It’s a curious thing, isn’t it? No matter how disjointed, incompetent or dysfunctional the judicial system becomes, there is always scope for things to get even worse:

Britain’s first trial without a jury descended into chaos after Peter Blake, accused of taking part in a £1.75 million armed hold-up at a Heathrow warehouse, went on the run.

I think the Times sums it up beautifully here. Please note that I am not making this up:

It is believed that Mr Blake, 57, who was seen waiting for the trial to restart, simply left the building. He was on bail and so was not subject to any formal security.

I think I speak for us all when I say: “What?”

This man is allegedly so very dangerous that we’ve had to discard centuries of the right to a jury and he was just able to walk out of the court. Nobody was even keeping half an eye on him?

Do you know, I don’t believe I can carry on without descending into spluttering obscenity and frothing at the mouth. So I think I’ll just stop there.

1
Rog February 19, 2010 at 08:32

Before anyone starts.
The conditions of bail are drawn up by the GOVERNMENT. They tell the Police and Courts what is what, and then they hide behind publications saying that the Police and Courts decide.

2
PT February 19, 2010 at 08:38

I disagree with the piece. Blake did not go on the run. It was only necessary for him to go on the amble. Why? Just another example of the protection that we, the great unwashed, are entitled to expect from our betters.

3
Anna Raccoon February 19, 2010 at 08:42

Good comment PT – ‘go on the amble’, I like that – ‘go on the couldn’t be bothered anymore’ perhaps.
Yes, ‘go on the run’ does rather imply that someone was watching over him and he eluded them……
Thaddeus has a good point though – if he is so dangerous now that he has ambled away, and was so dangerous that a jury had to be dispensed with, wasn’t he just as dangerous as he was compliantly ambling towards his court hearing?

4
JuliaM February 19, 2010 at 08:46

Do we have one of those ‘Welcome to Britain!’ signs up at Dover and other ports and airports?

Because I’m thinking we ought to have one of those ‘You don’t have to be mad to…’ signs instead.

5
Anna Raccoon February 19, 2010 at 08:51

JuliaM,
It will be particularly appropriate for Pauline ‘ I want peace in my life. I want contentment, and that’s what I’m aiming for’ Hanson when she gets here!
See Here.

6
Old Slaughter February 19, 2010 at 09:07

There was a fairly notorious criminal in Rhodesia. His most famous hour was walking up from the cells under the court for his trial, he apparently looked so calm and confident that he simply nodded respectfully to the judge and walk straight out of the building to freedom with everyone assuming he was the defence attorney.

If you can get away with that you deserve freedom in my book.

7
Because We’re Young February 19, 2010 at 10:18

Good pick-up Thaddeus, nicely written, I was halfway through writing something similar but I kept it short as you’ve said most of what needs to be said.

Great Rhodesia story OS.

8
Majic February 19, 2010 at 10:35

You just couldn’t make this stuff up, so many failings in the system that contributed to this. The world has gone completely mad, before you know it someone will claim that Jesus is gay….oh wait ..doh!

9
Saul February 19, 2010 at 10:46

The Brisk Walker, tactical support group are on the case.

10
Joe Public February 19, 2010 at 11:48

It’s not all bad news though, us Taxpayers will get back the £250,000 surety someone stood.

11
English Viking February 19, 2010 at 12:07

Perhaps a contrary view (I’ve fetched my tin hat),

This was in fact the fourth trial this man had faced on the exact same charges.
He was held in prison, without conviction, for the previous two years. Two previous juries could not see evidence for a conviction that was ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. The third jury was dismissed amidst allegations (not facts) of jury tampering, just at the point that the jury appeared unwilling to convict for the third time. Note that the Judge was the one making the allegation, along with the Crown, not the jurors. So… what could be the solution to having to constantly retry a man that juries stubbornly refuse to convict? Why not just scrap the Jury! Astonishing. Even more astonishing is the way that people have accepted their conditioning to assume that everything the Police and Crown say is true and that if man is charged with something, he must have done it.

It is over three hundred years since a man was last refused his right of trial by Jury in this country. The elite have truly managed to drag us back into the medieval savagery.

In future, why not save all the trouble of pretending to have laws that are inviable and just shoot the next man the Crown says is guilty, even though 36 of his peers have steadfastly refused to concur?

12
Uncle Marvo February 19, 2010 at 12:28

It’s not so bad. I gather there’s a bloke at large who’s responsible for a few actual deaths, never mind robbing a mere few million quid, who’s jacked it all in and gone off to speak to people at £200K a time. Apparently this is legally allowed.

Justice. I believed in it once, when I didn’t think you could just buy it. Now I know.

13
Biffo February 19, 2010 at 14:00

The backstory – 2 years in jail already, ‘jury nobbling’ claimed by the judge etc actually make me wish him a safe escape. Maybe he can borrow a fake British passport to help him on his way? Is Milliband the person to see about that?

14
John Pickworth February 19, 2010 at 16:16

Good luck to him I say. How many times are the State going to drag before a Court until they get the result they want?

Still, its another feather in this Labour Government’s cap. They’ve improved upon ‘trial without a jury’ to possibly having a ‘trial without accused’ too. Next week, they’ll do away with the judge and court buildings. Which, neatly partners all their other initiatives like detention without charge and penalty notices without bothering with inconveniences like trials.

15
Anna Raccoon February 19, 2010 at 16:45

John Pickworth,

“They’ve improved upon ‘trial without a jury’ to possibly having a ‘trial without accused’ too. Next week, they’ll do away with the judge and court buildings”.

Warn me next time you are going to post a cracker like that – Mr G had just given me a cup of tea!

Comment of the week for my money!

16
English Viking February 19, 2010 at 17:03

OT but can anyone tell me how to import my avatar and get rid of that gay lilac thing?

17
Anna Raccoon February 19, 2010 at 17:16

English Viking,

I have e-mailed you instructions – anybody else want to know how to do it?

18
JuliaM February 19, 2010 at 17:16

If you post using a Google sign up, your chosen avatar should ‘follow’ you automatically.

i think this works with other signups too (LiveJournal, I’m pretty sure).

19
englishviking1 February 19, 2010 at 18:11

Testing 123

20
Englishviking1 February 19, 2010 at 18:11

Testing 456

21
Englishviking1 February 19, 2010 at 18:12

HA! See how lovely my axe is!!!

22
Anna Raccoon February 19, 2010 at 18:14

Patience Viking, an axe wasn’t aquired in an hour!

23
Anna Raccoon February 19, 2010 at 18:15

Did you remember to press confirm?

24
English Viking February 19, 2010 at 18:16

Sorry Anna, too much mead and I get all aggressive!

Thanks for the help, and to JuliaM too.

25
English Viking February 19, 2010 at 18:17

Confirm what? These computer tooters really wind me up!

26
Saul February 19, 2010 at 18:31

Axe and ye shall receive..

27
Thaddeus J. Wilson February 19, 2010 at 19:28

I’m surprised there haven’t been more cutting remarks!

28
John Pickworth February 20, 2010 at 08:13

“Warn me next time you are going to post a cracker like that – Mr G had just given me a cup of tea!”

It was said many years ago that I was full of wit…. ermmm, though, its possible I misheard of course

And thank you for your kind comment. I feel now suitably motivated to flash my crackers around more often.

29
Anna Raccoon February 20, 2010 at 08:19

So long as it is only your crackers, dear John, there are ladies present…