It would appear that it isn’t just us bloggers who read Rachel’s blog then.
Rachel in the News
3 responses
-
Mad as a bag of wasps.
But…
“It went to court and she was found guilty in her absence.”
Not sure I like that. -
R v Jones [2002] UKHL5
Essentially, the idea is that you shouldn’t be able to frustrate the course of justice by deliberately absenting yourself in the hope that eventually witnesses will get fed up or people’s memories will fade, or whatever.
The general principle, as I understand it, is that if you fail to attend court without adequate excuse after you’ve been advised of the trial date, you’re assumed to be doing the equivalent of exercising your right — and you have a perfect right so to do — to sit in the dock saying nothing. A not guilty plea is entered on your behalf, and the prosecution must submit its evidence. If you chose not to challenge it, that’s up to you. The court then decides if the prosecution has made out its case. Seems fair enough to me.
When she’s finally caught and sentenced, she’s got an automatic right of appeal against conviction and sentence, which will be heard very rapidly by a crown court judge sitting with two magistrates, and will essentially be a re-run of the case originally presented, only this time with her participation. -
It’s a shame El Tel didn’t see fit to publish the photo of the mad woman of Walthamstowe though.
Leave a Reply