There is something wrong with our system when a magistrate has to face an inquiry because he walked out of court upon seeing a Muslim defendant wearing a mask covering all her face except for her eyes.
The hearing was meant to justify the Muslim's alleged conduct in relation to a charge of criminal damage. In my view, it would be criminal damage to allow such defendants to put the magistrate in the dock.
The defendant is angry that she now has to explain the magistrate's conduct to her children. Surely, she should be more concerned about explaining her own alleged conduct to her children?
A mixture of law, politics, autobiography and humour. Once described as "The Devilish Advocate" (Guardian), I do have the ability to provoke a response. Sometimes it comes from someone who uses a thought process, and sometimes from jerks usually associated with the knee.
2 comments:
I think you are again mixing up charges and convictions. She would have nothing to explain if innocent.
This magistrate was a fool. He claimed that he couldn't stay on the bench because he was concerned about the woman's identity. As far as I can tell - and the court's continuation without him - this was not a factor in the evidence.
Notice I used the word alleged both times that I referred to her alleged conduct.
Whilst I think that the magistrate is a plonker, I can see his point about hiding identity. I think that we should leave that to the likes of the Lone Ranger and Batman and Robin...
Post a Comment