Tuesday, 16 September 2008


So the Prosecution call 3 witnesses: two who saw what happened plus the headmaster who saw bugger all.

However, P had to first deal with a problem: the Crown tried to bring in a witness statement from a teacher saying that our Teacher had roughed up kids before. So this was an issue for the Judge as P reckoned that this was “bad character” evidence by the back door. None of it was proven, he was never charged and in any case it was total bollocks. So we had more legal argument.

The Judge refused to allow it on the basis that it was utter krap – He didn’t quite use those words but I know that he was itching to.

First witness for the Crown

He says he saw our Teacher lift the boy up by his shoulders and throw him 15 feet onto his back – just outside the classroom.

He says he saw our teacher run up to the boy as he was lying on the floor in a foetal position and go as if to kick him. The teacher had a very angry expression when he did this.

So – he gets in the witness box.

I could tell that he was old school and arrogant – obviously didn’t like our teacher and more importantly didn’t like Mr Pineapples.

Mr P has a bit of a London accent – a bit of a cockney – born within the sound of Bow Bells.

He’s thinking: who the bloody hell is this so-called barrister?
He’s not one of us – no public education - no Eton, Harrow or Oxbridge;
He’s a barrister by dint of primitive animal cunning;
Sponsored through Bar school by the Kray Twins or Mad Frankie Frazer.

So – I lay the accent on a bit thicker – he gets prickly – and defensive.

I suggest that his witness statement is full of errors, wrong and incomplete – which he denies and with a sad shake of his head assures the court that his statement is 100% accurate.

This is GREAT – because P has noticed a typing error: instead of saying he was 20 yards from the scene – the statement says – 200 yards from the scene. This must mean he was standing as far away as the school car park.

This is impossible.

But he wasn’t prepared to admit an error to this cockney wide-boy and when I read the statement he did not correct the 200 yards cock-up – he had dug himself self into a hole and wasn’t prepared to eat humble pie to get out.

So far so good.

Hurling the boy through the air

He then assures us that the boy was picked up and hurled backwards through the air (his words) – so P says that the boy is 5’ 5” and 10 ½ stone – the teacher is 5’ 8” and 11 stone. Strangely the boy was gripped by his shoulders.

Were you surprised by this Herculean feat of strength?”

No – not at all” he says.

I could see that the jury were.

Any injuries to the back of his head?”


Bit surprising?”

No, not really

The pretend kick

“The boy was in a foetal position and wouldn’t have seen the kick?”

“Oh he saw it alright”

"But the boy had his hands over his head in a foetal position?"

"He could see alright."

“How do you know?”

He must have

“But you were 200 yards away weren’t you and not close enough to see anything?”

“I could see what was going on”

“He wasn’t kicked was he?”


“So all of this is irrelevant isn’t it?


The Angry Face

“Would you be angry if you’d been called “wanker” “c***” and “fudge packer”.


“Kicked in the testicles and punched in the face?”


Why not?”

“I am a better teacher – we can’t allow ourselves to get upset by these things.”

“Perhaps a tad inconvenienced?”


This was the Crown's Star Witness.


Old Knudsen said...

I feel sorry for you so I'll leave a comment.
Back in the day you could get a summer job packing fudge and if you were a wanker you'd become a peeler and the cunts become solicitors which I believe is a kin to soliciting which makes lawyers cunty hoor bags.
Remember size is no guarantee of strength........ its what you do with it.

Mr Pineapples said...

Thanks Ole Knudsen....how is the weather in Sweden these days?

Have you mentioned a change of medication to your doctor?

Try it.

Law Minx said...

*Gets Big Carton of Buttered PopCorn and Sits Down, Totally Transfixed by Events*
Damn, I wish I'd been there!!

Law Girl said...


Swiss Tony said...

This is going to be one huge anticlimax when the teacher gets let off, Mr P gets carried out on the juries shoulders, and the story ends.

Can you do more stories after this one?


electro-kevin said...

I agree with Swiss.

I'm loving this ... and the comments.

Old Knudsen ... har har har har !

Vodka Mom said...

Mr. P. is the BOMB!! You are fab. I would've been cheering from the audience. Do they frown upon that??


MikeP said...

If the witness is supposedly standing right there while the attack is taking place, why doesn't he try to intervene? Should he not try to get between the boy and the teacher?

electro-kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
electro-kevin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
electro-kevin said...

I was a cop crewing an unmarked car when we took a call in NE London "Cars being broken into by youths."

We get there and right enough there are broken car windows with radios missing.

I find Joe (a lad of 12) sitting in a car with a broken window and arrest him for criminal damage and attempted theft.

To cut a long story short we end up going to juvenile court two months later. I take the stand where I am cross examined by the prosecution solicitor:

"Did you see the defendant touch the stereo ?"

"No, Sir I did not." I wasn't going to perjure myself

The defence submitted in view of this was,

"This is not a case of corruption by the officer [gee, thanks] but one of misunderstanding. You see, Joe's shoe lace had come undone and he'd happened upon the damaged car and decided to sit in it in order to tie his lace back up."

This got the kid off the hook. I consolled myself that maybe there was a greater good at stake and that they wanted to give Joe a chance. I hadn't taken this personally but couldn't resist when a very smarmy little Joe said to me on leaving the court (in front of officials) "Better luck next time, copper." to which I replied,

"Well I certainly hope that you're not planning on doing it again, Joe."

Mr Pineapples said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mr Pineapples said...

Minxtaa - it is an interesting case - dont make to much noise with that popcorn

LawGal - more coming soon

Sweez - I have loads of stories - might do some more - with this blog being 100% lawblog and all

VodkaMum - you are my favourite teacher - I couldnt do your job - and I said so to the jury - in my closing speech - teachers need our support

MikeP - good point - I bring this up later in cross-examination of the headmaster and of another witness

Kevo - I know how you feel - I did a case once (only lasted a few hours) - a Breach of a Community Order (before the magistrates). The kid just didnt turn up for Unpaid Work - his excuse: "I was ill" - no sick note - no record of call to the Probation Office - nothing. And he has to prove that he had a "Reasonable Excuse" for non-attendance. Which in my books means EVIDENCE.

And the Magistrates believed him and declared that the Prosecution had not proved their case. How can you prove that you didnt receive something?

The usher said to me whilst waiting for their verdict "If they dont find him guilty I will go and hang myself off the nearest bridge."

Pathetic isnt it.

Law Minx said...

Ahhh, but I am eating popcorn that SQUEAKS because of all the artery clogging butter! D'you think the learned judge will mind?-

Just one further irrelevant comment - would you mind ammending your link to me? It is sending everyone to a horrid pink page with no content!! ( I blame blogger for this - grrrrr)

boXer girl said...

You rock Mr P! Thick London accent and all! :)

Bar Boy said...

If only they taught advocacy like this at bar school. I just know I would be a natural when it came to asking someone whether they liked being called a wanker, fudge packer ... etc. Storming stuff.

Trubes said...

Ooooh Mr Pineapples, I am so enjoying this case, I do hope you win it.

Di. xxx

Ron Knee said...

What a load of bollocks. These people think what you say is true?

Sad cases. and you.