Rather they convict me than abase myself

I spent some time with Shaun today going over some things in more detail and trying to work out a strategy. It's a good thing I have advocacy experience, or what he said would have been difficult to deal with. [For background see More Police Racism and Undressed, humiliated and lied to.]

I'll get to what I mean by this by the end of this post, but first the details and the strategy.

The first detail to suddenly jump out at me was the date he was stopped. The 5 January: just two days after he was last in Court (because the police failed to record that he had produced his documents) and just three days after I wrote him a supporting letter pointing out his good character and reliability at producing his documents on all the other occasions...

The next detail was that the receipt he was given for the stop and search. I knew he was given a fixed penalty notice for a faulty brake light, but this receipt that he was given at the same time tells another story. It says he was spotted outside the 'Latzian Club' [sic] 'drug dealing' (he was actually getting a take-away from Cantor's Fish Shop a few doors down). They then followed him all the way from Chapeltown Road, through Little London, to Clay Pit Lane near the City Centre. Then they stopped and searched him and the car and wrote 'the car smelled very strongly of cannabis' (not true, just an excuse). It was only after all this following, searching and making up a story that they finally brought up the brake light issue.

Shaun and others wonder whether it's legal to stop someone for one reason and then slap a fine on them for something else? If a Police Officer decides to search you for any reason other than suspected terrorism, they have to explain why they're searching you first. There's a list of potential reasons on the back of the receipt. They said it was to look for drugs, not a faulty brake light (which isn't a reason). Shaun also wonders if it's legal to immediately give someone a penalty notice for something so minor - isn't the usual procedure to tell you to get it fixed?

The third detail that seems key to any defence is that Shaun is an extremely cautious driver. Because he gets stopped so often and he knows the Police could pick on any minor issue to justify stopping him, he literally checks his car once or twice a week. I've been frustrated before when we've been on our way somewhere and he's stopping yet again to do basic maintenance like checking the tyres and topping up the washer water. With all these stops and checks and producers, and all the care Shaun takes, this brake light was a very unlucky event. I can't see how he could do any more than he already does to ensure his car is always roadworthy.

Anyway, our defence is building up, but on Thursday I got some pro bono legal advice from my kind and distinguished friend Ruth Bundey that confirmed some nagging doubts of mine and kind of put a dampener on things.

The fact is that the light wasn't working at the time Shaun was stopped. Shaun has not denied this, just said that he is very cautious and that the police are simply victimising him for an unlucky coincidence (if it had been a day or two later he would have spotted and fixed the broken light anyway).

Unfortunately the language of the Courts and the language of Shaun differ here. Shaun says he's not guilty because the broken light wasn't the real issue: the real issue is that at that point the police were looking for any excuse to justify their failed stop and search. It seems that the Court will say that this is not a valid defence: it doesn't challenge the material basis of the charge, that the light was faulty.

There are two strategies at this point. Firstly write to the CPS on Monday and try to persuade them that this prosecution is not in the public interest (it will cost more than any fine Shaun receives, and it cannot make him any more careful about his car). This is ok with Shaun, letter to be posted Monday.

The second strategy, if this fails, is to plead guilty on 7 June. That is, to agree that at 18.30 on 5 January the brake light was faulty. Then there is an opportunity to detail the mitigating circumstances (the caution, the many times the lights have been ok, the fact that he was stopped for another reason, etc.). If we do a good job of this mitigation then at the very least the fine will be minimised, and there is a chance the penalty could be waived (I don't know the proper legal terminology here, but Shaun may not have to pay any fine).

This is not ok. This is the interesting bit.

'Plead guilty? But I'm not guilty. I'm not willing to say I'm guilty for something I don't believe in. It's not about the fine - they're abusing me enough already and any fine would just be a continuation and a confirmation of this abuse. I don't care about a fine.

'I want to stand up and say what I believe in. I don't feel I'm guilty, and I think I've got enough evidence to persuade the Court to dismiss the charges.'

So we come to a third strategy. I'd like to call this the brave and principled strategy, although I suspect you readers may like to categorise it in other ways...

Luckily, both as an advocate and as a friend I respect Shaun's right to decide how he wants to defend himself. I also understand that by following his own path, with the support of myself and other friends, Shaun will gain in self-respect even if he loses in dollars. We have agreed to write a statement together for the Court, outlining his defence and helping to ensure that Shaun can say what he wants to say as coherently and effectively as possible.

I just hope we get a sympathetic magistrate.