Ista est lex: The sometimes odd Justice Game

The sun is already high and the New Court House seems like an ant’s nest for lawyers, clients and court officers. My Pupil Master enjoys wearing his gown and often goes to buy “dholl-puris” in his gown. He is a Jack of All Trades. He specialises in… huh… General Law. He has been given the file at the last minute to represent a client who was arrested for drugs. Our client has before been sentenced for a few misdemeanours but no previous drug offences. Before the start of the trial my pupil master tells the client that the police evidence against him is overwhelming and he should plead guilty. Ethically, Barristers are not supposed to tell the client to plead guilty. The decision is for the client but so many times the choice of words of barristers can influence the decision.

• “But I did not do it. They framed me,” protested the accused.
• “Most criminals say this. Why would they do that?” asks my Pupil Master stoically.
• “Inspector ‘Dirty’ Dick …he does not like me. He stopped and searched me several times, didn’t he. He said he would send me down for a long time,” replies our client.
• “You also made a full confession at the police station. How do you explain that?” says my Pupil Master impatiently.
• “Dirty Dick said he would lock my family if I don’t sign the statement. I don’t know what’s written there. They wrote everything,” replies the client.
• “Yeah but the magistrate will never believe your story. Should you plead guilty now you might get the credit of an early plea and with remission…”
• “There is NO remission in drugs cases,” I interject.
• “...I was about to say the same thing…” says my pupil master embarrassingly.
• “And there are major contradictions in the police statement… we should test the prosecution’s case… we lose nothing in fighting,” I say boldly.
• “Yes… yes thank you…” interrupted my Pupil Master who now looks at me as if to say… let me do my job.

The only one who looks at me with interest is the client. Customarily pupils are not supposed to intervene in conferences with clients.

“Not Guilty!” pleads the Accused during arraignment. “Yeessss….one little victory,” I say to myself.

Inspector Dick, Head of CID, is the first witness for the prosecution. He has a real hatred for criminals and for anyone who defends them.

• “Where was my client when you arrested him?” asks my Pupil Master hesitantly.

Never ask a question to which you do not know the answer, is one of the cardinal rules of advocacy. The whole purpose of cross examination is to put narrow ended questions (as opposed to open ended) which we call leading questions so as to corner the witnesses to give short answers like yes or no. Open ended questions give the witness the opportunity to advance their own case.

So it is at this moment that I fall into my imaginary exchange with the witness since this is all I can do to help my pupil master:

• “Inspector Dick, Head of CID Metropolitan, you know the accused very well. Don’t you?” I ask.
• “He is known to the police for being a drugs dealer Your Honour,” Dick now smiles broadly and gives me a dirty look as if to say… here is your answer.
• “Come on officer… you know the rules of this court very well. I am not asking about his character. Am I?” I continue.
• “Yes… huh no. I know him very well as he was under surveillance Your Honour,” Dick replies whilst still smirking at me.
• “Under surveillance… and you have neither video recording nor picture to produce in court today to show that the accused was selling drugs,” I say calmly since the art of cross examination is never to get crossed.
• “Huh… no it was not important Your Honour but we recorded everything in the diary book,” answers Dick.
• Cheeky bugger! I thought.
• “So you are asking this court to rely only on what you are saying,” I ask.
• “I am under oath Your Honour,” replies Dirty Dick whilst looking at the Magistrate and bowing.
• “And you said in your statement that the Accused upon being arrested said: ‘Sorry boss give me another chance. I won’t do it again’. Is that right?” I ask.
• “Those are his exact words Your Honour,” replies Dick confidently.
• “That must be the oldest sentence in your dictionary officer?” I say.
• “He was cautioned before he said those words Your Honour,” replies Dick angrily now.

The young Magistrate, Mr Andrew, freshly promoted from the State Law Office is now nodding his head frantically as if agreeing with Dick.

• “There is no forensic evidence in this case officer?” I ask.
• “Since we have a full confession from the accused, we did not think it was important to have the parcel fingerprinted Your Honour,” Dick replies.
• “There is no independent witness either, officer?” I ask.
• “My officers did the arrest and recorded everything,” replies Dick, evading my question. 

I am tempted to say “answer my question” but the magistrate will surely now intervene and say: “Oh but he has answered your question Counsel” and this would give Dick an opportunity to get even cockier, smirk broader at me and I would look like a clown.

• “Your officers… let’s talk about them. The statements they recorded resemble each other word for word. There has been collusion in the recording of statement. Isn’t it?” I ask.
• “We recorded only what happened, Your Honour,” answers Dick.

His Honour Magistrate Andrew is recording every answer that Inspector Dick is giving but he seems hesitant to note down my questions. At the end of the Prosecution case, my Pupil Master was about to call the accused to make a brief statement when the young magistrate intervened:

• I have had enough to come to the conclusion that there exists no shred of scientific or independent evidence against the accused. I find it regrettable that in a day and age of technology the prosecution is still coming forward with archaic ways of proving their case. Let it be clear that this court will not be taken for a ride by cooked up evidence. Indeed the evidence adduced by the prosecution is most appalling and falls short of proving a prima facie case against the accused. I have heard enough to come to the conclusion that the evidence of Inspector Dick is nothing but a cock and bull story and that his evidence cannot be relied upon. I therefore stop the trial proprio motu.

Oh hurray hooray most rightful, most wise magistrate…a Daniel on the bench. Justicia without the blindfold at last! Oh most glorious day!! I thought.

I am waken up from my reverie by the usher shouting COURT(!!) and only to hear that judgement is reserved and that the accused is remanded to jail. Handcuffs on, here he goes.

Outside the courtroom Dirty Dick waits for us and says well done ironically to my Pupil Master and adds: “Work for me means work for you maître!” I really don’t know what he means but my Pupil Master looks happy.

There exists of course no such magistrates or barristers in this jurisdiction.