MORNING - Sarah Jane Baker v CPS - 31st Aug 2023 - Court Report.
10AM [Court in session. Public gallery almost full with supporters of SB]
Clerk asks SB name, address, DOB
J: What pronouns would you prefer?
SB: She/Her. Thanks for asking.
D:Thank you for your time. I have an issue as far as defence goes re disclosure before progress to trial. The issue is about police actions, prior to arrest. Police from the same police station had decided not to prosecute, then another decision was made. I asked why and it was not disclosed. It came to my attention yesterday. From the defence position, the decision not to prosecute - why did it change? The reason could have an effect on today. Could be info.
J: Is it available?
P: No
D: Our perspective is that info is paramount for fair and proper trial. We flagged numerous times with Crown. Crown then extended time frame. We can't follow correct procedures. Can't find decision on why we're progressing today. Defence need to request. This is not what disclosure principles are about. If the Crown fail, they need to apply. You are the person who sets restrictions and that has been taken away. Effectively Crown failed to comply and should ask for ask for adjournment of this trial.
J: What does the Crown say? It's been alleged that you've failed to disclose.
P: No such failure, we are trial ready. Defence must make statement to be adjourned. The disclosure was in the form of the CRIS report
J: may I see?
P: Yes emailed to desk. I'll set things out. Complaints were made via internet. Response to material online. Complaints generate CRIS report. That officer, Warner, chose No Further Action re complaint. The page is on the way to you now sir. It says NFA and the reasons. The officer got the law completely and utterly wrong. No legitimate expectations arose, nothing communicated to suspect No Further Action.
Thereafter, and why there's a gap, the decision was refused and SB charged with the offences. What formed the change matters not. Police can review their own processes and the fact is SB was arrested and charged and on trial. I have given CRIS report to Defence. Anything else is a fishing expedition.
J: When was D made aware of the CRIS report?
P: Could have been asked for. It wasn't. If D had said 'matter of abuse of process' but the only issue is Intent. Bit of a circular argument that it must be disclosed, now that it's arisen, it has been disclosed. If D wants more info on the decision, it means going back to Westminster police. I don't have an application to adjourn. Also, sorry, when I say Sir, I mean Judge, I have not been in this court for some time.
P: Sir, sorry Judge
[They laugh]
Sir, I highlight Heggert re disclosure issues. There's mention of 6c when it comes to unused material. We have line and lines saying the same thing. [Reads] That's all it said and not enough info for defence. Anything that undermines the Prosecution should be disclosed.
The reasons should be on the schedule. Moving forward, the info was not provided to D and I can't put forward a statement. I can provide a Defence Statement and they serve docs for adjournment but I can't work out the police reports. It doesn't matter whether relevant, they should be disclosed.
J: It doesn't say that. No way it says that.
D: Info is missing. Document doesn't mention decision.
J: It does, it says 'not proportionate'.
D: I merely highlight the doc is different.
J: I'll look at the case. SB was never interviewed. I don't have unused material but CRIS report is on the schedule?
P: Each complaint online generates its own CRIS report
J: Let me look at the schedule. What did Crown say...does it support proposition of defence? I'll wait for a few minutes while you read. In fact I'll rise [Judge exits]
(SB blowing kisses to public gallery. SB shouts "Prison's still rubbish" and is led out of box by guards)
C: All rise
[Judge enters]
P: You'll note SB is no longer in Dock.
J: I've been asked by police to state that someone has been recording in this court room. If so they will be arrested. I hope noone is silly enough to do that.
D: Would u like me to investigate?
J: Your client?
D: No idea why SB not here.
J: Would u like to conclude in absence?
D: That's a matter for you
J: I must ensure fairness. I wouldn't stand in your way if you wish to speak with SB
D: I'll go on in absence
P: This is a restatement of disclosure. Not a blanket disclosure. The Crown say no issue arose until this morning. We have significantly reduced time of this case, I can give Crown case and will take no more than 45 minutes.
J: SB is no longer in Dock, I've asked if D wants to visit. D argues Crown failed disclosure, CPS say no failure. A complaint was made about something SB said. Complaint was considered and contained in CRIS report and disclosed in Schedule of unused material. SB wasn't interviewed and Defence wouldn't know unissued. Issue in this case re Intent. I'm not persuaded by Defence. I considered Haggert. On the face of it, a police officer made a decision No Further Action, it's clear on the document, the fact the officer chose not to prosecute doesn't undermine Prosecution. Decisions are received for several reasons [he lists]. The fact the police officer didn't pursue it has now been disclosed and does not call for P to call any adjournment at this stage.
J: [to D] Do you want to speak with SB?
D: Yes.
J: Shall we call it a day until 2pm. I have another case.
[Court adjourned]