When Prosecutors Fail
The Crown Prosecution Service isn’t known as the Criminal Protection Service for nothing. Ask Karen Nicholson, a 53-year-old platform staff assistant with First Great Western Trains.
She had cause to feel completely let down by the judicial system – and CPS in particular – after intervening when a colleague was getting battered by serial thug, Robert Halkett.
Halkett was caught trying to evade his fare from Plymouth to London & attacked the train manager who caught him.
Mrs Nicholson ran onto the train to help the manager & was punched in the face twice by Halkett for her troubles, leaving her with 2 black eyes.
Halkett was arrested the following day when he was seen at the same railway station. He was interviewed & charged with two cases of ABH.
The CPS subsequently dropped the charges with the excuse that the victim’s injuries were not serious enough for a trial.
First Great Western, in a landmark case, took out a private prosecution against Halkett & he was last week sentenced to four years; 39 months for assault & 9 months for theft.
Judge Paul Darlow commented that it was “only down to the rain company that proper charges were laid & the proper sentence passed…. while lawyers squabble the two people who were actually there are at the back of the court and have a real sense of grievance.”
What made the CPS decision even more crass was that Halkett had a string of convictions for attacks on rail staff.
I guess that’s what happens when you base a prosecution system in the hands of people who know the cost of everything, and the value of nothing.
Paul says:
Aren’t they doing exactly what the Police are doing when they look for easy results (ref all Police bloggers) ?
November 10th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Plodnomore says:
I would think this is an ideal case for First Great Western Trains to sue the Director of Public prosecutions for the cost of the trial. The resultant publicity just may make CPS do a little more to earn their salaries (nothing like a little optimism on a cold, rainy, morning).
November 10th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
Tony F says:
Plodnomore, Could they actually do that? It would be good if they could and did, as you say the publicity may make them sit up and take notice.
I think that 4 years is a bit lenient. Especially as I bet he is out and about in less than one.
Just as a thought, Stuart Grey http://theparamedicsdiary.blogspot.com/
has mentioned this;
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7709438.stm
She is suing over an accident, tragic though it is, no malice was involved, no incompetence, just pure bad luck.
Now the interesting thing is; Two people assaulted by a known scrote get bugger all (not even prompt justice), but this lady will possibly get a massive hand out from a source that cannot, and really, should not pay out.
November 10th, 2008 at 7:19 pm
200 says:
Paul,
maybe, so if it’s OK for us to point out our own failings, it must be Ok to point out others too, yes?
Plodnomore,
good point!
November 11th, 2008 at 1:15 am
Paul says:
200, I agree with you entirely, and I have also been in the same position myself (not as a Police Officer) viz. doing stupid things to hit stupid targets.
I am loathe to defend a pointless bureaucracy like the CPS but this simplistic approach to assessment leads to such behaviour.
Probably the real difference is that many Police Officers want to do the job properly but can’t ; AFAICS most CPS people don’t care either way as long as they get paid and don’t have to do much work.
November 11th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Plodnomore says:
About 3 or 4 years ago there was an incident of a ’steaming’ theft from a shop in London where thousands of pounds of electrical good were stolen. Several members of the gang were apprehended by security and MOPs and handed over to the Police. The CPS declined to prosecute because of the ages of the offenders and because not all of them were caught(!). The shop owners carried out a private prosecution and the offenders were dealt with quite severely by the courts. The shop owners then gave notice that they would sue the CPS for the cost of the prosecution and CPS, “in the interests of public partnership” or something similar, refunded the costs. I can recall reading this in one of the London papers, either the Evening Standard or one of the free free papers.
November 12th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Vicki says:
What’s disturbing is how much the decision to prosecute is based on who you know. I’m not talking about who the victim is, though clearly that plays a part. No, I’m talking about actually selling the case to the prosecutor. It should be about the evidence alone. But in practice it’s about the way the officer puts the case. Prosecutors, being human beings, want an easy life. Which means an anticipated guilty plea. In the absence of statements dipped in gold and signed by Jesus, they have to rely on witnesses and it’s the easiest thing in the world to pick at the statements you’ve got and conclude that they leave gaps which will lead to an acquital. The trick is to have built up a personal relationship with the prosecutor, so that you’re not just a faceless police drone. It then becomes quite hard to kick a job into touch unless it’s obviously rubbish. And then any sensible officer will be entirely supportive of such a decision. Again, it shouldn’t be this way but the smart move is to get to know the prosecutors, make sure you know your cases inside and out and make sure you know your stated cases in the area. When you do, you really can say “Yeah, I realise what you’re saying Andy but the guys a sh1t, we’ve got a pretty reasonable chancee and I really think we should run it. If it gets discontinued well, that’s life”. And that does work. Don’t take no for an answer.
November 13th, 2008 at 10:57 pm