During normal court proceedings, there is a judge, an accused, defendant, defendant's solicitor and the prosecutor. Apart from those major legal players, in most cases, there are witnesses and spectators.
Sometimes, a judge, solicitor and the prosecutor will be present. Generally, those three figures attend every court proceeding.
Understand also that the accused is also informed about what he is accused of, and he has the right to have a solicitor or defend himself.
In fact, it would be unimaginable that a judge and prosecutor are the
only people authorized to deal with proceedings in the absence of both
the accused and his solicitor unless they willingly decide not to turn up for the hearing.
Supposed you are accused of something that you do not know about.
Not only that you are not allowed to
know about it, and you are also denied the right to justify yourself by yourself or a solicitor.
Whether, you are guilty or innocent, the outcome of the judgement depends on the skills of the prosecutor whether he wants to hang you or let you live. It does not matter how good is the judge, it is all down to the prosecutor.
The question is how long will it take for the prosecutor to find the most convincing proof?
The prosecutor will argue that his work should last as long as it takes. Now could a judge put a time limit on it?
Or is a judge allowed to do so?
One should not forget that at the start of the allegation against the absent defender, a judge can reject the first evidence. In normal court proceedings, that would have been the end of the case.
This is an important point because the initial accusation against the defendant has been dismissed in his absence without his solicitor. That case is found baseless, and there is no question about it. Really, the case should be closed.
Now there is a thought.
Imagine court proceedings where there are only a judge and prosecutor, and the judge dismisses the evidence brought to him on the ground that his is not convinced that it is a genuine case. Moreover, he said to the prosecutor: get me something better than that.
So the prosecutor said to the judge:
No worries my honor, I will be back very shortly. The judge can dismiss the case few occasions, but a persistent prosecutor who is looking everywhere to find something at all cost may end up finding something convincing.
Meanwhile, the accused that did not know what was going on can easily be manipulated. I am not saying that all prosecutor will try to incriminate the unaware defendant. Nevertheless, it is possible or there could be a temptation to get that guy if one believes that he is guilty before proven guilty.
Remember that sometimes a person may seem very guilty at first glance though he is innocent. Therefore, in all investigations, the presumption of innocence must influence everything from start to finish.
The question is is it fair that a prosecutor and judge meet alone on multiple occasions in the absence of the accused and his solicitor?
Have you found this article useful?
If yes, feel free to share it on social