Three is the Magic Number

Last week for the first time in more than a year I sat on a bench of three.

It was the first opportunity that I've had since the start of the first lockdown to have a really good chat with the colleagues concerned, who I have only caught fleeting glimpses of down a socially-distanced corridor.

Hot topics of conversation on this occasion included the upcoming Police and Crime Commissioner elections, everyone's coronavirus health and vaccination status and plans for the summer should we have the opportunity to go on holiday. The general consensus was that none of us had any plans to go abroad this year, instead opting to holiday somewhere within the UK and support local businesses as best as we could. As for the Police and Crime Commissioner elections, that's between us and the ballot box!

The return of a full compliment of Magistrates coincides with the complete introduction of Perspex screens in our courtrooms. We're seemingly a bit behind the curve on that one, with virtually every other building in the HMCTS estate having been fully Perspexed-up for months. The start of April also heralded a return to a normal sitting rota, as opposed to the slightly ad-hoc arrangements that had been in place.

The business of the day was trials, where it is always a good idea to have a bench of three to avoid a split decision and possible re-trial. I also think three is a bit fairer for the defendant concerned, because it reduces the chances of a particularly dogmatic or overly-persuasive colleague - thankfully there are very few - steering the decision in their direction.

As chance would have it there was actually a difference of opinion in one of our trials, but of course the bench speaks in unison when arriving at its overall decision. The defendant in that case was accused of assaulting an emergency worker, having injured the hand of a police officer who was in the process of applying handcuffs to their wrists.

The prosecution case was that the defendant deliberately bent back the officer's finger as he was applying the cuffs. The defence case was that the officer's finger was accidentally bent when the defendant flinched in pain as the cuffs were applied very tightly.

The officer gave evidence in person and was adamant that the defendant had deliberately bent his finger, despite acknowledging during cross-examination that there was no way the defendant could have seen where his finger was at the time it was bent.

Given the officer's admission that the defendant could not have seen his finger at the time it was bent, one of us was of the opinion that there was insufficient evidence to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the action of the defendant in injuring the officer was deliberate or reckless.

The other two, however, were of the opinion that the defendant had a good idea where the officer's finger was and deliberately writhed the cuffs in order to injure him.

The majority won out and the defendant was found guilty of the offence. The offender in question had no previous convictions and given the circumstances we felt a financial penalty was appropriate.

Apologies for the recent blogging hiatus, but I've had other work to be getting on with.