Analysis of Court Procedures: A Report on the Murder Trial at the Old Bailey

Courtroom Observation Report

“Civil and criminal cases are processed differently by the English legal system. They use different procedures and vocabulary, and they are dealt with, on the whole, by different court” (Slapper and Kelly, 2013, p.168). The court under consideration is the Old Bailey in which part of it sits on the medieval Newgate gaol. The Crown Court, which sits at the Central Criminal Court, handles critical criminal cases across the Greater London among other exceptional cases. The Old Bailey is more open to the public. However, these remains subject to the strict security measures and procedures as it would be observed in the report. The court case under consideration takes the murder dimension in which a robber was involved in killing a man who is believed to have been lured into an ambush by a teenage girl. Ayodeji Azeez is believed to have been targeted in the month of November, the year 2018, after posting images on the social media platform of a new BMW Car. Critical areas under observation in this case include the pre-entry procedures, the courtroom measures, observations noted during prosecution, arguments and closure of the proceedings.

For this court room observation report, it was chosen to attend Central Criminal Court as well known as The Old Bailey. The Old Bailey crown court is one of the most famous courts in England and Wales with thousands of people entering the building on a daily basis for civil and criminal case hearings. Before arriving to the court, visitors are not able to find out what kind of cases are heard on that day as well as to know if they are open for the public gallery. The reason for that is because some of the cases can involve minors or have some sensitive information which is not allowed to be shared with the public and it is hear in private. Upon arrival to the Old Bailey, following the signs and advice from the members of staff, it was clear that personal belongings could not be allowed inside the building for the purposes of ensuring safety and privacy. Next to the entrance security is checking point where each person is frisked and scanned with the x-ray and if they do find any electronic devices, they may request one to leave. After entering the building there was a security staff on each floor who asked each visitor what is the purpose of their visit to ensure that they will attend public gallery of the court room which suits the purpose of their visit. Many people at that time were students or family members who arrived to hear the case of their relatives. After advising security staff that the purpose of the visit is courtroom observation for the study purposes, he kindly offered the direction to the court room where hearing of a murder case was in process.

After entering the public gallery, one can see the whole court room. This is due to the fact that the public gallery is located in the balcony seats of a small theater. Layout of the court room was pretty standard and from the public gallery point of view, following could be noted: on the left hand side there was a judge who, as required, was wearing a wig and was a middle age white man, which is criticized that they can be unrepresentative of the majority of the society (Elliot and Quinn, 2018). On judge’s right hand side, a was sitting court room clerk who performs administrative duties in the criminal and civil justice systems, and on the judge’s right hand side there was a 12 people jury sitting, as the main principle of the jury courts is that defendants are tried in the forum of their peers (Wahidin and Carr, 2013). On the right hand side of the public gallery, there were three defendants; each had a prison officer next to them. Defendants were dressed casually and some of them were using laptops, which raised some questions. In front of the judge there was a prosecutor on the lower layer and behind him few barristers for each defendant. Presumably, other persons inside the court room included the court clerk, the jury keeper, the solicitor advocates, the court reporters and interpreters. Even before the start of the court proceedings, murmurs would be heard from the groupings. Perhaps, the professionals would have their professional talks while other people would have the casual ones.

At the time of entering the court room, prosecutor was in the middle of the opening speech which led afterwards to prosecution case. The opening statements, commonly referred to as the first dialogue, came from the two sides. The first side is that of the prosecutor who performs duties on behalf of the government and the second side is that of the defense. The courtroom would quickly pick a different mood that posits tense moments with none of the witnesses allowed to testify as well as no physical evidence could be presented at the time. The prosecutor is always given time to present the facts of the murder case before the court and takes the jury through what is termed as the government proof of the offense. This includes what the defendant had done, how they did it and why. On the other hand, the defense presents the jury with its or their own interpretation of the facts while paving way for rebutting of the government evidence. In essence, anyone at the public gallery may not digest all the terminologies used at the floor of the court. This would be regarded as professional tones which the court has a better understanding and the right interpretation.

Each courtroom observation becomes tense when one moves from one stage to the other. After the opening statements, the floor becomes open to the witness testimony as well as cross examination. Most often, the backbone of any criminal trial is commonly denoted as the case-in-chief. At this stage, the prosecutor puts forth significant evidence that seem to convince the jury of an offense committed by the defendant or defendants. At this stage, the prosecutor professionally calls the experts and even the eyewitnesses to also testify. The defendants could equally be called to the witness stand if they are willing to speak. The court even became emotional when a 17 years old girl was called to the dock. She nearly sobbed but quickly collected herself. She told the court that she “got into the car and hugged him”. She subsequently directed Mr. Azeez to the car park where Chaise Gray and the killer were waiting. She also claimed that “I felt sorry for him but I had no feelings for him. I just did not want to be there when it was happening”. The most fascinating side is the way the witnesses and the defendants took turns as they took oaths before facing questions directed at them by either the prosecutor or the defense side. Three processes could be noted at this point. First, there is direct examination in which the first party, which called the witness, is allowed to question to witness. The second process is referred to as the cross examination in which the opposing party is allowed to poke holes in what is presented by the witness. The final process is the re-direct examination in which the first party is allowed to remedy the damaging effects caused during the cross examination process (Berk-Seligson, 2017). This is a tough process and either side would frequently be called to order due to a touch exchange that seemingly went beyond the acceptable limits.

After the exchange, the court would come to closing arguments in which the prosecutor and the defense are allowed to recap the evidence before giving the respective position. The jury instruction becomes the subsequent process in which legal standards are shared before the verdict. The Jude Mark Dennis QC termed the killing as a “truly shocking and cruel attack” which pointed at reasons that could justify greed (BBC, 2020). Again, the use of terminologies at this point may only be comprehensible to the court and the professionals who were handling the murder case. The closing point is reached when the jury issues its verdict and deliberations. The court picks a divided mood with one side feeling that the young people needed a second chance while others would want justice to take its course. It becomes the pick of all the processes in which Lusala is deemed as the manipulative character while the 17 year old is believed to have been vulnerable and under the undue influence of the killer. The defendants faced separate jail terms after the jury confirmed that they were guilty. The courtroom observations are interesting despite taking a lot of time especially when handling the witness or evidence. It becomes even more confusing when either side seems to be genuine in the presentation of their stories and the chain of evidence. The professional support would constantly be needed to decide which side is saying the truth before the court. Finally, everyone is allowed to leave the court at his or her own will without being subjected to strict measures.

Continue your exploration of An Examination of Intention Subject with our related content.