jury (brave soldier, delinquent cyclist) as the only straw to grasp.

It's a feature of the system that you can't punish somebody for exercising their right to plead not guilty, but you generally have to reward the defendant who pleads guilty, the reward being greater the sooner they put their hand up. I suspect that the defence barrister has "sought the views" of the judge on how much he was prepared to reward a guitly plea in particular if he would avoid custody. Once the judge made it clear that a guilty plea would attract a non-custodial sentence I suspect that the defendant has been persuaded to snap the judge's hand off. The judge will have been aware of all this which is why he stressed to the defendant that the cyclist was acting reasonably.

The difference between guilty and not guilty pleas may seem insignificant but it isn't. Trials are expensive. A shortage of court time means there are delays in cases coming to court which result in some defendants spending long periods in custody on remand. A trial means a dozen members of the public having to sit and listen to it all.

TC, I see your argument. But to me there's a contradiction in it. You're postulating that the offender elected to go for a jury trial because he was convinced that this was his best chance to be found not guilty. So your theory needs something more - what then changed his mind and led him to plead guilty? I'm sure that he would've been advised from the very start that his argument that he was entitled to commit the offence had no merit. If he was going to plead guilty he's have been better to go for a summary trial - to get the maximum benefit from an early guilty plea and to be tried where the court had less sentencing power. Wouldn't there have been a commital appearance where he entered a not guilty plea and the case would've been sent to the Crown Court?

My guess (and I stress guess) is that the CPS pressed for a jury trial because they were convinced their case was sound and that they could only get an appropriate sentence in the higher court.

As I said in my early post I'm pleased at the enlightened approach of the Police and the CPS and also at the Judges comment. But to me the sentence he delivered doesn't seem very enlightened but reactionary.

We have no way of knowing, but I'd be very surprised if the Army sanctions him at all. As far as they're concerned this has been done and dusted.

Obviously, I'm going on no more than supposition, but supposition based on some experience of how it works. There's a tendency for defence solicitors to advise clients wishing to plead not guilty to elect trial if they have the right. I'm pretty sure that the the only reason the CPS would plump for trial (at Cr CT) would be if summary disposal would be totally inappropriate. There has been increasing official enthusiasm for rewarding guilty pleas. (There have also been several proposals to curtail the right of jury trial in "minor" cases.) Unless there's somebody on here familiar with the case, the only way to know for sure who elected trial at the Crown Court is to see a report, possible something a bit older from the local rag. (I've been unable to find anything.) Looking at it the other way round, if the hint from the judge had been that he wasn't going to send him down, come what may, then there would have been no incentive at all to plead guilty.

There's another case reported today where somebody has changed their plea to guilty after denying the charge all the way to court - the soccer fan who allegedly punched the police horse. That's another case which could have been dealt with summarily.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-24281460

Yes, I'm speculating too and maybe the idea that the CPA pushed this to the higher court is over optimistic. One of the frustrating things about all these cases is that it's very difficult for the public to find out what happened. In this internet age it would be easy for the state to make the history of the case available in the public domain. Even putting the bare details of how the process went - court appearances, pleas, outcomes, judges summing up would allow the public (and it's all done in our name) to see what happened. It would also allow a better appreciation of the public of how and why things happened and why a sentence was arrived at - probably the reason why it'll never happen!

On the matter of putting info into the public domain, while I'm by no means up to date, the problem is one of integrating countless separate computer systems which have been set up piecemeal over time by the various bodies involved with the (mal)administration of justice. These divisions are geographical as well as by function: 43 Home Office police forces, local magistrates' courts which until recently had local autonomy, a separate organisation administering the Crown Courts ....Somebody needs to know what's going on before they can tell anybody else. . I'm afraid it's like a lot of other things in our public life where empire building also plays a role.

The benefits of sorting this out would extend far beyond people on a cycling forum knowing what was going on. When I was a lad, this was all paper-based, of course, and things were often chaotic. I'm talking about things like witness warnings and cancellations, and more recently schemes to keep victims informed, apart from all the missing paperwork.

I fear that this is the sort of thing that might easily end up as one of those multi-zillion public money down the drain schemes.

Yes, it was a moment of whimsy. Be nice if those administering justice on our behalf would let us know what they're doing. But, yes, even if we could get our lords and masters to agree they'd make a pigs ear or implementing it.