John Terry in race row charge

You *@!!*@!! and **!!@*!**!

The Crown Prosecution Service is in the lip reading business. That's the only way they are going to prove their point that John Terry, footballing vulgarian, racially abused another footballer. The other ball kicker was Anton Ferdinand, who is of mixed race. He's had some threatening letters and has himself been in trouble with the police over a fracas outside an Ilford nightclub. He was acquitted as the jury believed he was acting in self-defence.

The CPS and footballers don't go together very well. The modern prosecution service is all politically correct and self-important. Modern footballers on the other hand tend to be rude, crude and bad to know. Gary Lineker played in a different universe!

Now we only have Ferdinand's word for it that Terry slagged him off with a racial epithet. The CPS have heard Terry's denials, yet wish to proceed. John Terry says he will fight the case "tooth and nail". If that is so, then this will be a fine courtroom drama. Lipreaders and soothsayers to the witness stand.

Racial abuse is one thing, very distasteful. But the legal profession with cretins at the helm is also very unappetising. I hope the CPS know what they are doing. Playing a straight bat, I trust.

Read More

Law and Order UK - Police to prosecute

"I've got a bigger postbag than you!"

The Crown Prosecution Service is getting its workload reduced and by implication its staffing numbers. Home Secretary Theresa May has announced proposals aimed at reducing police bureaucracy. She said her plans marked a "watershed moment" in policing and could save up to 2.5 million police hours each year.

Basically the Home Office's idea is to allow police officers, rather than the Crown Prosecution Service, to decide whether to press charges in up to 80% of cases, with some people being charged by post. I'm assuming they will have been arrested and subsequently interviewed beforehand. "Will you be charging me, then?" "Not today, the charge will be the post!"

The police should be "chasing criminals not chasing targets," said Mrs May. I agree, but she better make sure that the police are involved in real chases and not paper chases.

Read More

Brummie banana justice

This case of an allegedly stolen banana has made headlines because it involves a banana (always good for a bit of fun) and the fact that the trial cost £20,000. The Crown Prosecution Service thought it money well spent as they felt "it is not the cost of the item that determines a prosecution". They also felt they had the alleged banana napper bang to rights.

What I thought about this case was a bit different from others. I was taken by the remark of the accused James Gallagher who allegedly stole the fruit from an Italian restaurant in Birmingham's Bullring Shopping Centre. He said he had chosen a Crown Court trial because he expected magistrates would have found him guilty. Interesting? Mr.Gallagher hits on matter of considerable importance, I'd say.

Are we to assume that magistrates would just rush through a guilty sentence if he had not elected trial by jury? Do we think that magistrates err on the side of presumed guilt? Are magistrates still of the opinion that prosecuting authorities are word perfect in their detail? Mr.Gallagher was charged with burglary and theft, not shoplifting, presumably as a restaurant is not a shop. But burglary is a serious crime - a prison sentence is always possible. He took his chance with a jury.

Now what do we think of the juries of today? Did they sit there thinking "this is all a complete waste of time"? Are juries made up of people more likely to side with the "ordinary bloke"? The CPS said they had "sufficient evidence and it was in the public interest for the prosecution to proceed." The jury obviously thought differently. Sufficient evidence can mean a lot. It could mean that the CPS thought he was guilty but didn't have the banana to prove it.

If many more take the Crown Court route we could find that the CPS is again in such a position. It tells us that juries are not so keen to convict as magistrates. Magistrates may not mix socially with those before them and may be prone to assume guilt over innocence. Juries on the other hand may identify with the accused. They may think that certain "crimes" are just misdeamenours not worth the time of the court. They may think a lot of things. One thing is certain, the CPS is no longer going to get cosy convictions.

Read More