I'm inclined to agree with Fishy on the count of the Clerks' impartiality tbh. Whilst I was in post there was a certain paddy-wagon-chasing legal aid lawyer I saw time and again, who's patter never changed, whatever the charge.
Assumption may well be the mother of all f*ck-ups, but to do so on the part of the clerk, in the circumstances given by Ernest, smacks merely of unprofessionalism, borne of familiarity, rather than corruption.
That said, were any clerk to form a familiar biasing sympathy with the CPS, who try guilty case after guilty case, day in and day out, it would have to be considered only human, even if altogether wrong!
What troubles me most is this:
fisherman wrote:
During the presentation of their evidence the prosecution are required to prove the elements of the case to a standard which would enable a jury to convict after being properly directed as to the relevant law.
If the defence wish to obtain a not guilty verdict they must introduce the element of reasonable doubt. As I have previously stated that can't be done by merely saying the CPS are wrong.
This would suggest to me that magistrates are being instructed to second-guess juries. This is not their place!!
In many cases, it would seem, merely saying the CPS is wrong would be quite enough to introduce
reasonable doubt.
The job of the CPS witnesses, often with their own vested interests in the outcome of the case, is not to say "I believe it is so, so it must be so", and to have that accepted by the court. Their job is to make the lay-people understand, be they magistrate or juror, why their interpretation is correct, beyond
reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this; "my computer back at the office tells me its so, so I will testify it is so, and you'll believe me", then the rebuttal "they're wrong" is
absolutely enough to introduce
reasonable doubt!!!
It genuinely concerns me that so many cases, it seems, would warrant a hearing before a crown court because magistrates are attempting to prejudge the jury's opinion of that trial, rather than trying the facts in front of them, as they are presented! These cases will never see a jury trial, however, due to the lack of funds and willing for such a relatively trivial punishment, and so the magistrates courts are allowed to continue in the status quo unchecked.