Pauline Campbell's Court Appearance, 22nd June

Pauline Campbell has sent the following account of her continuing battle for justice of vulnerable women in the hands of the criminal justice system. Her full account of the proceedings demonstrates the way officers feel that they can dismiss people and treat them disrespectfully. Pauline is alive to this and challenges bad behaviour whenever it arises. Her experience also demonstrates the consequences of limiting legal aid for those unable to pay for their defence. Not a situation expected under a Labour government, even one that calls itself "New Labour". So this is "modernisation"! Her comments about the unprofessional behaviour of private security personnel also points up the inappropriate way in which privatisation has taken place.Thanks Pauline.

North Avon Magistrates' Court, Kennedy Way, Yate, Bristol, BS37 4PY
Court hearing - Friday 22 June 2007

SUMMARY

* I made two court appearances on Friday 22.06.07: (i) Court 4: case management court (planned); (ii) Court 1: magistrates (unplanned).
* Two-day trial has been fixed for 26/27 September 2007 before a District Judge (stipendiary magistrate) at North Avon Magistrates' Court.
* In addition, I have to attend court again on 20 August 2007 - "abuse of process" hearing - following my challenge to the Crown's latest tactic.
* Court staff: unprofessional behaviour - regrettably I had to report several members of court staff to the bench in the afternoon.

COURT 4 - CASE MANAGEMENT COURT, 10.00 AM

(1) In the morning, I appeared before the Clerk of the Court (Ms Debbie Wescott, solicitor; qualified: University of WE), and the CPS Prosecutor (solicitor Ms Jan Fish).

(2) As always at the start of a hearing, I informed the court of the vulnerability factor applicable to me, ie bereavement. I added that I had been unwell in recent days and might need to request a five minute break during proceedings. I complained to Court 4 about the rudeness of the Clerk of the Court who dealt with my case on 25.05.07 (a male solicitor), whose behaviour had surprised me, viz referring to me as "she", while sitting in very close proximity ("has she got a number?"); also his unfortunate habit of talking over me when I was part way through sentences. CPS Prosecutor Ms Fish, who had attended the hearing on 25.05.07, did not dispute my version of events and, in answer to my question, confirmed the Clerk's name was Mr D Box. I then told the court that I wished to be treated with respect; and would they please refer to me as Mrs or Ms Campbell, and not refer to me as a "she". It is regrettable that court time has to be taken up in this way.

(3) The Clerk of the Court said she was aware I had telephoned the court two days previously, indicating that I was unwell, and might not be able to attend court yesterday. (I had telephoned to enquire about the procedure to be followed in the event of non-attendance, and was told a medical certificate had to be provided. In answer to my question, the official confirmed that in the event of non-compliance, the court had the power to issue a warrant to enable police to arrest a defendant. I have no complaints about the way the official spoke to me. I explained to him that I was struggling with bereavement; I then became distressed and tearful, and told him I was unable to continue the conversation.)

(4) My forthcoming trial relates to a charge of "aggravated trespass". Since the previous hearing on 25.05.07, I had received a letter from Bristol CPS notifying me that an alternative charge of wilfully obstructing the public highway would be laid at court at the next hearing, ie 22.06.07. In Court 4 yesterday, I raised my objections as follows:

"I am unrepresented. My legal aid application doesn't seem as though it's going to be granted. Therefore, I am preparing my defence myself, and I have been preparing my case on the basis that I am charged with aggravated trespass, and I say it is unfair to allow the prosecution to put an alternative charge in these circumstances, and because I was charged five months ago, and so there is no reason why they should be allowed to put an alternative charge, or substitute a new charge if they drop the aggravated trespass. Because I am unrepresented, it is up to the court to ensure equality of arms with the prosecution."

(5) I challenged the court on a number of points. I queried whether there was a time limit for bringing new charges against a defendant, and was told the CPS were within the time limit of six months. I commented that the delay of five months was unacceptable, and asked for an explanation. The CPS Prosecutor said "new evidence" had come to light. Prosecutor Ms Fish appeared reluctant to reveal details, but I felt justified in pressing her for further information. There was some discussion about the so-called "new evidence", but I made it clear I was not prepared to accept being faced with an alternative, or additional charge, after five months, especially in light of the details given to me in court.

(6) There was some discussion about what I consider to be the poor quality of evidence to be presented at my trial, in particular one witness statement. I was asked whether I agreed to the person's evidence being given in writing. I read the statement; one sentence simply didn't make sense. I read it aloud, and asked if the CPS Prosecutor or the Clerk could assist my understanding of the garbled sentence. They were unable to do so. I commented that the standard of evidence was poor, and that this was worrying, given the alleged wrong ("aggravated trespass") carries the risk of imprisonment. This is one of many concerns that I have, which will have to be raised with my barrister (Mr Peter Thornton QC, head of Doughty Street Chambers) in due course, if the case continues to trial on 26/27 September 2007.

(7) I then told the court [as I have done on previous occasions] that the prosecution is a waste of public money and a waste of the court's time, and that it is wrong in principle that the criminal justice system seeks to criminalise and punish me for protesting against the deaths of vulnerable women dying at the hands of the State, and especially when I am a bereaved mother whose only child died in the so-called care of Styal Prison. The current charge relates to a demonstration held on 24.01.07 to protest against the death of the young mother Caroline Powell, who died in the 'care' of HMP & YOI Eastwood Park on 05.01.07. Ms Powell left behind five motherless children, and was on remand [and therefore legally innocent] when she died. I had a photograph of Ms Powell and her five children with me in court, and showed it to the Clerk and Prosecutor. At this point I became very distressed and tearful, and requested a short adjournment, which was agreed.

(8) The adjournment, in fact, lasted over an hour. During this time, everyone in the court building heard my distress, as I protested loudly and tearfully about the fact that the court was prosecuting me for protesting against women dying at the hands of the State, in the full knowledge that I am a grieving mother whose only child has died in the so-called care of the State. Court staff had to clear water off the floor of the waiting area, because my cup of water ended up on the floor. I left the court building in tears, accompanied by two friends, and remained outside until I was composed.

(9) Eventually Court 4 reconvened. I was told that I would have to appear before the bench in the afternoon, if I wished to object to the alternative charge of wilfully obstructing the highway. I confirmed that that was the case, and was told to report to Court 1, to appear before magistrates, at 2.30 pm. The Clerk informed me that I was entitled to apply for legal aid again re the new charge, as my original application did not include the new charge. The Clerk further stated that if the magistrates agreed to the new charge going ahead, then I would face one or the other charge. I asked the Clerk if the CPS were allowed to put both charges as alternatives. Ms Wescott, Clerk, replied that it should be one or the other. I questioned her statement, and said the word "should" ought to be "must".

(10) In fairness, I must state I have no complaints about the way I was treated in the case management court by the Clerk of the Court (Ms Wescott) and the CPS Prosecutor (Ms Fish), who were respectful towards me at all times. But the tension in Court 4 was palpable.

COURT 1 - MAGISTRATES' COURT, 2.30 PM

(a) While waiting to be called before the bench, I sat at the back of the court listening to the case of a man accused of theft. He pleaded guilty; was unrepresented; and was given a non-custodial sentence. Listening to the case, it was clear the man narrowly escaped a prison sentence. Two 'Reliance' staff (private security firm), a man and woman, were sitting close to me on the same row of seats.

(b) As magistrates questioned the defendant, the Reliance staff were commenting on the defendant's replies, in particular the question about whether he was taking drugs. At that point, I leaned across and said "Hush".

(c) Within minutes of the defendant leaving Court 1, the Reliance man got up, and went over to court staff (CPS Prosecutor; Clerk of the Court; usher), and began gossiping about the defendant. The courtrooms are small at North Avon Magistrates' Court, and I could overhear their conversation from where I was sitting. I interrupted them, and said "excuse me", then told them their behaviour was unprofessional; that they had no right to be gossiping about a defendant in open court in front of members of the public, and they should not be talking about the man behind his back within minutes of him leaving the court room. The Reliance man immediately walked towards me, pointing his finger, and attempted to admonish me. His body language was aggressive, so I stood up, and said I was leaving the courtroom as I did not wish to listen to him, and that I would not return to Court 1 until I was called for my case.

(d) I sat in the large waiting area outside the courtrooms, head down, writing. A woman's voice called out, from some distance away: "Are you all right?" Because my name hadn't been included in the question, I continued writing, as it wasn't clear who she was talking to. She then walked right up to me, and asked the question once more, again without using my name. I looked up, and was surprised to see it was the CPS Prosecutor referred to in (c) above. At that point, I stood up, and said: "Are you the CPS Prosecutor?", to which she replied "Yes"; then I asked "What is your name?". She wouldn't give her name, and walked away. She knew I was defendant Ms Campbell, waiting to appear in Court 1, but couldn't extend the simple courtesy of using my name when speaking to me, even when calling across a very large waiting area.

(e) My case eventually got started before a lay panel of three magistrates [and the same CPS Prosecutor referred to in (c) and (d) above, which made me feel uncomfortable]. I was expected to speak to the magistrates, conduct my own case, and write notes, from behind bullet-proof glass in 'the dock' - where there is no desk space for someone needing to write notes and refer to paperwork. North Avon Magistrates' Court is a modern, purpose-built court; being in 'the dock' involves entering what is, in effect, a tiny room within the court room, and the door is closed behind the defendant - I would liken it to being in a large glass box. I have only once been in this 'dock', very briefly, to enter my plea at an earlier hearing.

(f) The last time I appeared at this court, I requested the court's permission to address the bench from the well of the court, principally on the grounds that I was presenting my own case. Permission was granted, and it wasn't a problem. Yesterday, however, and in marked contrast, the court appeared not to want to acquiesce. I was made to stand, in the well of the court, and explain my reasons a second time, having already explained matters to the court usher (NB: same usher as in (c) above), who had referred my request to the Clerk of the Court. I said that I had done this on a previous occasion, and there had been no problems, and that it was not unreasonable of me to expect that I could present my case from the well of the court; I added that I had been unwell during the week, and was still unwell; was not a danger or threat to anyone in the courtroom; that I was a bereaved mother; that speaking to the court from behind bullet-proof glass made me feel uncomfortable, so would the court please agree to my request. The bench agreed, but seemed reluctant.

(g) Before presenting my case, I explained to the court that I felt uncomfortable with 'Reliance man' sitting next to the usher, watching me. I told the bench exactly what had happened in Court 1 earlier [(c) above]. As I was making reference to 'Reliance man', I quickly turned my head in his direction, and half-heard, half lip-read, his comment to the usher, as he leaned towards her and said "told you she'd say that". Undeterred, I reported that to the bench, too. The chair asked the usher if that had just happened, and she denied that it had. Turning to the CPS Prosecutor, the chair asked for an explanation; she denied they had been gossiping about the previous defendant. I was not given the right of reply, and was left feeling very angry. Mindful of the fact that Reliance staff (prison van drivers) are giving evidence against me when my case comes to trial, I felt intimidated by this man's presence in the courtroom, especially as I had no 'supporters' with me during the afternoon session (my London friends, unaware there would be two court appearances, had made arrangements to be elsewhere in the afternoon).

(h) As a layperson, without legal representation in court, it is impossible for me to follow and understand proceedings, without asking lots of questions. Even then, I cannot always understand a legal point, if I haven't had prior opportunity to read up on the law. Furthermore, I am not always allowed to ask questions when I want to, and while all this is going on, I'm trying to keep a set of notes, too.

(i) The chair of the bench asked me to explain why I was opposing the CPS attempt to lay another charge. I kept an exact note of what I said in reply, which was to repeat the sentences in italics [see (4) above]. I also said the following, as I hadn't previously appeared before these magistrates:

Opening remark:
I need to point out to the court that there is a vulnerability factor attached to me: bereavement; my only child has died.

Immediately following the second sentence in (4) above (My legal aid application doesn't seem as though it's going to be granted) I said:
... although when the trial takes place I will be represented pro bono by Mr Peter Thornton QC.

then added:
The refusal to grant legal aid concerns me, as it is an affront to the principle of access to justice.

(j) At this point, and still having to stand while trying to take notes, the chair then asked if I was claiming an abuse of process. I pointed out to her that I was not legally qualified, and without legal representation in court I was unable to answer her question as I did not have a clear understanding of the term "abuse of process", along with all its ramifications. A conversation then ensued between the Clerk of the Court, and the chair, as he attempted to explain in legal-speak what he thought I was trying to say.

(k) The hearing in Court 1 finished at 4.10 pm. Clerk of the Court: Mr Mark Tait (solicitor); CPS Prosecutor: name unknown. Hearing concluded as follows:

(i) I have to attend a further court hearing on Monday 20 August 2007 - an "abuse of process" hearing;
(ii) Unconditional bail has been granted until the next court hearing;
(iii) I have to submit to the Crown and the Court a skeleton argument in the next 14 days.

Posted by John Tyrrell at June 24, 2007 6:53 AM