My account of marshalling

Perhaps it will take prisoners rioting on the roofs of prisons, waiting to be charged, before the government begins to care about the current state of the criminal bar. During my marshalling experience with His Honour Judge Cross QC in the Crown Square, I had the opportunity to observe a wide variation of cases from s18s to driving offences, which I will?expand in due course. More importantly though, I was able to first handedly see the implications of the lack of government funds and the criminal barristers' strikes on the criminal justice system.?

During my first day, I heard a section 18 joint enterprise assault sentencing hearing, in which the machete-fascinated defendant attacked the victim over an argument spiralling from other offences. It was really interesting to me as I attempted to render my own decision and think of an appropriate sentence while considering aggravating factors, such as that he was under the influence of alcohol, and mitigating factors, such as the fact that the defendant was young. Upon discussing with HHJ Cross QC after he sentenced both defendants, I questioned whether he factored in the ‘dangerousness’ of the first defendant. Surely those who go wielding machetes are dangerous, right? Well legally, that is wrong. Of course if you were to ask any member of the public, you would say they are dangerous but the legal definition is “that there is a significant risk to members of the public of serious harm occasioned by the commission by him of further specified offences” and since this was the defendant’s first offence against the person, it was not factored in. It was tricky, for me, to balance between the punishment needed that the defendant deserves for carrying a weapon, with strong intention to cause serious harm, and rehabilitation as he is a young man, that can change.?

I was also able to observe the Ryan Giggs trial, concerning controlling and coercive behaviour and assault, in which I heard the closing speeches from both the prosecution, Peter Wright QC, and the defence, Chris Daw QC; this was incredibly fascinating to hear. The different techniques employed by counsel made me appreciate the delicacy of the art of jury advocacy and has definitely built my interest in jury advocacy. The theatrical and dramatic feel of the courtroom always fills me with excitement and joy - however, not every criminal courtroom is like this (as I will explain now).

Many people have told me that this was the worst time for marshalling as it is a week before criminal barristers are going on an indefinite strike, however, it has enabled me to truly understand and be educated on the prevailing issues since it affects everyone. The vast majority of hearings I observed were administrative due to the no return policy and numerous cases involving the defendant without counsel, in which the judge becomes “an air traffic controller trying to radio instructions to a passenger trying to fly a plane for the first time”. Adjournment after adjournment, even some optimistic reschedules to the early date of February 2023 with hopes that criminal barristers will no longer need to strike. As I flagged before, these hearings are not the most captivating but they definitely do force you to understand the seriousness of the lack of funding from the government resulting in the criminal barristers’ action.

On day 2, I observed a terrorism trial. I was not able to observe from the very start of the trial but I figured that I should note down my chain of thought and what it led me to question. Firstly, I was able to hear the counsel on behalf of the crown present evidence to the court, which was a massive bundle of text messages and the online footprints of the defendant. Since I joined half way through the trial, I wasn’t up to scratch with all the details, I was unfamiliar with the facts of the case. However, I enjoyed this because it somewhat delves into a fascination of mine, namely the legal and moral ramifications of technological and artificial intelligence advancements on data protection and privacy. After a terrorism attacks, questions on why the police and/or intelligence couldn’t identify their preparation and actions before they attack get asked. Is it because the contemporary surveillance techniques lacked enough sophistication? Is this due to legal limitations that made use of advanced surveillance tools impossible? In the Data Protection Act of 2018, the word 'Privacy' appears 8 times in a text 335 pages long and at that in a very peripheral manner. This causes me to wonder where the balance is between the conflicting values of safety/security and freedom/privacy in a democratic society. Of course it is beneficial for us all when terrorists and dangerous people are caught but does that mean we should expect to be monitored and filmed anytime we leave our homes for that prevention? If you are also interested in this, I recommend reading ‘We See It All’ by Jon Fasman.

I was able to review CCTV evidence of a robbery with a prosecuting barrister and analyse the actions of the defendant before, during and after the event. HHJ Cross QC emphasised to me on day 1, despite sounding obvious, use common sense. That being said, I asked myself what was in the mind of the defendant at the time. Was he merely strolling around the pub trying to find something to do or was this a calculated plan that he was waiting to execute? Based on the video footage, I was satisfied that he had malicious intentions: entering a pub with no intention to buy anything, eyes glued to the victim’s bag, pacing back and forth, leaving the pub and waiting in a corner for 5 minutes - all indications that this was his plan all along. Then the fun part, the prosecutor must now clearly, convincingly and coherently prove that the defendant was there for the robbery. I have never previously experienced reviewing and analysing evidence, while setting out a line of argument for it so this gave me an insight of how to effectively approach using evidence.

I observed many other hearings, trials and sentencings, which were utterly fascinating to hear but also makes you realise how broken down society is. I really enjoyed my time with HHJ Cross QC and our discussions in chambers on topics, such as the government, police, society, drugs and more. I highly recommend you all to do marshalling, if you haven’t already; not necessarily for your profile or CV but for the experience you will get from it. Hopefully soon the swarm of reporters and press in the Crown Court will stop publishing on cases involving celebrities but the situation of criminal barristers.

The reason I create an article is due to the character limit on a LinkedIn post!

#marshalling #crowncourt #student #law #article #manchester