This is the second of three blogs that focuses on the stated aim, “Put Victims Rights First”, part of the RoadPeace campaign “Fix Our Broken Justice System”.
The aim is to explain the roles of the advocates and provide evidence based on our experience to justify the claim that the rights of the victims are not put first, in fact quite the opposite, resulting in an unbalanced and broken justice system.
“Our Justice System is not balanced, and it is clear that Victims Rights are not put first! Our justice system has a fundamental flaw and that is that our system is about winning and losing. Justice, punishment, deterrent, and what is right gets lost in the games the advocates play, sadly, a game that is played with people’s life’s.”
Put Victims Rights First – Advocacy
In this blog I will attempt to question the idiosyncrasies and failings of the Criminal Prosecution Service (CPS) and that of the role of the Advocates. Our hope is that our experience will stimulate debate and for those that are sadly starting their journey that it will provide you with some insight into what to expect, and please accept our condolences.
Two points I would like to make straight away. Don’t expect the CPS to make a quick decision, road crime is a low priority, it will take months and don’t expect to be given any information by either the CPS or the Police. Under the pretence of “sub judice” you will be told little to nothing regardless of how many meetings you have with the CPS. In contrast the defence team will get full disclosure.
“What do you understand about the differing roles of the defence and prosecution advocates?”
“Advocacy in law, particularly in the UK, refers to the process of presenting arguments, making legal submissions, and representing clients’ interests in courtrooms or legal proceedings. It is a fundamental aspect of the legal profession, where advocates act as the voice for their clients and strive to achieve justice on their behalf.”
Source: https://www.thelawyerportal.com/careers/deciding-on-law/what-is-advocacy/#:~:text=Advocacy%20in%20law%2C%20particularly%20in%20the%20UK%2C%20refers,and%20strive%20to%20achieve%20justice%20on%20their%20behalf.
The CPS own web site states:
“As set out in the CPS 2020 Advocacy Strategy, we will instruct the right advocate for the right case. This ensures we deliver justice through flexible, resilient and sustainable advocacy services, which create quality, value and the best service for victims and witnesses.”
and
“7. Effective advocates put the prosecution case clearly, concisely and persuasively; speak up for the interests of victims and witnesses; act in the best interests of the CPS; assist the court; probe and challenge the defence case, and achieve timely and just outcomes. They also proactively make sure the case is progressed throughout and at each hearing, taking appropriate decisions as required and explaining those decisions as necessary.”
Source: https://www.cps.gov.uk/publication/cps-briefing-principles
Our experience does not bear any resemblance to what is indicated in these definitions. In fact, these advocacy descriptions are contradicted in correspondence we received following our complaint to the CPS. The Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor CPS South West states: “I reiterated that the Crown Prosecution Service represent the Crown and our role is to present the prosecution both fairly and independently.”.
Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor CPS South West states:
“Before I do so, it is important to note that the prosecutor at sentencing hearings has a specific role, which is different to that undertaken by the defence advocate. The prosecutor is there to help the court reach its decision as to the appropriate sentence. This will include drawing the court’s attention to any victim personal statement; any relevant sentencing guidelines and both the aggravating and mitigating factors of the offence. In reminding the court of its powers or in drawing the court’s attention to Sentencing Guidelines, prosecutors do not request a particular sentence, but rather they act to ensure that the court is aware of the full range of options.
This can be very challenging for victims or the family of victims to see, especially when compared with the role played by the defence advocate, who will offer extensive mitigation and look to influence the sentence imposed by the court. However, this reflects the different nature of their roles.”
“So who actually represents the rights of the victim and who defines what is fair?”
If the defence advocate does everything “to influence the sentence imposed” blindly defending the offenders actions and presenting exaggerated excuses under the guise of mitigation you must ask “why the victim does not get the same service?”
The CPS, defence, prosecution, and the judge will be presented with the results of the police investigation, witness statements, full CCTV footage, any reconstruction, vehicle examination report, and the Post Mortem, but what other documents are presented to the judge?
The District Crown Prosecutor (the legal manager) CPS South West states:
“The sentencing note was supplemented by a number of character references provided by the friends and family of Ms Hamer. The court was also provided with a report from the Probation Service, who interviewed Ms Hamer prior to the hearing.
This may sound weighted in the favour of the defence, but this is balanced with the prosecution’s own sentencing note and, importantly, the Victim Personal Statements provided by you and your family. The Victim Personal Statement is particularly valuable as it ensures that the voice of the family
is heard in court, providing their thoughts on the offence and its impact. All of this would have been considered by the Judge when deciding on sentence.”
The prosecution advocate did not produce a sentencing note which, we now understand, is not unusual, the defence sentencing note did include all mitigation that was presented in court, the prosecution advocate did see the sentencing note 3 days before the sentencing hearing giving the opportunity to challenge proposed mitigation, and in my opinion our Victim Personal Statements whilst extremely important for the family had little to no effect on the sentence handed down. I would also point out that your VPS statements being read out in court is at the discretion of the judge.
Anyone with any common sense can see that it is weighted in favour of the defence. I would add that having gained access to the sentencing note it contained insulting language. Following our meeting with the CPS we received the following correspondence from the Deputy Chief Crown Prosecutor CPS South West:
“Ms Martin (prosecution advocate) accepted that there may have been some language contained in the defence note that was insulting, but this not usually a note that is viewed by victims. It is provided to assist with the judge and can prevent potentially insensitive comments being said in court.”
Why is it acceptable for the defence advocate to use insulting language or make insensitive comments whilst the prosecution advocate is, and I quote “Ms Martin (prosecution advocate) explained that as a prosecutor she is obligated to comment on character of the defendant as the judge is mandated to consider previous character at any sentence process. You felt strongly that if someone is responsible for causing someone’s death,
character should be irrelevant.” My belief remains that good character is irrelevant especially when you consider that a persons character often changes when they get behind the wheel of a car. Somewhere focus has been lost. A dangerous driver, who made a conscious decision to keep her foot on the accelerator, killed someone whilst breaking the law, flagrantly disregarding the rules of the road, and with no consideration for vulnerable road users. The emphasis is to find excuses, mitigation, for the offender.
The defence advocate was the same throughout but not the prosecution advocate, different at the Plea and Trial Preparation Hearing to that of the Sentencing Hearing. We did not have a meeting with the prosecution advocate before the sentencing hearing and at no time did the advocate seek to establish Lorraine’s character, what society has lost, how Lorraine’s family and friends have been affected, or establish our mental health. The exact opposite to the care and consideration given to the offender.
There is so much that was said in court that paints a distorted or inaccurate picture. This is wrong! Our justice system is the one place where an accurate depiction of events and the effect those events have on people should be presented. Everything presented by both advocates should be tangible, evidenced based, factual, and not based on opinions and open to interpretation. But, sadly, this is not the case.
“If the Prosecuting Advocate role is to publicly speak on behalf of the victim and their family, support the victim and family, and put the case for the victim and the victim’s family as they seek justice. Would you expect the Prosecuting Advocate to present facts that were incorrect (confirmed by the police), deviate from the facts by giving their opinion, elaborate statements made in the Police Road Traffic Specialist Report, the Police Vehicle Examination Report, and make statements in favour of the offender?”
You can imagine how we felt when our Prosecuting Advocate did all these things. So much so that Lorraine’s mother thought that our advocate was representing the offender. Judge for yourself with the following extracts and comments.
Getting the facts right is so important not just for the trial or sentencing hearing but because the Unduly Leniency Scheme only looks at facts agreed in court. I quote the Solicitor General “Unfortunately, I can only review the sentence imposed based on the agreed facts at the Crown Court.”
Prosecution Advocate: – “Your Honour, emergency services were summoned by a number of motorists, and it’s right to say that at one stage, having been put in a car by one of the other female motorists, Victoria Hamer got out of that car where she’d been put for her own safety, to run back to her car to get her phone to phone the veterinary surgery to summon help which did come to the scene, and in fact CPR was attempted by a vet from the practice where Victoria Hamer worked.”
[ This is an incorrect statement of facts, stated by both advocates and the judge. The question as to who phoned the vet is clearly stated in a witness statement and confirmed by the police. It was not Victoria Hamer it was a witness. Additionally it was not the Vet that started CPR it was me which again has been confirmed by the police. In July 2023 we received an apology from the prosecution advocate but its too late Ms Hamer had already been given credit for actions she did not perform. Why didn’t the prosecutor advocate ask the police for a timeline or create one herself from the CCTV footage? The timeline provided by the police state that Ms HAMER left the vehicle at 18:28:18, 7 minutes after the incident she runs out of shot (I would be interested to know what danger she was in the road was closed) her car was some 30 metres away. 18:28:54 (36 seconds) when she is back over Lorraine. So, in 36 seconds we are expected to believe that she runs approximately 60 metres, retrieves her mobile, makes a call, and has a conversation. Ms HAMER did not summon the vet. The question, therefore, is why did Miss HAMER return to her car 7 minutes after killing Lorraine? If it was not to phone the vet this is an extremely important, unanswered, question. I would add that the vet did not start CPR I did, the vets presence had little to no affect as shortly after he arrived the paramedics took over. Why did the advocates and the judge get this so wrong? ]
Prosecution Advocate: “A vehicle examiner, Geoffrey French, was later to examine the VW Polo … He describes it as being very well maintained.”
[ I have read the 13 page report a number of times and I cannot find this statement. The examiners conclusion is “There were no faults or defects that in my opinion would have cause or contribute to the collision in the circumstances stated.” What this means is that the collision was purely down to driver error, why was this not pointed out? Again the vocabulary used by the prosecution advocate paints a picture in favour of the offender. I would add that when this question was put to our advocate during our CPS complaint meeting the response was “… all the tyres were inflated to the correct pressure.” Sadly I did not ask when the last time each of the members at the meeting checked their tyre pressure. ]
Prosecution Advocate: “Shows the road to be a single lane carriageway. It’s right to say that on both sides of the carriageway there are tall trees and hedgerows that border the road on both sides.”
[ Travelling west there are no trees on the right-hand side of the road and on the left there are a few immature trees well-spaced out with the last one 20 metres from the point of impact. In fact some of these trees had no foliage as they were dead. ]
Prosecution Advocate: “… but it was noticeably in the sun breaking through the trees and giving a dappling effect to drivers. …”
[ If the trees, with little foliage, are on the left-hand side and the sun is positioned directly in front how can there be a dappling effect the sun would need to be positioned at the side. Furthermore, the word “dappling” does not appear anywhere in the 69 page Police Road Traffic Incident Specialist Report. ]
Prosecution Advocate: – “As is appropriate with cases of this nature, the mobile phone belonging to Victoria Hamer was examined, and there was no evidence whatever that she had been using it at the time of the collision. In fact, very lovely messages passed between her and her partner. Simply normal, everyday occurrences of what’s for dinner, who’s cooking tea, I’m on my way home now. Messages of that sort. Then nothing importantly at the time of the collision.”
[ Why was it necessary for the prosecution advocate to embellish the use of the mobile phone using terms such as “no evidence whatever” and going further describing “very lovely messages”. These lovely messages were in fact open questions expecting an answer this should have raised some doubt regarding the intended use of the mobile phone whilst driving. The Road Traffic Incident Specialist Report has two lines dedicated to the mobile phone 4.103 and 4.104 and during the interview with the police after the sentencing hearing we were told that it was not possible to prove that the mobile phone was or was not in use. ]
Prosecution Advocate: “Your Honour, Miss Hamer is a woman of good character.”
[ Why is it necessary for this to be said by the prosecution advocate surely it would have been more appropriate for our advocate to be describing the victim. Having said that at no point did the prosecution advocate ask about Lorraine. Could the good character of Ms Hamer been challenged or questioned? We were told that Ms Hamer was not in a fit state to be interviewed by the police yet she was able to drive, passing the very spot where Lorraine was killed, finally being interviewed by the police 4 days later. Would someone of such good character give a “No Comment” interview regardless of their right or advice? Actually “No Comment” interviews, surely, show you have something to hide and should be classed as obstructing the police in their enquiries. ]
Prosecution Advocate: “And her licence is clean. …”
[ Again, the defence advocate had already stated this in his submission. Why was it necessary for the prosecution advocate to state this? What is worse is that the only conclusion that can be made is that the driver had not been caught. I would like to draw your attention to some statistics.]
How many vehicles are there in the United Kingdom? At the end of September 2022, there were 40.8 million licensed vehicles in the UK (33.2 million cars (81.3 per cent), 4.63 million LGVs (11.3 per cent), 0.54 million HGVs (1.3 per cent), 1.46 million motorcycles (3.6 per cent), 0.15 million buses & coaches (0.4 per cent) and 0.84 million other vehicles (2 per cent))
Source: https://www.racfoundation.org/motoring-faqs/mobility#a1
How many Road Policing Officers are there in 2020/21? England and Wales 4091, Wales 307 England and Wales excluding MPS 3270
Source: Home Office placed in a table by https://actionvisionzero.org/2021/08/02/avz-blog-august-2021-limited-rise-in-roads-policing-officers/
What is the length of roads in Great Britain 2021? The total length of roads in Great Britain was estimated to be 247,800 miles. There were 31,900 miles of major road in Great Britain in 2021, consisting of: 2,300 miles of motorway (99% trunk, 1% principal) 29,500 miles of ‘A’ road (18% trunk, 82% principal). There were 216,000 miles of minor road in Great Britain in 2021, consisting of: 18,900 miles of ‘B’ road 197,100 miles of ‘C’ and ‘U’ roads
Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/road-lengths-in-great-britain-2021/road-lengths-in-great-britain-2021
With so few road police officers covering so many vehicles across so many miles how can any credence be given to a defendants clean driving licence?
Prosecution Advocate: “… and it was a route she drove regularly…”
[ Why was it not pointed out that as a result Ms Hamer would have been aware of the speed limit and most importantly, who uses the road? As a veterinary nurse she would have known horses are kept at a number of locations along the road, and I have to say that in the two and a half years working at the vets she would have passed Lorraine, and many other cyclists, on many occasions. ]
The actions of the offender during the 13 months since the killing of Lorraine directly contradict statements made by the defence advocate but all these claims went unchallenged. Was there evidence to repute these claims? There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the answer is yes. Not just the CCTV, which shows a questionable driving position, no evasive manoeuvre, and no braking before impact, but also the police reconstruction, the 69 page Road Traffic Specialist Report which has tangible evidence, diagrams, photographs, references, distances, timing, and a damming statement, made by the road traffic investigator, that was never mentioned “in my opinion Mrs Barrow was there to be seen.”
It is a shame that the justice system, with regards to Road Traffic, includes defence advocate stating, “my professional duty, my obligation” an attitude that can be defined as “just doing my job, does not matter what I believe or know.” The prosecution advocate should be prepared to bring all salient points to the attention of the judge in the same way the defence advocate does. Furthermore, it should be incumbent on the prosecution advocate to perform their duty with the same amount of vigour to best serve the victim.
“Our Justice System is not balanced, and it is clear that Victims Rights are not put first! Our justice system has a fundamental flaw and that is that our system is about winning and losing. Justice, punishment, deterrent, and what is right gets lost in the games the advocates play, sadly, a game that is played with people’s life’s.”
Updated on: 28 March 2024