A woman accused of bringing Bristol city centre to a halt by staging a protest on top of The Galleries Shopping Centre is to face trial.
Oh..?
Chaos ensued when a woman climbed onto a roof of The Galleries at around 12.30pm, with banners reading "corruption stinks," "being a victim of police corruption" and "with evidence to prove this I stand here on behalf of all victims of corruption".
The protest resulted in a large number of police officers attending the scene, including a negotiator, as well as the fire and ambulance service.
There were also road and shop closures. After more than two hours, officers wearing safety gear were finally able to reach the woman from a higher point of The Galleries roof using a ladder and her protest was brought to an end after around ten minutes of negotiations.
A full strength firehose might have done the job quicker...
Earlier at Bristol Magistrates' Court Dadgar-Negad told District Judge Simon Cooper that she was "standing up for victims of corruption".
Dadgar-Negad then said she wanted her case heard at Bristol Crown Court, a request District Judge Cooper initially denied, calling her "foolish" and a "waster of time".
But clearly then allowed her to continue to waste the court's time. I wonder why?
Miss Susan Bryant, defending, told Judge Michael Roach: "She said it was a protest. She explained this to officers on numerous occasions."
The judge adjourned the case for a plea and case management hearing on July 6.
He set a trial estimated to last up to two days to start from 10am on August 12.
One to watch...
8 comments:
XX But clearly then allowed her to continue to waste the court's time. I wonder why? XX
For someone who makes so many comments about the legal system, sometimes you appear a touch thick.
EVERY one has the right to a trial if they so desire. The Magistrates HAVE to send it to crown if that is the wish of the guilty party.
UNLESS they have changed it, It would not surprise me.
FT - The Magistrates do not necessarily have to send the case to Crown Court. Some offences are triable at Mags court only, some at CC only, some are triable either way. I am not sure about the offence of public nuisance as I do not recall it being used that often and the preference would usually be to charge under other relevant legislation, such as the Public Order Act, but I suspect public nuisance may be triable either way depending on the severity of the nuisance caused. Going by the comments made by the District Judge it looks like this one will be heard at the mags court as the hearing in July will be to ensure that both sides are ready and the court will then hear the case in August - unless something else happens in the meantime.
Quite a few people seem to think if they want to they can have their case heard at CC but the vast majority of cases are disposed of at the lower level. CC should be used for the more serious offence but sometimes some absolute dross gets by BTW- when you see headlines such as 'person tried at CC for theft to value of 2p or similar, just remember it is invariably the defence that have caused it to go up the road.
Retired
Re my above - I was guilty of skim reading the report and assuming such a case would be heard at the mags court - just shows what speed reading does. I didn't clock that it had already been sent up the road. Everything else I said stands - the July hearing is an admin one to ensure all is ready - statements served, witnesses warned. For some time now the CC judges have been actively managing cases to try to prevent cracked trials. Sometimes it even works.
Retired
"Retired". Thanks. As I recall (Bruche 79,) and as I understood it, every one has the right to demand a trial, i.e, CC. Regardless.
Of course, a GOOD magistrate will give them short shrift, but the possibility is/was (as I understood it) available.
But, as I pointed out, things have changed.
A to Defence solicitors.... Hang the bloody LOT!
It is unfortunate the Avon and Somerset Police Leopard, "Smudger", was retired in 2013 due to budgetary considerations.
I am sure Smudger would have concluded any necessary negotiations with the lady with minimal inconvenience to the public.
You never see Tammy Dadgar-Negad and MTG together .............
"EVERY one has the right to a trial if they so desire."
No, actually, they don't. As Retired points out, that was changed under....gosh! The Labour years!
Who'd have guessed..?
"I am sure Smudger would have concluded any necessary negotiations with the lady with minimal inconvenience to the public."
:D
"EVERY one has the right to a trial if they so desire."
No, actually, they don't. As Retired points out, that was changed under....gosh! The Labour years!
Who'd have guessed..?
"I am sure Smudger would have concluded any necessary negotiations with the lady with minimal inconvenience to the public."
:D
Post a Comment