Although the title of this post may lead you to believe that I have decided to take up a career in legal comedy, alas this is not the case. It relates to a situation that I encountered today that, if it had not been so farcical, would have made me weep with frustration.
I have been lucky enough to be asked to clerk another trial, concerning two counts of assault occasioning ABH. Our client's ex girlfriend is accusing him of beating her up at home, and then a couple of months later breaking her leg in a fight in a pub. We are saying that she was very drunk both times (which she was) and that it was an accident. The verdict later.
The incident described above arose because the victim said during cross examination something she shouldn't have, which was extremely prejudicial to the case. Unfortunately when it came to the application to dismiss the jury, the judge wanted to know the exact words used. The solicitor that was there in the morning (I started at lunch) had not written it down, and neither had either Counsel. Thus began an hour's search on the tape for the exact words.
Picture if you will, a small, bald old man, who was a little bit deaf, operating the recording equipment. He was obviously very good at doing the normal bit of the job, such as putting in the new tape, pressing play, and noting down the start and end times of each round of questioning. But ask him to do something a little bit different, such as rewind to a specific spot and it play it back, he became a little flummoxed. This was regardless of the fact that the instructions to achieve such a feat were clearly written on the top of the recorder. He couldn't make it play, and he had 2 barristers, an usher, and a clerk (me) telling him to go forward, and back a bit, and all of this he did in the slowest possible way. He was saved from disaster twice when he almost pushed the record button, which would have lost the entire recording. Thankfully the usher took over and it was found in about five minutes.
After all this effort it was understandably a bit disappointing the application was dismissed, but there we go. With the defendants boozy fan club sat at the back of the court, I'm sure that this wont be the last incident I have to tell from this case.
So in answer to the question in the title it takes 1 outdoor clerk, 1 usher, 2 barristers, and a slightly bemused looking old man.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment