North Metropolitan Law Society: Fill & Download for Free

I was the investigating officer for a nasty assault that happened one New Year's Eve outside a North London pub. A local thug, already barred from the establishment had gone in at about 11pm and was causing trouble but just within the law. Police were called and escorted him out. He had not committed any criminal offences (trespass in of itself is not a crime in the UK) but the officers knew he was going to be trouble so they waited nearby just in case. At about 3 minutes to midnight they were unfortunately called away. The thug (let's call him P) was still loitering outside.The victim came out of the pub about a minute later and, without a word, P hit him with a vicious uppercut, knocking him spark out in front of three horrified witnesses. The victim fell backwards, hitting his head on the pavement. P ran off. Police and an ambulance were called. The victim was roused by paramedics and taken to hospital.Unfortunately he smelled of beer and was by all accounts rude and obnoxious to medical staff so they discharged him immediately, treating him as a drunk.His parents picked him up from the hospital and the matter was reported as a “common assault" the most minor assault in British law. (A misdemeanour offence for our American friends).That night he collapsed at home vomiting. The hospital had missed the clear fluid running from his ears. He had only had one bottle of beer that night. His behaviour was due to the fractured skull and double concussion he'd sustained. He was normally one of the nicest and most polite people you could ever wish to meet.Because it was reported as a very minor assault, it went to the back of the queue in terms of priority investigation. I was given the crime about a week later by my sergeant. I called the victim's home to be told he was still in intensive care having been in a coma for 5 days but had awoken that day. I privately cursed the reporting officers for their lack of initial investigation but cracked on.I tracked down the witnesses, recovered the very scant CCTV. There was no forensic evidence and my victim had absolutely no recollection of the incident but, utilising the earlier call I identified and arrested P.This is the back story… now to the mistakes; one minor one by the officer who escorted P from the pub before the assault and one huge, enormous clanger which, I'm glad to say was made by the defence lawyer.When police are called an incident is created. In the Metropolitan Police is is called “Computer Aided Dispatch” or CAD. In his statement the officer wrote that he was called to the pub at 10pm and left just before 11. This was a clear type-o. The CAD for the 1st incident was timed at 11pm. The CAD calling them away at 11.58 pm.I had the officer write a second statement covering the error.In the UK, the defendant appears 1st at the magistrates court who can take the plea. In serious cases the matter is usually sent up to the crown court. There are then usually a few short hearings prior to trial, one of which is mandatory was called the Plea and Case Management Hearing (PCMH) at the time (now pre trial plea hearing). At these hearings the judge, prosecutor and defence estimate trial length, disclosure timings (I believe it is called discovery in the USA) are set out a plea is taken and a bit of legal argument over admissibility may take place. I went to every hearing as I am one of those investigators who actually cares about my victims getting justice.At the PCMH, defence argued that the CAD messages were to be treated as hearsay and should be excluded from the trial. This is not unusual and is technically correct. It is a hearsay document, but I had statements from the person who called police, so no issues.It is important to mention that often in the UK, you get a different prosecutor at each hearing. The defence tends to remain the same person. A trial date is set.Trial 1. A witness makes an unlawful dock identification. The new prosecutor fails to recover this so we have a mistrial.Trial 2. Another prosecutor. A different witness says something that was not part of our case. Another mistrial.Trial 3. Again another prosecutor. I fully brief him (as I did with the other two) and this time I am given permission to brief the witnesses. I tell the dock ID person not to do that again. I tell witness 2 not to say what they said and I remind all the officers not to mention the CAD messages.We go into court. Normally as officer in the case and not providing any evidence of my own I would be allowed to sit in court, however the defence lawyer (who had remained the same throughout) argued that I should remain outside court. Now, our judge was the legendary (In North London) Myrella Cohen. As sharp as a tack and a reputation for not suffering fools lightly. The officer who attended the 1st call is called in to give his evidence. I mouth “Don't mention the CAD” to him as he goes in.About 20 minutes later, a very shaken usher comes from the courtroom to the waiting area. He says to me “Please come in straight away officer, the judge wants to see you". This is not a good thing.As I go in, the officer is sitting on a chair in front of the witness box as pale as a sheet and tears are welling in his eyes. He is flanked by two court officers. This is really not a good thing. Judge Cohen invites me into the witness box. I take the oath and she speaks. “Officer, this officer is currently under caution" pointing to my panicking colleague (This is one step before arrest for perjury) “ He has suggested you may be able to explain to the court why his statement has been changed”. The lightbulb goes on. Defence have made the suggestion that he lied in his second statement to make it look like they really did arrive and leave an hour earlier than they actually did therefore giving P a lovely little alibi.Not being able to mention the CAD meant that the officer could not answer without risking another mistrial so he didn't answer the question. He looked like he was perjuring himself. Unbeknown to me, the judge's file did not include the details of the previous hearings. I also didn't wish to risk a mistrial so I answered thusly. “Your honour, there is an explanation which was subject to legal argument at PCMH. I don't wish to risk any issue with the jury so may I please answer without the jury present and then if you are satisfied I may repeat it for them". This was a bold move on my part. Officers don't usually make legal requests but bless her, she agreed.Defence counsel was now beginning to squirm. I threw him a subtle but cold little smile that her honour couldn't see. When the jury left I then explained the trial history. The PCMH hearsay argument, the reasons for the two mistrials and the briefing I had given the witnesses. As I spoke, I could see defence counsel sinking ever lower into his chair. The prosecutor, who really should have done what I was doing, sat there with his jaw hanging. I then explained to Judge Cohen that although we'd had 3 prior judges and four prior prosecutors, it had been the same defence counsel throughout. I said “He knew EXACTLY why the officer could not openly explain the statement change… he argued for it to be excluded at PCMH”.Judge Cohen thanked me and recalled the jury.“Ladies and gentlemen” she began, pointing at my now visibly relieved colleague “This officer has behaved beyond reproach. I was wrong to caution him. He answered the question of his statement change in the only way he could” She paused to cast the coldest stare I have ever seen over the now semi-liquid lawyer. “YOU. STAND UP!” She shouted “HOW DARE YOU TRY TO MISLEAD MY COURT!!! YOU OWE AN APOLOGY!" “I'm sorry your honour" came the very timid voice. “NOT TO ME!” She screamed back. She then made him apologise personally to the officer and every member of the jury. She then reported his conduct to the Law Society and wrote to his head of chambers.It was one of the most memorable moments of my life and no doubt my colleague. In the finest traditional Met Police fashion he presented a rather expensive bottle of wine to me the next day, which was unnecessary. I was only doing my job.Oh… P got 2 years. A bit of a paltry sentence but far better than an honest police officer going to prison instead.

A2A'd. I don't typically identify as a libertarian but if I were more idealistic than I am pragmatic, then I'd likely be more in that direction. (All evidence I've ever seen indicates Homo sapiens to be a far more passionate than rational species. We all generally take short-term views rather than long-term ones, and the social effects of tribalism hugely influence individual decisions & behavior.) I technically am registered with the Libertarian Party in California so that my preferred political vector is detectable to anyone who's looking, but I generally vote as a Democrat. With all of those qualifications out of the way…I think that:The population of Sweden is about 9.9 million people. The population of Denmark is 5.7 million, the population of Finland is about 5.4 million, and the population of Norway is about 5.2 million. For the purposes of this question, we'll define Scandinavia broadly and include Iceland, which has a population of 332 thousand. The population of the United States is 323 million.[1]The Chicago Metropolitan Area[2] is approximately the population of Sweden.Finland, Norway, and Denmark are each approximately the population of the Atlanta Metropolitan Area.If Iceland were a U.S. polity, its population would rank it between the cities of Corpus Christie, Texas and Santa Ana, California[3] or comparable to the metropolitan area around Kalamazoo, Michigan.The combined population of the states of New York and New Jersey[4]is greater than the combined population of the countries of Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Iceland.[5] (Heck, the individual state populations of both California and Texas are both larger than that combined Scandinavia.)Norway's economy – and their generous welfare state – is largely dependent on extraction taxes on North Sea Oil which get plowed into their sovereign wealth fund.[6][7]Denmark is more diversified, but oil is still its fourth largest export. [8] One does not get to tout how great these countries are and ignore where the money comes from, especially when the people applauding these countries are likely to decry global fossil fuel use in the very next breath.Sweden is privatizing rapidly and shrinking public spending.[9] Denmark just kicked its Social Democrats out of power in 2015 amidst rising inequality.[10]Sweden is working on expelling 80,000 Syrian asylum seekers.[11] Denmark is seizing Syrian refugees' valuables.[12] We don't get to applaud these societies as humane when they can't effectively adjust to help people who weren't lucky enough to be born in Scandinavia and are fleeing unthinkably horrible conditions.I think they're – by all accounts – lovely countries with generally very nice people… who happen to be small in population and very homogeneous with regard to racial/ethnic identity. That is not at all to say that all get along all the time or always have one another's best interests at heart, but it's a lot easier to forge political consensus amongst smaller pools of people who have some connecting sense of being a part of the same "tribe." I think as the United States grapples with challenges, it's easy to point and say we should be more like Scandinavia – but that requires us to look at both the economic and social conditions that allow those countries to offer citizens what they offer. As User-11726029917195839384 astutely puts it in the comments, these nations have socio-political histories to them; you can't just pluck their institutions off the shelf like an IKEA (company) flat-pack. There's a lot of costs that American fans tend to ignore and a lot of changing circumstances that it would behoove us to stay very aware of.Footnotes[1] List of countries and dependencies by population[2] List of Metropolitan Statistical Areas[3] List of United States cities by population[4] Computational Knowledge Engine[5] Computational Knowledge Engine[6] Economy of Norway[7] Norway's sovereign wealth fund accused of 'pretend divestment'[8] Top Denmark Exports[9] Northern lights[10] Actually, Denmark is becoming more like us[11] Sweden sends sharp signal with plan to expel up to 80,000 asylum seekers[12] Denmark to force refugees to give up valuables under proposed asylum law

I lived there twice. I agree, there are a lot of good things about Toronto.Maybe the dislike Toronto thing is a bit passe. Toronto is a far bigger, much more diverse city than it used to be. If you know anything at all about it, you would be looking at its pros and cons, and, if you had the least interest in moving anywhere from where you are, you might ask yourself if Toronto would be suitable for you.Toronto The Good, BadToronto does not have the most pleasant economic and social history. It used to be known as “Toronto the Good”. This was highly sarcastic. The city was known for its potent mix of Methodist and Presbyterian-based joylessness. Protestant-Catholic relations were poor. As I mentioned in another Answer a few days ago, the Orange Lodge ruled high.It wasn't an especially tolerant or inviting place either. Up until the 1950's it wasn't exceptionally diverse. Bigotry could burst out in various ways, notably the Christie Pits Riots: Christie Pits riot - Wikipedia. It is really strange to think that, at one time, we were the biggest ethnic minority in Toronto.It was Toronto, the “sanctimonious icebox”: Self Condemned . (This article is from The Walrus and is their property.)New York City worked its way into being the prime city in the USA and maybe, in the world, over decades. You can go back more than a hundred years and still think of the roots of things that actually made New York City great. What would it be like if you could go back to 1895 and see a vaudeville performance? Or, a few years later, Broadway? Or, watch the start of delicatessen culture, bagels and calzones extending themselves beyond their home cultures and becoming something New Yorkers, and then Americans, could share? Or, go back 100 years and see the city's intellectual output. Like Toronto, New York City was the hub of it's country's economy. Bad decisions have flowed out of Wall Street and the New York Stock Exchange. But, the city earned its way in to being the prime city of America, much of it joyous and exciting.Toronto? No. It overtook Montreal and the Canadian economy became centred there. Its business community had and has enormous political power. Toronto benefited massively from the National Policy, which heavily advantaged southern Ontario and burdened the less-industrialized parts of Canada. Did it compensate with a lot of joyous output? Not in the least.The Golden Age of Obnoxious TorontoMaybe during the time of Leslie Frost? Leslie Frost - Wikipedia . But, “peak Ontario” extended into the era of John Robarts: John Robarts - Wikipedia. Ontario's economy was still protected by high tariff barriers. Toronto is the capital of Ontario as well as it's main economic city. I remember those Ontario Governments, riding high and purporting to speak for all of English-speaking Canada in the national unity debates. It created bad feeling east of the Manitoba-Ontario border that never went away. As I understand it, “Upper Canada” wasn't terribly popular in the East, either.In 1961, the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area was getting towards a population of 2,000,000 people. Metro Calgary had about 250,000. Vancouver had about 827,000, and Halifax 193,000. Toronto was riding high over urban English-speaking Canada, a much bigger city than any other, and maybe the only one with sufficient population to support an intelligentsia. We see the professorial and CanLit boom of the time. Then, there was the English language CBC, sometimes known unhappily in the West as the Toronto Broadcasting Corporation. These weren't particularly people who were looking to learn a lot about the rest of English-speaking Canada, or who were keen to present different regional points of view. Even the commercials the Toronto ad industry churned out were rather provincial. I remember one national classic commercial, “Going North to Cheese Country”. Toronto is the only Canadian city that has a cheese country to the north. Then, there was one, I think for beer, that featured a parade of some sort going through an ideal Canadian village with ideal Canadians, Ontario red brick and all whiter than a sheet Anglos. I enjoyed Wayne and Shuster when I was little, but they made jokes about stuff like Shopsy's Hot Dogs. It was a local Toronto brand. We had no clue what they were talking about.I am reluctant to admit it. Certainly, Barbara Frum was a really good person: Barbara Frum - Wikipedia. People who knew her said she was kind and caring, a family woman and a loyal member of our Toronto Jewish Community. The Toronto, love the CBC set, doted on her. They held her out to be Canada's most incisive political commentator. But, she wasn't. She was remarkably provincial in her commentaries. She clearly knew nothing about much outside of Southern Ontario. My ex-wife, a British immigrant, put it this way, she has reduced Canada to the corner of Bathurst and Lawrence Streets. The CBC kept doing this type of thing, right up to the time of Jian Ghomeshi. “We are leading edge, we are the smartest, we know”. My Dad would have put it this way, “They're peddling a line of crap.” It was grating for a lot of people.Trying To Be A Cultural Hub Of A Nation That Isn'tThe elites of Toronto have had a problem which, in certain ways, is not their fault. As I have said before, there isn't a nation of English-speaking Canada. The English-speaking population of Canada is not connected like a nation. There isn't any parliament of the English-speaking Canadians. There aren't federal laws for that non-existent unit, a trade policy, a policy on international affairs, not common standards for the English-speaking professions and trades, just not much. There isn't any Toronto role in creating and controlling institutions like that, because they can't happenIs there a common English-speaking Canadian culture that Toronto could lay hold of? No, not really. I lived in Vancouver. I had to concede. Yes, you are right. This place has more to do with Seattle, Portland, San Francisco and Los Angeles than anything “Back East”, with a very generous input from Guangzhou, Beijing, Fujian Province and Punjab. A city that wants to be “the city” for its country has to have, a country. Some of what Toronto manifests is like an amputee with a phantom limb. They kept showing the instinct to have control over something that wasn't. Maybe they did, sort of, at the time of Front Page Challenge and the Juliette Show. But, English-speaking Canadians began to drift away, especially with the arrival of American TV. The American product had high production values. Some of it had outrageous content. It was really good.So, the retort to Toronto became, “We know where Broadway is. We know where Las Vegas is. We know where Beverley Hills is. You aren't it. You are putting on airs. You are provincial. You are second rate. We live in the broader English-speaking world. It is New York City and London, not you.”Almost ironically, Vancouver became the cultural lead of English-speaking Canada, in a strange way. That is, they successfully produce large amounts of movie and TV product, by dressing up downtown Vancouver and the woods north of North Vancouver as Seattle, Portland, Alaska, etc. It's a cultural success by self-abnegation.There wasn't going to be a Toronto equivalent of “The Naked City”, or, “The Honeymooners”, or “Taxi”, or “Friends”, or “Seinfeld”. When you can make series like that, about life in a given city, you then have, what is probably a great city. Toronto isn't that, although certain elites and even other some other Torontonians would like to assert it is. What is kind of striking is that the Toronto Census Metropolitan Area now has over 6,000,000 people. But, you still couldn't make the equivalent of those types of series there.Does Toronto Have A Failure To Launch?I used to think that, it was inevitable. I though that, once a metropolitan area reached a certain population, it had no choice but to become cosmopolitan, to become urbane, to become cutting edge, and experimental, and to have a bohemia. I think Toronto has proved me wrong.Toronto hasn't been the primary generator of radical political thinking in Canada. Rather, it is more the Prairies, which the elites of Toronto so often looked, and still look at, with disdain. The Canadian social safety net has more to do with the courage and innovativeness of activists and legislators in Saskatchewan. Alberta became the Canadian homeland of a type of reactionary populism, and it is still doing very well with that theme. There wasn't any Toronto General Strike. It had to happen in my supposedly out of it, middle of nowhere Winnipeg.I am not sure what so holds Toronto back. Is it the residuals of the sanctimonious ice box, silly liquor laws and bylaws that squeeze change out of middle-class neighbourhoods? Maybe the elites mask themselves as progressive, but, when it comes to their own interests, are very conservative. Maybe it is the legacy of the Family Compact, the top-down traditional nature of the city, adequately paid, unionized manufacturing workers, offering their deference votes to the Red Tory leaders of society.Or, maybe I am just being impatient. Toronto's population has grown very rapidly by means of migration. A lot of the migrants did not come from big cities and anyone needs a lot of time to integrate and become curious about stuff, other than their own ethnic community, and daily survival.But, here we have it, a metropolitan area now pushing towards 7,000,000 people Maybe even that is not enough. Paris has over 12,000,000, London, 14,000,000, New York, getting towards 24,000,000. Maybe we cannot yet expect a great metropolis out of Toronto.Realism Sets InI think the disdain of Toronto has faded. We seldom hear “Hogtown”, or “The Big Smoke”, anymore. I attribute part of it to a fading English-language CBC. The West's metropolitan areas are a lot bigger, and I think there is more expertise there than their used to be, and more self-confidence. Other Canadians who follow the news are aware of the city's very severe housing cost problems, and its infrastructural issues. Also, we know that Toronto has become very, very diverse. You can't really identify a smug stereotype to hate on, and then apply it to most of the population. The impression I have of Toronto is, that the bigger and more complex the city has become, the more understanding Torontonians have of what hardships are entailed in really becoming a “World Class City”. Some of that arrogant attitude is gone. We don't see so many smug smiles on TV.In practical terms, what a lot of Canadians dislike about Toronto now, is that it is just so terribly expensive to live there. Great cities need places like Brooklyn, the Bronx and Staten Island. There needs to be a place where modest people can survive. Toronto has nothing like that now. It would impress a lot of people if Toronto finally became a city of radical thought about housing and successful reforms. Other Canadians might even start admiring Toronto.Martin Levine