Racist rants inadvisable now fellow-passengers have camera phones

Post by **spot** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:31 am

Did we have a thread about Emma West's rant on the tram? I can't find it if we did.

"Ms West pleaded not guilty and was remanded in custody. The hearing was adjourned until later to give time for the defendant to prepare reasons for her not guilty plea."

11,506,665 views on Youtube and she pleads not guilty? I agree she'd never have been charged without the video being posted and so widely seen but... not guilty?

I'm delighted that people are capturing criminality on video and publishing it, I hope this is the first of millions of such videos. Nobody can go unsentenced if all crimes are recorded, it's an ideal situation.

BBC News - Woman accused of racist tram rant denies charge

There's another woman at it here with just 86 views so far, though I may not have the primary clip. On a mainline train to Manchester, apparently. One hopes she's dealt with similarly.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:25 am

Does this mean we can now look forward to the various churches desisting in their homophobic rantings and stirring up of hatred against atheists? I don't agree with her but she has the nerve to say what she thinks in that kind of company - to their faces as it were. Hardly inciting others to violence is it? They should have taken the opportunity to reason with her. We live in a free country where we tolerate clerics inciting religious bigotry and intolerance she has the same entitlement to speak her mind arresting her is not the right way to deal with it. If she was a nun having a rant about protestants would she be arrested or an orangeman warning of the perils of papery would he?

Why was she remanded in custody for her own safety over christmas (she has two kids remember) yet the couple that battered a month old baby were released on bail. I would have thought they were more at risk from vigilantes - what an insult to the immigrant community that they would seek revenge on a woman with children, if they would maybe she has a point. In a free country you have to tolerate people with views and beliefs you dislike. On a side note I wasn't born English either.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 10:58 am

spot;1377817 wrote: Did we have a thread about Emma West's rant on the tram? I can't find it if we did.

I'm delighted that people are capturing criminality on video and publishing it, I hope this is the first of millions of such videos. Nobody can go un-sentenced if all crimes are recorded, it's an ideal situation

Are you the same person that said recently that there are too many acts criminalised ?

Perhaps we should all have a personal video attached to us, then we would all have to behave.

(This was formally known as a conscience, overseen by an almighty being)

Both videos are in the 'What have we bred' thread

It says an administrative error led to her not guilty plea, what sort of error might that be ?

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 11:45 am

There goes all your rights of speech . whether you agree with her or not she has a right to express herself . As I said in the "what we've bred" thread. Everyone on that train would have to stand up in court and say they were offended or something . What if some one else agreed with her in that carriage?

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:01 pm

There is a difference between free speech and having a rant on a crowded tram.

Don't think there is anywhere in the world where you can scream obscenities aimed at certain people just because you want to.

Even if she had done it in an English high street surrounded by an all white Anglo Saxon audience she would get done for public order offences......or something

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:17 pm

But she hasn't done anything ...she hasn't incited violence you have to prove that she has created a public disorder .....I didn't see the other passengers rant and rave only one and another behind her getting angry . should the male behind her be arrested as well for showing aggression toward a female on public transport .

Again what she has done is distastful but I'm not so sure it's a crime. And what's the difference between what she did and the other woman who apologizes to the passengers around her and is a little more well dressed????? but one thing is certain here they were both talking to a person directly. Not an open forum.

computer is running slow so I can't bring the vid up again ...Did she actually use a discriptive word to insult those people or was she only commenting on the socio economic status of her country because they were there? BEcause if that's the case she could be right and frustrated by the continual acceptence of more immigrants at a time of economic hardship

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:41 pm

Here is the full transcript.

Remember she had a child sitting on her lap, behind her a mixed race young couple.

EMMA WEST: What's this country come to? A load of Black people and a load of ****ing Polish, a load of ****ing East… Yeh. You're all ****ing skipped from a… You ain't English.

UNSEEN WHITE MAN: No, I'm not. No.

EMMA WEST: No, you're not. You ain't English either. You ain't English. None of you ****ing English. Get back to your own ****ing… D'y'know what? Sort out your own countries. Don't come and do mine. Britain is nothing now. Britain is **** all. My Britain is **** all now. Britain is **** all. My Britain is **** all.

FAT BLACK LADY (FBL): Excuse me dear, there's little kids on the tram.

EMMA WEST: Yes, fine. I've got a little kid here.

FBL: Then have respect. Yeh? Have respect. My little boy's here.

EMMA WEST: I've got a little boy here.

FBL: Yes, then get off the tram.

EMMA WEST: **** you!

FBL: And you.

EMMA WEST: **** you!

FBL: Then someone need to throw you off.

EMMA WEST: Really?

FBL: Yes.

EMMA WEST: I dare you. I ****ing dare you.

FBL: Just watch your language, man.

EMMA WEST: Don't watch my language. Go back to where you come from. Yeh? Back to Zai…****ing Nig… Nicaragua or wherever you come from. No idea where it's at. Yeh?

UNSEEN BLACK MAN: No, no, no, no!

FBL: If we don't come here you guys don't work. You guys don't work. We have to do the work for you.

EMMA WEST: Really? I work. I work. I work. This is my British country until you lot come over.

FBL: So what. So what …call me Black?

EMMA WEST: Yes, so what. It's my British country. You aren't British. You aren't British. Are you British?

FBL: Yes I am. Yes I am.

EMMA WEST: You ain't British. **** off. You're not British. You're Black. You're Black. You ain't British you're Black.

FBL: Yeh, because I'm Black?

EMMA WEST: Where'd you come from? Where'd you come from?

OTHER WOMAN: My lady. My lady.

ANGRY ENGLISH MOTHER (AEM): Now you're waking my baby up. You want to shut your mouth Look, shush, and now you're waking my baby up. I'm English and what've you got to say to me? **** all! Now, shut your mouth.

EMMA WEST: Shut your face.

AEM: No, I won't shut my face.

EMMA WEST: Someone's gotta talk up for… Look, the whole ****ing tram. Look at that.

[General cacophony]

AEM: No it ain't.

FBL: Black is beaut…

Post by **spot** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 12:49 pm

fuzzywuzzy;1377841 wrote: Again what she has done is distastful but I'm not so sure it's a crime.It matters more how the Magistrates view what was done and the statutes they're guided by. You live, as I constantly point out, in a different jurisdiction to the court.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:11 pm

The constant use of the F word is probably what got most people upset but in some circles it's almost verbal punctuation. If she gets more than a fine I think it will be a travesty and lead to uproar. You can kill someone drunk driving and be released on bail all she did was say what she thinks and she is imprisoned over christmas.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 1:19 pm

This Is tricky....

Having read the transcript....

Legally, she Is entitled to an opinion and for that opinion to be expressed. If she has a good lawyer, he could get her off by pointing out that she has merely expressed her opinion.

The downside for her Is that she littered It with four lettered expletives and that Is a section 4 and section 5 of the public order act.

She has not made threats so that too, can be argued for a section 5 Is also to put a person In fear of violence.

I would also plead not guilty If In her shoe's to 'Inciting racial hatred' but I would cop a plea for a section 5.

The defence In this case will be enlightening.... a good lawyer could get her off.

Post by **spot** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 2:47 pm

Good lord you are an ignorant bunch sometimes.

I regret that she's been held in custody at all, there seems no justice in it much less that she should still be there. That doesn't stop her having behaved in a way likely to breach the Queen's peace and aggravated the offence with race hatred.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:30 pm

spot;1377863 wrote: Good lord you are an ignorant bunch sometimes.

I regret that she's been held in custody at all, there seems no justice in it much less that she should still be there. That doesn't stop her having behaved in a way likely to breach the Queen's peace and aggravated the offence with race hatred.

Go on then.... explain how the offence Is racial hatred.

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:38 pm

Is it now okay to film anyone and to upload it to YouTube, without their permission? I must be way behind the times...

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 3:59 pm

Has anyone searched the web concerning this case ?

I am amazed and stunned by the amount of support she has received from the couple of sites I found.

Following the riots , this could be a turning point for many people.......Don't ask me to explain.....it's just a gut feeling.

My personal view ?

Although she is an obnoxious foul mouthed and prejudiced lady, I think it has been blown out of all proportion, by the fact it was filmed.

Why she should be detained, I have no clue, unless there is more to her that we don't know about.

Why she shouldn't be dealt with over night I have no clue.

Maybe we are seeing the reaction to the riots, where racism must be dealt with.

If the footage hadn't been widely seen, would she merely have got a good talking to ?

Post by **spot** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 5:05 pm

oscar;1377868 wrote: Go on then.... explain how the offence Is racial hatred.

The test, I think, is based on the following words:An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/199 ... -and-wales

and the offence can be any at all.

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 6:59 pm

What started her acting like this? Did the fat black lady step on her foot? Was she drinking? The level of aggression seems unusual to me but then I live in the politest state in the US.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:13 pm

SnoozeAgain;1377882 wrote: What started her acting like this? . She'd just read the AA Grumpy Column

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Tue Dec 06, 2011 7:35 pm

oscar;1377884 wrote: She'd just read the AA Grumpy Column

Well, I'm surprised she was that well-behaved then.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 2:43 am

spot;1377876 wrote: The test, I think, is based on the following words:An offence is racially or religiously aggravated for the purposes of sections 29 to 32 below if—

(a) at the time of committing the offence, or immediately before or after doing so, the offender demonstrates towards the victim of the offence hostility based on the victim’s membership (or presumed membership) of a racial or religious group;

Crime and Disorder Act 1998

and the offence can be any at all.

That being the case I can think of a few religious leaders that are guilty for preaching discrimination other christian denominations and sectors of the population they dislike and feel they should be allowed to prevent leading a lifestyle of their choosing. We are not really that far removed from killing each other over religion the only reason we don't is because most people have little time for bigotry nowadays and no longer follow blindly. .

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 9:18 am

spot;1377817 wrote: I agree she'd never have been charged without the video being posted and so widely seen but... not guilty?Without the option to plea means we forfeit our rights to a fair trial.

After such an irrational display of discourse I can't see how anyone can be surprised by any of this woman's actions beyond that in the video...

Someone being charged with a crime doesn't necessarily mean the defendant understands the consequences of the trial either...

People pleading "guilty" to crimes have always confused me...Giving someone a harsher sentence based primarily on their plea is horrendous

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:55 am

K.Snyder;1377915 wrote:

People pleading "guilty" to crimes have always confused me...Giving someone a harsher sentence based primarily on their plea is horrendous
A guilty plea normally gets you a lesser sentence in the UK, due to the fact you have seen the error of your ways and cost the system less money going through the motions of a trial.

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:50 am

Bruv;1377925 wrote: A guilty plea normally gets you a lesser sentence in the UK, due to the fact you have seen the error of your ways and cost the system less money going through the motions of a trial.

The legalities of a plea Is a minefield. On most occasions, the defendant will admit their guilt but It's the lawyer who Instructs them to plead Not Guilty for all manner of reasons best known only to themselves and the defendant.

I myself was Instructed to plead Not Guilty to all charges and force a four day trial. This was not to waste the tax payers money but for reasons that my lawyer wanted.

Reasons can be:

To highlight police corruption:

To highlight breaches of police proceedure:

To force witness's who you know have lied to police, to give evidence under oath and present the opportunity to cross examine them.

Etc etc

In my case, the so called victem pleaded he was the case of mistaken Identity and kept It up for a year until It came to trial.

Forcing a trial meant witness's had to give evidence and under oath, three of his mates Including his chief witness ratted on him. In Fact, under oath, his chief witness even admitted they had lied In their police statements. If I had just accepted the caution, none of that would ever have come out and the so called victem would not have been shown for the liar he was.

The point Is, If you're going to be convicted, then be fairly convicted with ALL circumstances and evidence heard. If you have the slightest suspicion that a witness has lied to police then they should rightly be forced to be cross examined and proved to be a liar. It's surprising what comes out of witness's under oath when the pressure Is on through cross examination.

So... pleading not guilty Is not just always the case as some assume... to get publicity and waste the tax payers money.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:55 pm

I was talking of a simple scoundrel caught red handed.

A burglar who puts his hands up, would be dealt with more leniently than another who fights his lost cause to the end.........wouldn't he ?

Post by **Oscar Namechange** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 1:09 pm

Bruv;1377940 wrote: I was talking of a simple scoundrel caught red handed.

A burglar who puts his hands up, would be dealt with more leniently than another who fights his lost cause to the end.........wouldn't he ?

Not always..... You have to take Into account sentencing also.

Every crime however small or large carries a maximum and minimum sentence. What any lawyer and defendant wants Is the minimum sentence. If they went to court and entered no mitigating circumstances, you will get the maximum sentence.

You can still e found guilty and know you are guilty but If you can prove that you were driven to commit that crime due to exceptional circumstances, you will get as little as a discharge.

I know some-one who Is about to go on trial. The charges are pretty bad so he entered a non plea so that a judge can hear the circumstances that drove him to commit those crimes.

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:40 pm

Bruv;1377940 wrote: I was talking of a simple scoundrel caught red handed.So, surely, was oscar.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:49 pm

spot;1377962 wrote: So, surely, was oscar.

No comment

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:51 pm

yet muslims can scream racial comments burn the union jack and hold up placards like death to white infidels yet the police turn a blind eye.

this could have been dealt with in magistrates court by way of a community punishment not a remand.

yet emma is locked up because she ranted something which is not politiclly correct any more in the uk she,s there not just for a crime but because of the politicians

AA grumpy

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:53 pm

oscar;1377942 wrote: Not always..... You have to take Into account sentencing also.

OK OK OK........but if two similar cases where one was a guilty and one a not guilty plea, with the same mitigation offered, who would serve a shorter sentence ?

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 3:59 pm

the grumps;1377965 wrote: yet muslims can scream racial comments burn the union jack and hold up placards like death to white infidels yet the police turn a blind eye.
Only to the burning of the symbol. Either of the other two would get them up before a bench. I can show you examples where it did. Can you show me an example where it didn't?

the grumps · Post by **the grumps** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:00 pm

then read this from the BNP website

Everywhere you look, there are signs that people are waking up and standing up to be counted. The anti-British bias of the media, legal system and the police is no longer a cause for despair but for mounting anger.”

This is Nick Griffin’s take on the public response to the shocking contrast between the case of Emma West, remanded in custody until the New Year due to a lie-fuelled Crown Prosecution Service bulldozer operation in court yesterday, and that of four Somalia Muslims who walked free from court in Leicester yesterday despite being found guilty of a brutal racist attack on a defenceless English girl.

The gang of Muslim women repeatedly kicked a young woman in the head, attacking her for no apparent reason, as she was heading home with her partner a court heard. These women screamed 'kill the white slag' while kicking 22-year-old Rhea Page, while she lay on the ground.

Ambaro and Hibo Maxamed, are both 24, their sister Ayan, is 28, and cousin Ifrah Nur, who is also 28. These are the women who attacked the care worker, as she was walking to a taxi rank with her boyfriend that night. These are not mere girls out of secondary school.

‘Kill the white slag’

They were charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm, a charge which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison. They called Miss Page a ‘white bitch’ and said ‘kill the white slag’ but have not been charged with a racially aggravated offence, as any white person would have been.

If the attackers had been English and the victim Somali the racial aspect of the assault would automatically have led to a harsher sentence.

But the racist Somali thugs were set free yesterday with suspended six month sentences. Judge Robert Brown ordered most of the gang to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work. One of the girls, because of a medical condition, received a four-month curfew between 9 pm and 6 am instead.

The defence in this case? Religion. These girls claimed their religion did not allow them to drink, so they were not used to being drunk. Therefore they were not responsible for their violent behaviour.

Obviously these four do not follow their religious doctrine. However that did not stop them from using their ‘religion’ as an excuse.

Apologist Judge

The Judge at Leicester Crown Court informed them that most people in their position would normally go to jail. So why did he allow these girls such leniency? Was it because he acting as an apologist for the crimes of these people?

Did those responsible show remorse? Judge for yourself. This is what one of them Ambaro Maxamed wrote on her Twitter account: "Happy happy happy!’, ‘I’m so going out’, and ‘Today has been such a great day’."

The Somali women are Muslims. Their religion does not allow them to use alcohol, and yet that night they were drinking. The British National Party say that it is inexcusable that they can use their religion to evade responsibility for their hideous and violent actions against Rhea Page. What does their religion say about inflicting violence on an innocent person?

"Our values are clear - that such a person must be punished. Yet our Judges and Political Class have perverted their morals to such a degree that even this basic tenet is not upheld. Think about this case and the many others where victims are not offered remedy or protection. Then think about what you can do to change this."

"What would have happened to a group of British women if they had decided to jump on and kick to pieces a Somalia girl, screaming ‘Kill the Muslim slag’? They most definitely wouldn’t have been given suspended sentences."

Beaten and traumatised

Rhea Page is traumatised and has lost her job after this attack. She is left with a bald patch where they ripped out a chunk of her hair on the High Street in Leicester. She has had repeated flashbacks and suffers from stress. She was bruised from head to toe from the relentless kicking these girls inflicted upon her.

Miss Page told the court, "We were just minding our own business". She said they grabbed her hair, wrapping their fingers in it and throwing her to the ground. They took turns kicking her in the head and all over. She was covered in bruises. During the violent attack she screamed and cried for help. She thought they were going to kill her.

Her partner tried to defend her. These women used this as well in court claiming they felt like they were victims of ‘unreasonable force’, from him as he tried to shield her from their attack. Miss Page said these girls continued to kick her in the head until the police arrived and one even ran back to kick her in the head one last time in front of the police, while she lay unconscious on the ground.

Miss Page is a support worker who cares for people with autism and learning difficulties. She stated after the hearing that she felt the sentence did not send the right message about street violence. The sentence also did not address reverse racism.

Different cases

Judge Robert Brown is prepared to send people to prison in some circumstances. Last month he handed down 16 months each to two Romanian women who stole jewellery from Indian-owned shops. He also gave a 27-month sentence to 19-year-old cannabis addict Jake Chetwynd for his part in the robbery of a drug-dealer’s house.

The British National Party believes in tough sentences for thieves and burglars, but we also believe that there is something deeply wrong with a Judge who will send people to prison for stealing property while letting convicted racist thugs walk free smirking from court.

The stark contrast between the legal system’s brutalisation of Emma West and the kid-glove treatment for the four Muslim thugs who have wrecked Rhea Page’s life, has led to a huge outpouring of anger on social networking sites.

AAG

welcome to the politcally correct uk where theres one law for WHITES and one for W*GS

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:02 pm

the grumps;1377965 wrote: yet muslims can scream racial comments burn the union jack and hold up placards like death to white infidels yet the police turn a blind eye.

this could have been dealt with in magistrates court by way of a community punishment not a remand.

yet emma is locked up because she ranted something which is not politiclly correct any more in the uk she,s there not just for a crime but because of the politicians

AA grumpy
Have you taken your medication today ?

Neither the law of England and Wales nor the law of Scotland has a concept of "flag desecration."

theia · Post by **theia** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:03 pm

spot;1377968 wrote: Only to the burning of the symbol. Either of the other two would get them up before a bench. I can show you examples where it did. Can you show me an example where it didn't?

Do you know why this is exempt?

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:10 pm

Might they have held her to judge for competency? Would they release that information? Because she really did come across as a bit touched.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:26 pm

Rhea Page Video

Snooz · Post by **Snooz** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:40 pm

Bruv;1377982 wrote: Rhea Page Video

Yes, they look like very devout and pious Muslim women.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:50 pm

Miss Page said these girls continued to kick her in the head until the police arrived and one even ran back to kick her in the head one last time in front of the police, while she lay unconscious on the ground.

How did she know ?

She was unconscious.

Without being at the trial and hearing all the evidence, I wouldn't comment either way.

Watching a CCTV video and comment from the BNP is not enough to judge anything.

What I saw and what was reported has discrepancies already.

Post by **spot** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:39 am

Emma West's finally been bailed. I'm appalled she was ever held in custody to begin with. There are some lousy decisions made in the judicial system sometimes, that was one of them.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/tram-race-rant-woman-bailed-48569

theia · Post by **theia** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 10:53 am

I didn't realise she had been held in custody for her own safety. Presumably that is no longer a concern?

Post by **spot** » Tue Dec 13, 2011 12:27 pm

Maybe she has an Aunt in Pwllheli where she can hide out and eat pudding until the new year.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:32 am

And along comes another one.....

Post by **spot** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:44 am

Well that's her Buckingham Palace Garden Party ticket up in smoke then.

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:26 am

Would it be racist if I were to ask why would anyone want to be English?:sneaky:

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:33 am

what's really funny about that vid is ..she's sooo off her face ...and then you have an american accent saying oh my god ....has to be a set up no?

and here I was thinking the worst thing to here on your trains was "passenger activity" lol

fuzzywuzzy · Post by **fuzzywuzzy** » Wed Dec 14, 2011 11:35 am

NO no I'm sorry that was "pedestrian activity " or something .

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:42 am

The court case starts tomorrow, if anyone's watching. A post on right-wing blog Rant On UK, entitled 'Activists needed in Croydon this Friday' warns: "Expect a very large contingent of supporters for Emma West on Friday outside and inside the court. "This is going to be a very interesting court case and may well be the trigger to something much bigger."

A post on white supremacist website Stormfront, however, warns her supporters to leave "party badges or affiliations at home". Member 'Whitehammer1; said: "Any party trying to gain points are acting against the wishes of Emma's family."

Woman accused of "My Tram Experience" race rant to appear in court | This is Croydon

gmc · Post by **gmc** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 5:59 am

She should have couched her rant in religious terms that way she would be able to claim a god given right to her prejudices.

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:02 am

Are there any mainstream religions - or even fringe sects - which deplore the influx of immigrants to the UK? I'm not familiar with any.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:19 am

Why does it take so long to come to court ?

Post by **spot** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 6:39 am

Bruv;1384857 wrote: Why does it take so long to come to court ?

It's not allowed to, but two months is pretty quick. It has to slot into an available time at the court, all the prosecution material has to be processed, the defendant has to have sufficient time to prepare a defence, two months is startlingly quick.

This is background summarised from Blackwell's Criminal Practice...Trial within a Reasonable Period

The right to trial within a reasonable period is guaranteed under the European Court of Human Rights, Article 5(3) for those in pre-trial detention and more generally for anyone facing criminal proceedings under Article 6(1). Since it is primarily concerned with those in pre-trial detention, the standards under Article 5(3) are more exacting than those under Article 6(1).

Time begins to run under both Article 5(3) and Article 6(1) when an individual is 'charged'. This may stretch back to arrest, rather than formal charge. The House of Lords held that in England and Wales time will usually run from the time that an individual is formally charged or served with a summons.

Time ends for Article 5(3) purposes with the finding of guilt or innocence; time ends for Article 6(1) purposes when the proceedings are over, including any appeal. Neither the court nor the prosecution is responsible for delays attributable to the applicant or his lawyers.

Periods spent at large are discounted. The workload of the court is not a good reason for delay — and, in any event, should be supported with evidence of steps taken to alleviate the position — nor is a shortage of resources. Article 6(1) imposes on Contracting States the duty to organise their judicial system in such a way that their courts can meet their requirement to hear a case within a reasonable time.

The remedy in domestic law for a breach of the requirement that there be trial within a reasonable period has been considered at the highest level on several occasions. The Privy Council held that quashing a conviction was a possible, but exceptional, remedy. A nine-judge House of Lords held that, where criminal proceedings are not dealt with in a reasonable period, there is necessarily a breach of Article 6(1), but the remedy to be afforded will depend on all the circumstances of the case.

Bruv · Post by **Bruv** » Thu Feb 16, 2012 10:04 am

Blimey don't you go on ?

I took the date format as European on the first post and thought it had occurred in June as it said 12-6-2011.

My apologies

Two months doesn't seem unreasonable.