EXCLUDING SOMEBODY FROM PUBLIC GALLERY

Reading about this bench`s controversial decision  reminded me of a recent sitting where I at least faced a completely new situation.  No additional training in whatever format  would have been of any help.  As I have remarked in conversation with new colleagues there are many times  when training and book reading are little preparation to fulfil the position of a bench chairman.  Today as it so happens  one of my spies attended a seminar on improving magistrates` training deficits organised by Transform Justice, a lobbying group run by a former J.P. Penelope Gibbs.  But more of that in another post.  In simple terms either one has the ability to run a court or one hasn`t.  Unfortunately IMHO I have seen those who might overcome the hurdle of appraisal but are as unsuited to the role as a doctor without a bedside manner.  

 But returning to the subject of this post;  last month my colleagues and I were sitting on yet another assault by beating in a DV context.  The complainant had not turned up on the previous occasion.  At 10.00 o`clock we were told by CPS that she was under the care of a charity dealing with such matters and that having had a witness summons served the previous day by a police officer she was “on her way”.  Just when defence counsel was sensing a dismissal of the charge she arrived.  The defendant was removed whilst she was positioned behind screens and examination in chief began.  It took only five minutes for her to begin showing signs of stress. She whispered something to the usher who was close by.  He made his way to the public gallery where he indicated to a man that he should leave.  CPS rose to continue but I intervened to ask the usher what was going on.  Apparently the member of the public gallery was known to the complainant as being a friend of the defendant and she had felt uncomfortable.  This was an occasion when a chairman has to have control of the court and make instant decisions. I explained that any member of the public has a right to peacefully view the proceedings at a magistrates` court without any hindrance and that a complainant cannot put her discomfort above that basic freedom.  The usher was instructed to inform the person concerned who apparently was still outside the courtroom.  He returned to his seat and the case continued. Before or after his removal he was not seen to have made any action that would have been considered unusual i.e. he had silently listened to the proceedings making no expression to the witness whom he could barely see behind the screen.   My colleagues, also chairmen, were doubtful if they would have acted similarly on the basis that they were very sympathetic to the complainant`s situation.  Best I stop here.