🎵 One for the money and the free rides
It's two for the lies that you denied
All rise
All rise🎵
I’ve been remiss in not addressing this before. But Blue’s “All Rise” is, legally speaking, a shambles, and the judge has completely lost control of his courtroom. [THREAD]
🎵 Yo, yo
Yo, yo🎵
Let’s start with the basics. This is absolutely *not* the way you address a court, whether lawyer, witness or defendant. You refer to a judge as “Your Honour”, or, in the glorious case of one defendant I once prosecuted, “Your Majesty”.
Strike one, Blue.
🎵 Your honour, please, gotta believe what I say
What I will tell happened just the other day🎵
This is better. Correct mode of address, and a stated intent to tell the truth (albeit not in the form of a standard oath or affirmation). But a promising start nonetheless.
🎵 I must confess, 'cause I've had about enough
I need your help, gotta make this here thing stop🎵
Oh dear. I thought Blue were giving evidence in their defence, but now they seem to be seeking some form of restraining order. This is confusing.
There is a critical distinction between submissions and evidence. Advocates cannot give evidence, and witnesses do not make submissions from the witness box. The fact that the judge is not intervening right now is telling.
I suspect they’ve never sat on a criminal case before.
🎵 Baby, I swear I'll tell the truth
About all the things we used to do🎵
NEVER. CALL. A. JUDGE. BABY.
🎵 And if you thought you had me fooled
I'm telling you now, objection overruled🎵
Right. One of two things is happening here. Either Blue are attempting to “overrule” the judge. Or they’re addressing someone in the public gallery. Possibly a witness. Either is not allowed.
In any case (1) No English or Welsh court EVER uses the words “objection” or “overruled”. Blue have let US crime procedurals go to their heads. (2) What happened to this supposed confession? Why isn’t the judge telling the advocate to control their witness?
By shouting out to the public gallery, Blue are at risk of being held in contempt of court. Even if acquitted. It’s a criminal contempt in the face of the court. The judge should be referring to Criminal Procedure Rules Part 48 for the correct procedure. He’s not. The idiot.
🎵 One for the money and the free rides
It's two for the lies that you denied
All rise
All rise (all rise)🎵
One what? Year? Are Blue now attempting to pass sentence? On themselves? Before they’ve even finished giving evidence?
In fairness, one year’s custody for theft and taking a motor vehicle without consent, or perhaps making off without payment under s3 Theft Act 1978, isn’t entirely off whack. It’s a bit steep, but Blue are sentencing broadly consistently with the Guidelines.
While there are no Guidelines for perjury, two years’ custody would again not be completely out of the question. But, again, a fundamental principle of criminal sentencing is that it is done by a judge after conviction. Not by the defendant during his own trial.
🎵 Three for the calls you've been making
It's four for the times you've been faking
All rise (I'm gonna tell it to your face)
All rise (I rest my case)🎵
Three years for a malicious communications offence is more than the statutory maximum. THIS IS WHY YOU NEED LAWYERS, BLUE.
🎵 All rise (I'm gonna tell it to your face)
All rise (I rest my case)🎵
Right. First, nobody says “all rise” (it’s “all stand”), least of all a defendant in the witness box.
Second, nobody says “I rest my case”. If anybody does, which they don’t, it’s a lawyer. But they don’t.
🎵 You're on the stand, with your back against the wall
Nowhere to run, and nobody you can call (oh no)🎵
It’s “witness box”, not “stand”. And of course a witness has their back against the wall. If they were facing the wall, nobody would be able to hear their evidence.
No phones are allowed in court. But if the witness *were* to call somebody, whatever they said would be hearsay. And without a successful application under s.114 to s120 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003, that hearsay evidence would be inadmissible, Blue. This stuff is basic.
🎵 I just can't wait, now the case is open wide
You'll try to pray, but the jury will decide🎵
I fear Blue have overestimated their performance. Rather than offering a plausible defence, they have threatened a witness and attempted to sentence themselves in front of the jury.
🎵 So step back, 'cause you don't know this cat
I know deep down that you don't want me to react🎵
As I understand it, there is now an issue over identification. Of a cat. Defendants inventing new defences mid-evidence is nothing new. But this is a gift to the prosecution.
🎵 I lay low leaving all my options open
The decision of the jury has not been spoken🎵
Again, I fear Blue are suffering from a touch of Dunning-Kruger. Far from leaving all options open, they’ve pinned all their hopes of acquittal on a bad ID point involving a cat.
🎵 Step in my house, you find that your stuff has gone
But, in reality, to whom does the stuff belong?🎵
I have literally no idea what is going on at this point. Property law, equity and interests in chattels are things I didn’t even understand at law school.
🎵 I bring you into court to preach my order
And you know that you overstep the border (uh-huh)🎵
Eh? Who have you brought into court, Blue? And, for the last time, you do not have the power to make legally binding orders.
Why is the judge not pointing any of this out??
🎵 One for the money and the free rides
It's two for the lies that you denied
All rise
Three for the calls you've been making
four for the times you've been faking
All rise🎵
And we’re back to sentencing. Assuming these sentences are consecutive, that’s 10 years.
And for what?
So what is our takeaway from this farce?
The charges have not been particularised. The defendants appear mentally unfit to plead. The judge doesn’t know criminal law. The lawyers are asleep. And an innocent cat risks losing his liberty.
Our criminal justice system is in crisis.
And so, when our government boasts about being “tough on crime”, I’d refer them to R v Blue, and ask what they propose to do to fix these obvious problems in our system. How are they going to protect victims? Defendants? Cats?
They don’t have a clue.
#TheLawIsBroken [ENDS]
Share this Scrolly Tale with your friends.
A Scrolly Tale is a new way to read Twitter threads with a more visually immersive experience.
Discover more beautiful Scrolly Tales like this.