He Who Knows wrote: ↑Thu May 03, 2018 7:53 am
As I see it, the one-page Writ 66 used for the eviction was completely above board as, contrary to what Chrisy Morris says, a Writ 66 does not require a judge's signature. Why does HH Lawton not know this and why does he ask Counsel Ms Brocklebank?
That's not how justice works, HWK. The Judge's role is to only make findings upon the evidence presented by advocates, not to supply evidence himself. And the burden of proof is entirely upon the Crown, as it should be in the interests of all our civil rights.
Morris had made it clear from the start that his defence relied upon challenging the validity of the writ of possession. But in the re-hearing of the case, a serious and costly hearing in the Crown Court, the CPS made no attempt to prove it's validity. And the CPS barrister declined every invitation from the Judge to make arguments for validity. In fact she distanced herself from the question of validity, hiding behind "I am instructed".
CPS should have prepared and served copies of the relevant Civil Procedure Rules governing writs of possession. The prosecutor should have studied this material and gained a confident, fluent ability to deal with it. She should have then walked the court through the process, clearly explaining how all the necessary requirements were met.
The prosecutor should have known whether a Judge's signature was necessary, and been able to cite the regulations and case law which made it so. She should have known the format and style of the writ template, and how many pages it would be. She should have been able to explain why the original writ was not available.
This is no different to prosecuting a motorist who says he is going to challenge the reliability of the radar gun.The Crown must satisfy the court that the radar gun was in good order, and correctly used by a proficient operator. If they cannot, the motorist is entitled to acquittal.
And so, Morris was entitled to acquittal. It would have been outrageously unjust for him to be convicted Beyond Reasonable Doubt without any evidence being presented that a valid writ ever existed. I repeat again, it was the Crown's responsibility to present evidence which proved validity, and they had ample warning of this burden, but they failed to make the barest gesture towards it.
Glancing at the CPS barrister's chambers profile (
www.18sjs.com/people/claire-brocklebank/), she only completed her training in 2016. So perhaps inexperience or lack of ability is a factor. However she has a decent base of practice in civil and criminal proceedings, enough that she must have been capable of seeing what was obviously required to win this simple trial. Which leads me to one final thought - perhaps Ms Brocklebank is a smart cookie, and she actually knew that the validity of the writ was fatally undermined by some or other procedural error. That explanation fits the facts just as well as incompetence.
