You have to laugh

[Ashy]

....but, members of the jury, you have heard my learned friend explain that my client was not in prison, he was merely remanded in custody, and therefore it would be impossible to escape until sentence has been passed! And yet, ladies and gentlemen, you have not yet even retired to consider your verdict....

[dextrous63]

He is charged with escaping from lawful custody.  So, my learned friend, get your facts right; put that in your pipe and smoke it.  I direct the jury to find him guilty as charged.

Next....

[Ashy]

I er, that is, ehm, the defence rests m'lud.

[klondike]

He could maybe use the insanity defence. Anybody who, with 100% certainty, did a runner from jail who pleads not guilty must surely stand a chance.

[dextrous63]

Thank you.  Where's my black cloth hat?....

Got it.

Khalife, you moron, stand up.
Under the 1913 mental deficiency act, you are sentenced to hang by the testicles until you are dead.  This sentence to be carried out at the earliest opportunity which, by my reckoning, should be after my afternoon cream tea at 4pm and before The Chase.

Take the cretin down, and then string him up.

[Michael Rolls]

like it!

[Cassandra]

The law needs to be changed so that the courts can impose a sentence for a frivolous 'not guilty' plea.

It does exist and results in many pathetic affidavits failing to get through. These failed litigants become known as 'vexatious litigants' and appear on a list within the public domain.

This rubbish is incited by the present day buffoons at the DPP running scared of implied unfairness and lack of diversity.

However the wretched ungodly (accused) in this case has entered this common plea in response to this 'escape' allegation and more importantly the other levelled charges upon which he was detained without bail. His argument will be that if he's found 'not guilty' to the original charges, axiomatically he's therefore not guilty to the tertiary charge of escaping detention. This presumption is wrong in that escaping prior to trial is an offence in itself!

However the difference here is that under the Criminal Law Act 1967 CHAPTER 58 his case and plea entered must still be heard.

If he's found guilty to the other charges, the Judge can suggest his plea to 'not guilty' to escape is felonious and therefore changed to 'guilty as charged'. The implication to the defendant is that this change of plea will be reflected in mitigation prior to sentencing. So his defence have probably directed this plea hoping for 'judicial clemency'.

[Diasi]

It does exist and results in many pathetic affidavits failing to get through. These failed litigants become known as 'vexatious litigants' and appear on a list within the public domain.
This rubbish is incited by the present day buffoons at the DPP running scared of implied unfairness and lack of diversity.
However the wretched ungodly (accused) in this case has entered this common plea in response to this 'escape' allegation and more importantly the other levelled charges upon which he was detained without bail. His argument will be that if he's found 'not guilty' to the original charges, axiomatically he's therefore not guilty to the tertiary charge of escaping detention. This presumption is wrong in that escaping prior to trial is an offence in itself!
However the difference here is that under the Criminal Law Act 1967 CHAPTER 58 his case and plea entered must still be heard.
If he's found guilty to the other charges, the Judge can suggest his plea to 'not guilty' to escape is felonious and therefore changed to 'guilty as charged'. The implication to the defendant is that this change of plea will be reflected in mitigation prior to sentencing. So his defence have probably directed this plea hoping for 'judicial clemency'.

Thanks for the excellent explanation.

[dextrous63]

Thanks Cassandra.  One would have thought that any judge would see right through the cynical attempt of mitigation and sentence more harshly.

[Michael Rolls]

one can but hope