How can you get transcripts/details of court judgements?

PragueAddick

My question is in connection with this apparently lamentable case. The Czech media - and Zdenek's friends- are understandably furious. For years I've been going round here saying that our justice system is one of our great strengths. But one cannot judge based just on media reports, so I presume one can gain full access to such judgements.

When, where, how? I have no idea

Thanks in advance. RIP Zed.

McBobbin

I don't think you can't generally get them for criminal cases? You'd have to write to the court i guess.

If it went to the court of appeal then BAILII is the place to go http://www.bailii.org/databases.html

Off_it

It seems the defendant was found not guilty by a jury who had sat through the trial and duly considered all of the evidence.

I didn't do that so I don't know what the evidence was, for or against. Certainly the reports don't sound great, but since when did the press report everything impartially and with an even hand, particularly when there is a "Brexit" angle to be had?

As far as I know a jury aren't required to give written explanations for their decisions. So that's all you're getting. Not perfect, but what system is?

Surprised you're apparently ready to hang the defendant though Prague.

cafcfan

hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/getting-copies-court-transcripts/

Without wishing to comment on this case, it is true to say that juries can and do come up with rogue decisions.
This seems to be particularly true of certain Crown Courts in certain locations. Snaresbrook, for example, once (still does?) had a terrible reputation for getting guilty verdicts through the system. Things seem to be changing though with guilty verdicts rising from around 75% 15 years ago to maybe 85% now.
Whether that's as a result of better investigations, better prosecution decisions by the CPS, better prosecuting Counsel or any of a number of other factors I have no idea.

PragueAddick

Off_it said:

It seems the defendant was found not guilty by a jury who had sat through the trial and duly considered all of the evidence.

I didn't do that so I don't know what the evidence was, for or against. Certainly the reports don't sound great, but since when did the press report everything impartially and with an even hand, particularly when there is a "Brexit" angle to be had?

As far as I know a jury aren't required to give written explanations for their decisions. So that's all you're getting. Not perfect, but what system is?

Surprised you're apparently ready to hang the defendant though Prague.

Well I am not ready to do so, yet. I would like to get the full picture,and am trying to find out if I can get it.

What I have read about the victim, and living among Czechs and observing their conflict-avoiding nature, makes me worried about the judgement. And I don't like to see the perplexed and anguished reaction of the Czech media, who have always held our justice system in high regard.

Off_it

I get you Prague.

But, on a tangent, I get fed up reading about how the latest stabbing victim was a good Christian lad who loved his mum and wasn't in a gang. Seems like being in a gang is the safest route as none of them ever get killed. Ever.

My point? Well, there's two sides to every story and unless you hear all the evidence it's difficult to make judgements based purely on media reports - or the views of one "Side" alone.

But, as I said, it certainly doesn't sound great. However, from the report I read it seems as though the accused had shown genuine remorse. Not that that always means a lot.

Fiiish

Off_it said:

I get you Prague.

But, on a tangent, I get fed up reading about how the latest stabbing victim was a good Christian lad who loved his mum and wasn't in a gang. Seems like being in a gang is the safest route as none of them ever get killed. Ever.

My point? Well, there's two sides to every story and unless you hear all the evidence it's difficult to make judgements based purely on media reports - or the views of one "Side" alone.

But, as I said, it certainly doesn't sound great. However, from the report I read it seems as though the accused had shown genuine remorse. Not that that always means a lot.

From what I can tell from the story, one bloke armed with a makeshift weapon backed up by his mates battered an unarmed individual.

Reminds me of the case of the British girl murdered in Italy. The UK press painted the American suspect as a femme fatale whilst the US press painted the accused as a scapegoat. No doubt that Prague has highlighted the Czech's dismay at the verdict.

DRAddick

cafcfan said:

hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/getting-copies-court-transcripts/

Without wishing to comment on this case, it is true to say that juries can and do come up with rogue decisions.
This seems to be particularly true of certain Crown Courts in certain locations. Snaresbrook, for example, once (still does?) had a terrible reputation for getting guilty verdicts through the system. Things seem to be changing though with guilty verdicts rising from around 75% 15 years ago to maybe 85% now.
Whether that's as a result of better investigations, better prosecution decisions by the CPS, better prosecuting Counsel or any of a number of other factors I have no idea.

CPS are measured on successful prosecutions. Basically they now cherry pick the cases they know they have the most likely success of prosecution and refuse to prosecute more complicated ones or ones that are 50/50 or "he said-she said". There are many many offences not making it to Court that should be.

PragueAddick

Off_it said:

I get you Prague.

But, on a tangent, I get fed up reading about how the latest stabbing victim was a good Christian lad who loved his mum and wasn't in a gang. Seems like being in a gang is the safest route as none of them ever get killed. Ever.

My point? Well, there's two sides to every story and unless you hear all the evidence it's difficult to make judgements based purely on media reports - or the views of one "Side" alone.

But, as I said, it certainly doesn't sound great. However, from the report I read it seems as though the accused had shown genuine remorse. Not that that always means a lot.

That's putting it mildly. How would I explain to a Czech that in a British court you can kill somebody and walk free by showing remorse?

But that is exactly why I'd like to get a lot more detail than the press reports (incidentally looks like the Mail simply cut and pasted the Guardian's one. It is identical.So I am not even sure the Brexit angle has been played as the two papers have polar opposite Brexit stances.)

DRAddick

PragueAddick said:

My question is in connection with this apparently lamentable case. The Czech media - and Zdenek's friends- are understandably furious. For years I've been going round here saying that our justice system is one of our great strengths. But one cannot judge based just on media reports, so I presume one can gain full access to such judgements.

When, where, how? I have no idea

Thanks in advance. RIP Zed.

I don't think the Courts will provide it too you as an individual. Pretty sure you have to do it through a private company that's authorised by the courts. They request a copy of the tapes and transcribe it for you. Costs a bit I should imagine. Maybe ring the Court services and ask them direct?

cafcfan

DRAddick said:

cafcfan said:

hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/getting-copies-court-transcripts/

Without wishing to comment on this case, it is true to say that juries can and do come up with rogue decisions.
This seems to be particularly true of certain Crown Courts in certain locations. Snaresbrook, for example, once (still does?) had a terrible reputation for getting guilty verdicts through the system. Things seem to be changing though with guilty verdicts rising from around 75% 15 years ago to maybe 85% now.
Whether that's as a result of better investigations, better prosecution decisions by the CPS, better prosecuting Counsel or any of a number of other factors I have no idea.

CPS are measured on successful prosecutions. Basically they now cherry pick the cases they know they have the most likely success of prosecution and refuse to prosecute more complicated ones or ones that are 50/50 or "he said-she said". There are many many offences not making it to Court that should be.

Well, that's interesting because the evidential sufficiency test still states that the threshold is that a Court "is more likely than not to convict". That is a greater than 50% chance of a guilty verdict. (Which is a different test from the "beyond reasonable doubt" one that the courts must consider.) Of course the decision on the "public interest" test also has to be blended in. Perhaps that's where they are finding some "leeway"?

Off_it

PragueAddick said:

Off_it said:

I get you Prague.

But, on a tangent, I get fed up reading about how the latest stabbing victim was a good Christian lad who loved his mum and wasn't in a gang. Seems like being in a gang is the safest route as none of them ever get killed. Ever.

My point? Well, there's two sides to every story and unless you hear all the evidence it's difficult to make judgements based purely on media reports - or the views of one "Side" alone.

But, as I said, it certainly doesn't sound great. However, from the report I read it seems as though the accused had shown genuine remorse. Not that that always means a lot.

That's putting it mildly. How would I explain to a Czech that in a British court you can kill somebody and walk free by showing remorse?

Why would you try to say that to them? Who said that exactly?

LuckyReds

PragueAddick said:

Off_it said:

I get you Prague.

But, on a tangent, I get fed up reading about how the latest stabbing victim was a good Christian lad who loved his mum and wasn't in a gang. Seems like being in a gang is the safest route as none of them ever get killed. Ever.

My point? Well, there's two sides to every story and unless you hear all the evidence it's difficult to make judgements based purely on media reports - or the views of one "Side" alone.

But, as I said, it certainly doesn't sound great. However, from the report I read it seems as though the accused had shown genuine remorse. Not that that always means a lot.

That's putting it mildly. How would I explain to a Czech that in a British court you can kill somebody and walk free by showing remorse?

But that is exactly why I'd like to get a lot more detail than the press reports (incidentally looks like the Mail simply cut and pasted the Guardian's one. It is identical.So I am not even sure the Brexit angle has been played as the two papers have polar opposite Brexit stances.)

Maybe neither paper "played" (?!) a Brexit angle because no such angle existed? Surely that is more likely than some form of conspiracy that has managed to unite both The Guardian and the Daily Mail.. At the time both The Met and witnesses mentioned NO racial motive - and that is backed up by both the subsequent reporting and the court case.

The verdict is - on the face of publicly available information - very concerning. There seems to be no dispute as to the circumstances, and even manslaughter would seem to be very light.

I saw the case in the paper and recognised it from our debate. For what it's worth, I actually wrote a post about it - and still have the draft available - and it was very much about the murder going unpunished.

Sadly I attempted to get court documents from a rape trial around 2 years ago, and short of getting details about the time and location, I had no luck. In a similar circumstance to your own, I was involved with the victim and only able to make part of the proceedings; but the verdict seemed unjust, went against the evidence available and was ultimately a very difficult pill to swallow. Attempts to fully comprehend the situation were incredibly difficult as court records were not available.

Have you tried contacting reporters who were at the hearing? If this was a case that had interest abroad, then surely there was an international presence in the public gallery?

Failing that, perhaps some of our legal addicks could help - as I thought all judgements were stored and available for the purposes of subsequent cases.

PragueAddick

Thanks for the comments and advice. I don't for one minute suppose I can make a personal contribution to obtaining justice on behalf of the victim, rather I would wish to be well informed as a Brit in the inevitable public debate which has kicked off here. The Czech Foreign Minister yesterday made a pretty angry statement saying that he had asked the Home Office to (in terms) appeal the court judgement. The British Ambassador has made a statement although I have not yet managed to examine it. She's got a decent reputation so I would probably write to her expressing my concern. But before doing that, I would again wish to be as informed as possible about what was actually revealed about the circumstances. I am quite surprised how difficult this appears to be; I suppose it is because I am used to reading/hearing grat detail about high profile cases, and I guess there simply has not been enough media attending the actual hearing. Maybe they, like me, thought the verdict was going to be straightforward, manslaughter at the least.

PragueAddick

Off_it said:

PragueAddick said:

Off_it said:

I get you Prague.

But, on a tangent, I get fed up reading about how the latest stabbing victim was a good Christian lad who loved his mum and wasn't in a gang. Seems like being in a gang is the safest route as none of them ever get killed. Ever.

My point? Well, there's two sides to every story and unless you hear all the evidence it's difficult to make judgements based purely on media reports - or the views of one "Side" alone.

But, as I said, it certainly doesn't sound great. However, from the report I read it seems as though the accused had shown genuine remorse. Not that that always means a lot.

That's putting it mildly. How would I explain to a Czech that in a British court you can kill somebody and walk free by showing remorse?

Why would you try to say that to them? Who said that exactly?

I thought you did, mate. I don't mean that in an arsey way. I suppose we have read the same media reports, and it is curious that while something is written about the prosecution case, nothing was written about the defence case. However as you say, the culprit's stated remorse is reported, and, well, that's it. So anyone reading those reports might indeed come to the conclusion that he got off by saying sorry, because there is absolutely nothing in the reports to explain any extenuating circumstances, or how the jury came to the decision they did.

se9addick

Very odd case, there must have been something compelling in the defence for the Jury to not even return a manslaughter verdict.

cafcfan

LuckyReds said:

PragueAddick said:

Off_it said:

I get you Prague.

But, on a tangent, I get fed up reading about how the latest stabbing victim was a good Christian lad who loved his mum and wasn't in a gang. Seems like being in a gang is the safest route as none of them ever get killed. Ever.

My point? Well, there's two sides to every story and unless you hear all the evidence it's difficult to make judgements based purely on media reports - or the views of one "Side" alone.

But, as I said, it certainly doesn't sound great. However, from the report I read it seems as though the accused had shown genuine remorse. Not that that always means a lot.

That's putting it mildly. How would I explain to a Czech that in a British court you can kill somebody and walk free by showing remorse?

But that is exactly why I'd like to get a lot more detail than the press reports (incidentally looks like the Mail simply cut and pasted the Guardian's one. It is identical.So I am not even sure the Brexit angle has been played as the two papers have polar opposite Brexit stances.)

as I thought all judgements were stored and available for the purposes of subsequent cases.

According to the link I posted above that is not the situation. Some (mainly Magistrates' Court proceedings, I imagine) are not recorded at all. Thereafter, it seems that the records are binned after 5 years. As you state, it is only the Judges' legal reasoning or ground for the judicial decision that is binding on subsequent matters. Not the whole trial. Crown Court rulings are not binding at all (although often carefully considered).

But, just by doing a quick Google search I found a ruling that arose from the fallout of a case that I was involved with many years ago. It was in 1998 and, strangely, it was languishing in the University College Cork archive! So some stuff is out there! But I think stenographers have now been phased out and replaced by digital recordings. Producing an accurate transcript of a recording is a time consuming and expensive business. I doubt very much that it would be done at all unless the case was of specific importance or went to appeal.
If the record existed but had not been converted into a transcript, I've no doubt a (hefty?) fee would be required to get it produced.

Off_it

PragueAddick said:

Off_it said:

PragueAddick said:

Off_it said:

I get you Prague.

But, on a tangent, I get fed up reading about how the latest stabbing victim was a good Christian lad who loved his mum and wasn't in a gang. Seems like being in a gang is the safest route as none of them ever get killed. Ever.

My point? Well, there's two sides to every story and unless you hear all the evidence it's difficult to make judgements based purely on media reports - or the views of one "Side" alone.

But, as I said, it certainly doesn't sound great. However, from the report I read it seems as though the accused had shown genuine remorse. Not that that always means a lot.

That's putting it mildly. How would I explain to a Czech that in a British court you can kill somebody and walk free by showing remorse?

Why would you try to say that to them? Who said that exactly?

I thought you did, mate. I don't mean that in an arsey way. I suppose we have read the same media reports, and it is curious that while something is written about the prosecution case, nothing was written about the defence case. However as you say, the culprit's stated remorse is reported, and, well, that's it. So anyone reading those reports might indeed come to the conclusion that he got off by saying sorry, because there is absolutely nothing in the reports to explain any extenuating circumstances, or how the jury came to the decision they did.

No, that wasn't what I meant. But anyway, it's a tragic case all round.

Wilma

Most transcripts will take a while to appear in the public domain, if made available at all. Some will be available via legal research sources but these are not free to access. If you know someone who works in the legal area and has access to online resources such as Westlaw/Lexis, they may be able to get hold of them, but again unlikely to be available for a while after the case has finished. Otherwise you can try approaching the barristers/chambers involved in the case directly and requesting a copy.

JiMMy 85

A friend of mine works in the prison service so I just asked him, he's occasionally sent me links to summary remarks for big cases. He couldn't find anything I'm afraid (obviously no sentencing remarks for a not guilty verdict). Sound like what you're after isn't easy to get hold of Prague.

PragueAddick

Looks like I can do no more than join the general lobby for an appeal or retrial. But the Czech family are just normal people. By UK standards, that means "poor" in financial terms. Who is going to pay their legal fees for an appeal? I feel very bad about this, based on the available information.

@smudge7946 . I would prefer to believe your view is cynical. Unfortunately i fear it is bang on the money. Yet our justice system is widely respected around the world, especially here. Or it was until Monday.