Comedy gold at Chris Whitty assault trial.

[Cycleops]

Johnathan Chew who is charged with assaulting Chris Whitty after attending a anti Vax rally has appeared in court from his bed via video link as he has contracted COVID.
https://metro.co.uk/2021/12/21/man-...assault-wear-drowsing-gown-for-court-15807456/
The judge admonished the defendant for thinking he knows more about the law than him. The exchange is between them is very amusing. Chew wants Whitty in court.
More detail on their complete dialogue is here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...ty-appears-court-video-bed-dressing-gown.html
Don't want to get into the political aspect, just for the entertainment value.

 

[DCLane]

imho it's not 'comedy gold' but a disrespect of our legal system by an idiot.

Hopefully he'll show more respect at the hearing in January. I can see why his barrister stepped down.

 

[classic33]

It's one way of getting out of appearing in court.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

Buffoon will find himself with a custodial sentence unless he sorts his attitude out.

 

[Juan Kog]

Thanks for posting @Cycleops , definitely not the brightest light on the Christmas tree.

 

[Milkfloat]

If he instructs his defence (or represents himself) to not agree to the facts with the prosecution, I wonder if he can force Whitty to court? Anyway, he seems to be a complete clown and I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

 

[Time Waster]

What does antivaxx really have to do with assault. Surely the facts revolve around whether he assaulted witty and if virtue found guilty he then might get mitigation arguments. Not sure but that sounds the right way of things to my court procedural ignorant self.

 

[Cycleops]

I just thought it was rather ironic that being an anti vaxxer he has now contracted COVID and therefore has to appear to the court from his bed.
If he'd had any sense he would have pleased guilty like his mate and got a suspended sentence. He's now put himself in a more difficult position.

 

[DCLane]

If he instructs his defence (or represents himself) to not agree to the facts with the prosecution, I wonder if he can force Whitty to court?

That offence has been dealt with, so he shouldn't be able to.

From the article it's the obstructing police offence this court case is dealing with. The way he's going about it they may add a contempt of court charge.

 

[Bonefish Blues]

If he instructs his defence (or represents himself) to not agree to the facts with the prosecution, I wonder if he can force Whitty to court? Anyway, he seems to be a complete clown and I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

He'll have to attend in person for that, but I'd sign up for the online feed.

Big heavy 'un. Legal.

 

[Pale Rider]

If he instructs his defence (or represents himself) to not agree to the facts with the prosecution, I wonder if he can force Whitty to court? Anyway, he seems to be a complete clown and I hope he gets the book thrown at him.

The facts with regard to Whitty were agreed with his previous defence team, who he has now sacked.

Thus all bets are now off, so provided he can come up with a reasonable reason as to why he now wants to cross examine Whitty the court has little option but to call him.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I have a lot of respect for his solicitor.

 

[classic33]

The facts with regard to Whitty were agreed with his previous defence team, who he has now sacked.

Thus all bets are now off, so provided he can come up with a reasonable reason as to why he now wants to cross examine Whitty the court has little option but to call him.

He didn't dismiss his defence team, his solicitor withdrew.
"Before the hearing began this afternoon, Chew’s solicitor told the court he was withdrawing from the case because he is ‘professionally embarrassed’."

 

[Pale Rider]

He didn't dismiss his defence team, his solicitor withdrew.
"Before the hearing began this afternoon, Chew’s solicitor told the court he was withdrawing from the case because he is ‘professionally embarrassed’."

Fair point, well made.

Although it makes no difference, the defence case is effectively reset.

I have a lot of respect for his solicitor.

Don't fall into the trap of thinking the solicitor withdrew out of some high moral purpose.

'Professionally embarrassed' will mean the punter said something stupid in conference such as 'of course I did it, but you are going to get me off by telling the court a few porkies'.

The solicitor has done his job correctly by withdrawing, but to me that's a minimum standard, not something deserving of respect.

 

[slowmotion]

Has the defendant started complaining yet that he isn't being supplied with vegan food?