Reading all your blogs, it certainly seems that your Clerk is a mainstay of the court operation.
It's teamwork. The clerk (these days we sometimes call them legal advisers - same difference) is there to advise us on the law and on procedure where necessary. Our job is to be judges of law and of fact and to impose appropriate sentences. Our clerks (nearly all solicitors or barristers) are highly professional, and are meticulous to advise us only on the law. Most advice should be given in open court, but we may just call them out the back to check a point of law. They will always withdraw as soon as they have answered our question, and never comment on issues that are for judicial decision.
The relationship between clerk and bench is a rewarding one, and fundamental to what we do.
Thoroughly fascinating, thanks for posting this.
I'm idly curious as to whether this has ever been tried in a motoring case where the defendant has been coerced - in breach of European law, as I understand it - into incriminating themselves.
One could also wonder about some ASBOs that have been granted, for example the one recently where the ASBO effectively demanded that the person be drunk at all times...
Rogerborg, what would be an example of being "coerced" into incriminating oneself in a motoring case? Are you thinking of the collection of physical evidence in a drink-driving case, by requiring the motorist to blow into a machine?
I ask as a Yank, wholly ignorant of the ways of the English road (except that I am informed by the poet that it is rolling).
Roger,
It seems that European law (namely Art6 of the Human Rights Act) has been deemed "irrelevant" by the privy council, which means that s172 (which says you have to provide information as to the driver, or you're going to get it anyway) is still being used in this country.
Fortunately some brave souls have taken their case to both the ECHR and the ECJ, and we live in hope that it will be declared in contravention of Art.6. Those things take time however.
A class action lawsuit in case of success is sure to follow...
Article 6 of the HRA is UK law, not European!
Thanks, I was wondering how that was progressing. "Over-riding social benefit", wasn't it?
npetrikov, in the UK (*) if a vehicle that you own(**) is identified(***) as being involved in an alleged motoring offence, you are required to provide details of who was driving it at the time, and you can be jailed if you fail to comply.
This effectively amounts to being forced to incriminate yourself, which is a violation of the Human Rights Act. Or rather, it's not, as our fine upstanding courts have decided that this Act can be ignored when it's convenient to do so. So it's more of a Human Optional Priviledges Act.
This is leaving aside the issue of mis-identified vehicles, which means that you can be jailed for not accounting for your movements even if you didn't, by any standard, commit any crime. Business owners can also catch it in the neck if they can't identify the driver of a fleet vehicle.
Imagine this principle extended to other offences. Let's say that some computers go missing from my office late one night, with no sign of a break-in, so it was most likely done by someone with a key. So let's threaten the chap who assigns keys with gaol if he fails to disclose who has them. Better yet, let's bang up any key holder who can't or won't account for his movements on the night in question. Normally I avoid slippery slope fallacies, but in the context of the current government, I'm prepared to sling this one out there.
It can work both ways though; my father recently fingered his lady friend - HANG ON - as being the culprit when he got snapped, as he already has 6 points while she has (had) none, rarely drives, and so was amenable to the idea.
I believe, but haven't checked, that you can purchase similar "take the bullet" services on eBay, where students and other dossers and layabouts will accept your motoring conviction in return for renumeration. So at least we're stimulating the economy.
(*) The same situation applies in Scotland and... the other places.
(**) Are the registered keeper of, which isn't necessarily the same thing.
(***) Usually by being snapped by a speed tax camera, although I assume that the same applies to any other form of identification.
UK law as well it may be, but we still need the ECJ to have UK lawmakers comply with it.
Rogerborg.
Ahem.
Taking another's driving points is known as perverting the course of justice.
The max penalty, I believe, is life imprisonment.
Rogerborg, your explanation is lucid and witty, an unbeatable combo. I see what you mean about compulsory self-incrimination. God save the fine upstanding courts to which you advert, and long may they wave.
We can take it as read, I think, that Bystander's is one of 'em, to the limits of its jurisdiction.
I'd just like to add that after everything said about speed cameras on this blog, I'm glad my jurisdiction doesn't have them. Speed Cameras, or Photo-Radar as it was known in Ontario, was proposed by the government in 1994 or so. That government, the New Democratic Party, was deeply unpopular in Ontario by the end of its term. The opposition Tories (yes, the name IS international) campaigned on never implementing/abolishing this idea. They won the provincial election in 1995, so Photo-Radar was killed, and never heard from again. The more I read, the more I think that was a good decision.
Commenting by HaloScan
