I make no secret of the fact that I firmly believe that solicitors are only in it for the money and they are not that interested in justice, hence I am not their biggest fans. The Police Officer however is very much in it for justice and not just for the money, especially when their pay is low, given the responsibility and dangers they face day in day out. Now you may believe that Police do not face danger every day but they do. This is covered in another article if you don't believe me.  Is It Really Worth It?

That said the working relationship between the Police and solicitors has become far more palletable in recent years. What follows is a real life event that happened to me when I was on the CID some 10 years ago.

When I was on the CID in the town referred to in this article, I was allocated a fraud investigation to investigate. There were 832 cheques that had been stolen and used fraudulently. As luck would have it one day, we managed to identify the offender by fingerprints. I arrested the female and brought her into custody and she asked for a solicitor. When the solicitor arrived I told him that we had fingerprints on the cheques and he duly went into consultation with his client. After about 2 hours he came out and said they were ready for interview. So off we went to the interview room and the interview went something like this

"Did you use this cheque?"

"No comment"

"Is that you signature?"

"No comment"

I went on to ask some evidential questions all met with "No Comment" for all 832 cheques and the interview, as you can imagine lasted for hours. At one point the solicitor asked if we could resume the interview another time as he had to travel some 60 miles to go home (He was the duty for the firm on call). Being the sympathetic copper I am I said no as it meant keeping her in custody till he returned. Of course he was hoping I would say yes so my PACE clock ran out!!

Anyway, as it happens after the interview I bailed her for "Further Enquiries". When she returned i had no option but to charge her and we went to trial

A few months later we ended up in Crown Court. The judge was trying his best to get the barrister to convince his client to plead guilty but apparently the "client" was saying no. The judge set the trial for 6 days and we went ahead

Half way through the trial she changed her plea to guilty. She subsequently received 18 months in custody for her offences. So who was the winner here?

* Not the Police as there was an enormous amount of work to do to prepare for the trial
* Not the CPS as there was an enormous amount of work for the trial
* Not the defendant as she received 18 months inside instead of a potential caution and other offences taken into consideration (TIC)

I reckon that given the fact there was a big legal aid bill for the defence to collect for the solicitor during interview and the barrister at trial it must be the defence that win - What do you think?

The stupid thing in all this is that all the solicitors and Police bills are met by the tax payer (They are tax payers don't forget)

But the Police get the same pay as do the CPS, but the defence get a damn sight more on legal aid. Normally going into thousands as they are on an hourly rate