Court Report

I went to Kingston Crown Court on the 3rd and 4th November 2004. The Crown Court is lower than the High court and Court of Appeal. However, it is higher than the Magistrates Court.

The building is very modern and incorporates new technology. The court consisted of interview rooms, press release rooms, witness's rooms and there were public waiting areas which were spacious. There was access to refreshments and there was various helpful law related leaflets. The people working at the courts were very helpful and responded very well to enquiries I had.

The courtroom was not as big as I had imagined it to be, however the seating arrangement for visitors was adequately sized to seat twenty people. The atmosphere of the courtroom was very tranquil and at times it would be silent. Judges and lawyers or barristers could easily be heard as they had microphones and the sound was sufficient enough to be heard by all who were present in the courtroom.

As a visitor I found watching the proceedings the same as anyone else would in the courtroom. The usher was very friendly and before or after the trial he would ask if any visitors had any queries and as I was a student he answered any questions I had. The court had a very open atmosphere and nothing was hidden from visitors and it was all very public.

The case I went to see was a criminal proceeding. The parties involved were the defendant; Sanjay Sidhu aged 20 years who was represented by his lawyer, Mr Darlington. The opposition was the prosecution represented by a lawyer from the Crown Court, Miss Patrick.

The case was about four young males who committed the act of burglary, at an Esso petrol Garage in Esham, at 4.45am on 10th March 2004.

Two males out of four, David Whiteway 24 and Jay Whiteway 22, had pleaded guilty, the third male, Ricky Moss who named himself Jason Morris, aged 18, did not turn up to his court time allocated. Lastly the fourth, Sanjay Sidhu pleaded not guilty.

Sanjay Sidhu was present at the crime scene, although he had no intention of burglary.

Sanjay had admitted that he was present at the crime scene and had seen what was happening but he did not take part at all and was trying to stop the other three males from committing a crime.

Due to the fact that he did not have any history relating to crime this showed that he may not have been a party to the particular crime.

The Law states that a person present at the crime scene does not mean that the person is guilty of the crime.

Looking at evidence and listening to eye witnesses stories, showed that Sanjay was part of the burglary.

There were 13 witnesses who gave their part of the story of which 7 of them were written statements. The rest of the witnesses who were in the witness box were forensic scientists, police officers and Sanjay's legal advisor on the day he was arrested.

In order to decide the verdict of this trial, there was a jury present. The jury consisted of mixed gender, varied ages and all white lay persons.

The jury seemed alert at all times during the trial, as the witnesses and lawyers always had some new and important information to share.

They were constantly writing notes and were constantly being asked to go in and out of the courtroom by the judge.

However on the second day of the trial, the recorder fell asleep.

The judge was a middle aged white male, Judge Southwell. He was wearing a black robe with purple on the sleeves and had a red slash on the body of the robe. This shows that he is a circuit judge. He seemed polite to both parties and did not seem biased at all.

On the other hand, Miss Patrick, the prosecutor seemed to be contradicting Sanjay whilst he was in the witness box. She seemed to use sarcasm and exaggeration in reply to Sanjay is answers.

I spoke to the defendant Sanjay and asked him why he felt he was innocent and he gave a simple answer saying that he was simply at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The hearing of the case has not been decided yet for the reason that I do not know of. The hearing will be given at the week beginning 8th November.

I went to Kingston Crown Court on the 3rd and 4th November 2004. The Crown Court is lower than the High court and Court of Appeal. However, it is higher than the Magistrates Court.

The building is very modern and incorporates new technology. The court consisted of interview rooms, press release rooms, witness's rooms and there were public waiting areas which were spacious. There was access to refreshments and there was various helpful law related leaflets. The people working at the courts were very helpful and responded very well to enquiries I had.

The courtroom was not as big as I had imagined it to be, however the seating arrangement for visitors was adequately sized to seat twenty people. The atmosphere of the courtroom was very tranquil and at times it would be silent. Judges and lawyers or barristers could easily be heard as they had microphones and the sound was sufficient enough to be heard by all who were present in the courtroom.

As a visitor I found watching the proceedings the same as anyone else would in the courtroom. The usher was very friendly and before or after the trial he would ask if any visitors had any queries and as I was a student he answered any questions I had. The court had a very open atmosphere and nothing was hidden from visitors and it was all very public.

The case I went to see was a criminal proceeding. The parties involved were the defendant; Sanjay Sidhu aged 20 years who was represented by his lawyer, Mr Darlington. The opposition was the prosecution represented by a lawyer from the Crown Court, Miss Patrick.

The case was about four young males who committed the act of burglary, at an Esso petrol Garage in Esham, at 4.45am on 10th March 2004.

Two males out of four, David Whiteway 24 and Jay Whiteway 22, had pleaded guilty, the third male, Ricky Moss who named himself Jason Morris, aged 18, did not turn up to his court time allocated. Lastly the fourth, Sanjay Sidhu pleaded not guilty.

Sanjay Sidhu was present at the crime scene, although he had no intention of burglary.

Sanjay had admitted that he was present at the crime scene and had seen what was happening but he did not take part at all and was trying to stop the other three males from committing a crime.

Due to the fact that he did not have any history relating