Thursday, 11 September 2008


And on we go....

The boy himself had given a statement about what had happened. The statement had been taken by the headmaster one hour after the event.

Good evidence?

Damn - YES.

But the Prosecution had not disclosed it.

Can you believe that? It was so obvious that they just wanted to nail this teacher – a man of impeccable character – no previous convictions for anything – a guy doing a difficult job – in a very difficult school. And they were hell bent on jailing the poor bugger – fair means or foul.

The boy’s statement was tucked away in a list of Undisclosed Information – hidden from view.

P had to request to see it and low and behold it basically supported the teacher’s version of events: the boy admits to kicking off – whacking a kid – trashing the room – hitting the teacher – cursing, screaming and yelling – also that the teacher bundled him out of the room – he fell over by accident and broke his wrist and collarbone.

"It was an accident." The boy said so himself - a 15 year old - the victim without any mental illness said so.

Of course he says that the teacher provoked him and that he should not have been manhandled in this way. But what the heck.

So – I says to the Judge “Your Honour – this witness statement should be adduced as evidence as it gives the “victim’s” full account of what happened.”

And the Prosecution objects; they say that the boy’s evidence is unreliable because he is such an unruly child and in the interest of justice it would not be right to reveal it to the jury.

Well bloody hell – 50% of witnesses in British Courts are unruly and unreliable – but that doesn’t automatically disbar them from giving evidence.

So the jury goes out and we have a full-scale legal argument in front of the Judge, who has to decide whether to admit this crucial piece of evidence.

P is forced to bring a “Hearsay Application” on the basis that the boy is indeed unable to come to Court (because he certainly would not turn up), and if he did he probably would throw a tantrum and leg it from the dock. In the interests of Justice - it should be allowed as evidence.

P stated that the Prosecution’s reason for excluding this evidence was farcical and disingenuous. If the statement had supported their case they would have exhibited it as their main line evidence….in the blink of an eye.

The Judge agreed with me, and so in went the boy’s witness statement, which was to be read to the jury.

But P Club…..look how keen the Prosecution were to nail this teacher.

Can someone explain this to me.....from a sociological point of view?



Law Minx said...

My Dear P,
Good Hearsay Argument - I dont think any court could ignore the forcefully put contention that the interests of justice would be best served with the admission of the statement. It sounds to me as if the Prosecution is either really spotty and inexperienced or has been told to go for the jugular by those instructing ( in the name of " setting a good example to other teachers in a similar position")In this respect, society has indeed fully run mad and Sweet Lady Justice is taking an unfair peek out from beneath her blindfold......

The Troll said...

Prosecutor: Mr. Troll you are accused of firing an Employee soley because he's a Socialist. It's illegal to discriminate on the basis of party affiliation.

Mr. Troll: Wha...? WTF? I thought he'd said he was a SOCIOLOGIST!

Mr Pineapples said...


The Pros....fought like a dog to prevent me bringing this statement into the evidence. The hearsay application was strongly contested - and the law was thrashed out in some detail.

Farcical isnt it?

Mr Pineapples said...

Hey - me mate Troll

But.....aint we all sociologists?

boXer girl said...

Mr P, I'm glad you do what you do. If you didn't, then imagine the sad result for this teacher, this man that deserves a handshake, not handcuffs.

I'm saddened to think of the crooked lines in our judicial system. Reality bites. When you watch it on TV, the guy gets the girl, the doctor saves the dying patient, the innocent go free and the guilty are captured. Why is this so difficult in real life?

The Troll said...

Mr. Pineapples,

Well, we all KNOW Sociology as well as those who spent their college years "studying" that non-science.

1) Party till dawn.

2) Show up for class once-in-a-while.

3) Agree with Professor's views.

4) Obtain Magna Cum Laude Degree in Sociology.

5) Discover you're not qualified to DO anything in the real world.


Vodka Mom said...

I'm stumped. completely. ( However, I still love you...)

BBC said...

Can someone explain this to me.....from a sociological point of view?

Sure, it's just a bunch of monkeys fucking around.

Law Minx said...

My Dear P,

Despite the prosecution's heavyweight attitude ( wss this the sort of case which begs reporting, hence the attitude?) it is a great relief to see that judicial sense prevailed. I'll bet you thoroughly enjoyed the scrap though; be afraid, opposing counsel - be VERY afraid...!

electro-kevin said...

Well done, P. A thoroughly captivating tale.

I'm astounded that there was the possibility of any legal technicality preventing the use of this crucial statement. (Well done the Head too.)

I can't think of a sociological reason ... but I can think of a psychological one.

I believe that many lawyers are motivated through vanity - winning. WINNING. That goal would have sated a massive bewigged ego.

No matter that a decent fellow professional ends up losing his job, on an offenders' register and serving a prison sentence categorised as a nonce.

The prosecution lawyer is scum, vile scum.

I'll report an interesting story involving my undercover arrest of a juvenile when I was a cop and the tricks the CPS solicitor pulled to get him off the hook. In this case though I respect the solicitor - with hindsight I hope that he did the right thing, but he made me look a fool in court.

PipeTobacco said...

Mr. Pineapple:

Interesting site to be sure. I came across your site by way of 63Mago, which for some reason you and he both seem at odds with each other.

Well, if you want another site that may induce rancor, you can consider my own site. I am looking for other readers both with positive and negative comments.


Law Girl said...

Yes and I bet they tried to rely on that evidence in some way without disclosing it. At least the J had the sense to allow it.

Why are these people so intent on nailing people like the teach? Because they are the same breed of do gooding interfering moralists who get jobs inspecting rubbish and fining people £1k for an offending piece of recycling in the wrong bin. The same type who issue FPNs for 32 in a 30. The same type who are more interested in easy prey than hard work, and who are morally self-righteous unless it is them misbehaving. I wonder how much coke they do on weekends?

If he had been a career criminal, they wouldn't have bothered. Generally law abiding people are somewhat scared of going to law and are too honest if you know what I mean. Teach may have been a bit careless but when you have a thrashing child you are going to have accidents.

Fat Govt, fat bureacracy, breeds the bureaucrat plankton who forget the meaning of 'common sense' and 'DISCRETION'.

The Pros pursuing this with that witness statement in their possession was vindictive and cowardly, from a professional point of view as well.

Good job you were there.