Location, location, location
In my experience of prison there are desirable and less desirable cells. A cell with a view is like gold dust. I have had one on the "Threes" in Lewes Prison which had a view over the Sussex Downs, and another in Winchester Prison, in the Segregation Unit, which only looked out to a small yard. On one occasion, I arrived at one prison and had only time to eat 2 may be 3 mouthfuls of lunch before an escort arrived and I was handcuffed and bundled out of the cell and into a waiting van enroute to another prison.
Drug dealer refuses to leave his 'comfy' cell
This report describes a judge hopping mad because a prisoner preferred to stay in his cell rather than appear before him. I suspect that his appearance would entail his going to Lewes Prison perhaps a week early to attend the hearing and having done so wait in Lewes Prison afterwards until his transfer back was organised by some private contractor. Meanwhile it is unlikely the cell would have been kept vacant for him, so not only would he lose whatever by the court imposed confiscation order but his most precious cell as well.
The judge displayed his ignorance of the law firstly by not knowing that a person does not have to appear before him, and secondly by claiming incorrectly that it is as a result of human rights rules that the prisoner refused to appear. Whilst a production order may compel a prisoner to attend the court confines it does not extend to forcing him to appear before the court. The prisoner chose to exercise his right and let his legal representative deal with the court appearance.
Whilst I found the news report amusing, I was sickened by many of the comments attached to the article in Have Your Say.
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.
4 comments:
'...secondly by claiming incorrectly that it is as a result of human rights rules....'
.
Read The Sun.
Human Rights are the latest to beat us with.
Yet, when you actually read the (boring) shit you get a different view.
Re-phrase.
I didn't actually mean Read the Sun.
I should have inserted an 'if' at some point.
Too late at night.
Just read the "Have your say". What a horrendous torrent of fascist ranting. Surely, unless one is summoned as a witness, the only thing one is doing is relinquishing one's right to put one's case personally to the court. Hardly advantageous is it, more like common sense when it is simply a rubber stamp hearing to strip him of his assets.
Sounds to me more the the judge is a bit miffed that his God-like ego was dented when he snapped his fingers and the prisoner in question didn't come scuttling to his feet like a dog.
Just out of curiosity, in a criminal case, if the person on trial enters a guilty plea and wishes to forego any representation, are they required to appear?
merkin: That's the problem, hype it up. Each time I try to read an article in the Sun, following a link, Firefox crashes.
richard: Pure bile most of the comments. As you say, the prisoner had his priorities rights and was only exercising common sense. I have come across judges like this who still think we are in the 18th and 19th century, doff your cap, patronage and all that crap. There is no obligation to appear and state your case, the case will still proceed in your absence.
Post a Comment