Seems Like I’ve Got This Justice Malarkey All Wrong

Reading Time: < 1 minute

For my entire adult life I have always thought that Justice went something like this:-

  1. Person reports crime
  2. Police investigate. In order to establish if a crime has indeed been committed and who may be reasonably suspected of that crime
  3. Initial investigation establishes whether or not sufficient grounds exist to warrant arresting any identified suspects(s)
  4. Suspect(s) arrested, interviewed and a decision taken by CPS to charge or not charge suspect(s)
  5. Case File submitted to CPS in anticipation of Court appearance.
  6. A Jury is sworn in to hear all the evidence and decide on Guilt or not.
  7. The Trial Judge would decide, if appropriate, if the defendant is fit to stand trial, having heard all the legal submissions.
  8. Trial either proceeds or is abandoned due to the defendant being Not Fit To Plead.

However, it seems that I have it all wrong.

Points 4 to 8 are now redundant, CPS decide on Fitness To Plead, Judge is deprived of what was his/her responsibility, defendant never even appears before the Court because it’s apparently not in the Public Interest to prosecute someone who may be unwell.

As a general principle I don’t have a major issue with that, but why oh why can’t the Judge rule on that, as has been the case before today?

On the other hand, it may simply be that I’ve misunderstood my entire life.

Enjoyed the post? Share it?

9 thoughts on “Seems Like I’ve Got This Justice Malarkey All Wrong”

  1. It is not a judge, but a JURY who decides whether a person is fit to stand trial or not. So it was in the case of Robert Ashman, who attacked his MP with a Samurai sword. The jury said ‘No’.

    1. Having looked up the case of Robert Ashman, you will find that Ashman DID stand trial and was convicted for Attempted Murder, he was NOT deemed unfit to plead by anybody.

      1. Having reason to be interested in the Ashman case, I made a special journey from Yorkshire to Bristol to attend his trial, was there for each of the several days & was there when the jury decided he was ‘Not fit to stand trial’.
        To clarify: You may be right in saying there was (at some time) a trial for attempted murder (insanity not being a defence to that charge). . Though the MP (Nigel Evans I think) survived, an assistant, who tried to defend Evans, was killed, & thus the MAIN charge (when I attended) was murder. Two surprising things: (a) It is usually the Defence who try to get ‘Not fit to stand trial’. In this case it was the Prosecution.
        (b) Ashman’s own psychiatrist originally said he was sane, but changed her mind at the last minute & said he was not.
        There is much more I could tell you about that case.

  2. Obviously it’s wait till they are dead or very nearly then we can can all go for it.Why?I don’t know why the powers that be want to defend these perverts all it can be is that they are all bloody perverts.I know I would’nt want to be working alongside child abusers.Being a father myself I could’nt keep my hands of them. How there has’nt been civil unrest in this country by now is another unanswerable question..

    1. The mere fact that Police Officers ‘ignored’ Child Abuse is just another indication that instructions came from on high. Those people should be pursued and prosecuted, no hard working cop wanted to drop such a case, ever

Comments are closed.

Scroll to Top
Verified by MonsterInsights