tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12949287705197228202024-03-29T03:29:23.583+00:00The Justice of the Peace Blog The observations and opinions of a retired magistrate. Also available my magistrate`s diary at https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com/The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.comBlogger1430125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-32697446837763241762024-03-26T12:41:00.000+00:002024-03-26T12:41:14.272+00:00SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE//FAILURE OF THE MOJ AND MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION<div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCPIda9w4YED4MnFKksZ2piseKNdbewkMPVXN1z1b_3KLMjQpJELsSSg0ZRMzA0jdgxvul8rHHprL1pJWerOjC_yJGHqsht4oyQ4tHggEr1w49HB_tbs80LxpSGxp9HPcOQ2VKc9nXysEgNuLulZUX_7aJLn0qaHaEKBpaE_djKp1znRQcB9ZyVs6KR41f/s1240/SINGLE%20JUSTICE%20PROCEDURE5.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1240" data-original-width="1015" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCPIda9w4YED4MnFKksZ2piseKNdbewkMPVXN1z1b_3KLMjQpJELsSSg0ZRMzA0jdgxvul8rHHprL1pJWerOjC_yJGHqsht4oyQ4tHggEr1w49HB_tbs80LxpSGxp9HPcOQ2VKc9nXysEgNuLulZUX_7aJLn0qaHaEKBpaE_djKp1znRQcB9ZyVs6KR41f/w524-h640/SINGLE%20JUSTICE%20PROCEDURE5.jpg" width="524" /></a></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">My post today is on a subject upon which I first commented <b>15th June 2016</b> and on which my last comment before today was 24th January 2023. The subject is the Single Justice Procedure. The above comments and others can be viewed by writing Single Justice Procedure in search box. The background will assist in realising that from the start this supposed "improvement" in dealing with simple summary matters was misconceived from the outset. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">This is a topic which to be fully understood requires perhaps more reading time than a blog post usually demands. Some of the posts revealed by "search" offer viewpoints from a variety of sources. The Single Justice Procedure (SJP) was introduced by the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 in England and Wales. The procedure was designed to be an accessible, speedy, effective and more efficient means of delivering justice when dealing with the most minor summary offences. Until recently, with very few exceptions, there has been almost no criticism of the process. The body that makes few attempts to truly represent its J.P. members; the Magistrates Association has, by and large, been silent on this issue since its inception. That truly is unsurprising since many of its "guiding lights" see a gong on the horizon as a fitting tribute to toadying to government. It has also helped that persistent posts by Tristan Kirk [@kirkkorner] Courts correspondent for the Evening Standard and Penelope Gibbs [@PenelopeGibbs2] and [@transformjust1] have brought this legal anomaly to a wide audience through X. Belatedly the M.A. have yesterday 25th March issued an opinion which for the sake of simplicity I have copied in full below but the original release is available for those who choose; <a href="https://www.magistrates-association.org.uk/news/single-justice-procedure-needs-reform-say-magistrates/" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>The Single Justice Procedure—which handles around 40,000 criminal cases every month—needs reform if it is to be seen as fair and transparent, according to the Magistrates’ Association, the organisation that represents over 12,000 magistrates in England and Wales.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>The Magistrates’ Association (MA) today published its new position on the Single Justice Procedure (SJP). This reflects hundreds of its members’ insights into hearing SJP cases over the last eight years since it was introduced and responds to recent interest from the media on the SJP’s impact on defendants, especially vulnerable and elderly people. It also includes 12 recommendations to improve the operation, transparency and fairness of the SJP.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>The MA found that many of its members are uncomfortable with the SJP process as it currently works, and a significant proportion feel they do not always get as much time as they need to properly consider each case.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>Although training on the SJP for magistrates is available, MA members feel that it is largely focused on how to use the system and does not emphasise that the SJP is a judicial process in which magistrates can exercise their discretion, as they do with cases heard in court.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>Mark Beattie JP, National Chair of the Magistrates’ Association, said:</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>“We believe that the principle of the Single Justice Procedure is good. Every year it spares thousands of defendants the ordeal of having to attend court for minor offences, and it allows for more efficient use of court time, which means speedier justice and a focus on more serious offences.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>“However, it is not a perfect system. While the vast majority of cases are handled effectively by the SJP, our members—magistrates who decide on SJP cases—have told us about flaws in the way it operates and the harm that this can have on some of society’s most vulnerable people. It is clear to us that reform, as well as additional investment in training and transparency, is needed, to restore public confidence in the Single Justice Procedure.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>“This is why we have made a total of 12 recommendations today, to change the Single Justice Procedure and make it fairer, more consistent and more open.”</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>The Magistrates’ Association’s recommendations include:</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>Making it a requirement that prosecutors (the agency that is prosecuting someone, for example, TV Licensing or the DVLA) see all pleas and mitigations from defendants before the cases are heard by the magistrate.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>Reviewing and improving the training that magistrates receive before they can sit on SJP cases. Training must emphasise the ability of magistrates to use their discretion fully and without reservation, including the ability to refer cases back to the prosecuting authority.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>Safeguarding the SJP process so that neither magistrates nor their legal advisors feel any pressure to process cases more quickly than they want to.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>The government should make provision for SJP sittings to be observable by accredited journalists.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>Boosting transparency by publishing more data on the SJP, such as how many defendants plead guilty, how many make no pleas, and how many ask to come to court, nationally and broken down by region.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>Undertaking research on how improvements can be made to the process for the vulnerable, including those with learning difficulties, communication challenges, or who may be less able to engage with the process.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i>Improving communication, through a review of the paperwork sent to defendants, to make it simpler and easier to understand.</i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;">My general comments are that whilst the above points have merit they are too little too late. Over 3 million cases up to 2020 have gone through the procedure; one of the search revealed posts (6th July 2021) has exact numbers 2015-2020. Between 1st April 2019 and 30th September 2023, 3,102,392 criminal cases were received into the Single Justice <b>Service</b>, which includes 609,164 receipts through the reformed digital service. Note the name change; a symptom of the MOJ in its various departments when it wishes to demonstrate "improvement". The Magistrates Association claims that its members have spoken of flaws and where they have been disturbed by outcomes. Yet for years it has been noticeably reticent about making waves where it should have: Petty France. From the above the M.A. has perhaps unwittingly revealed its desire not to upset its governors. Consider, "<i>and it allows for more efficient use of court time, which means speedier justice and a focus on more serious offences." </i>It should not be for magistrates to be considering "<i>use of court time</i>" or "<i>speedier justice</i>". The delivery of Justice alone is what they are appointed for. Managerial concepts are for others since magisterial courts committees were abolished by the MOJ over 20 years ago. The M.A. refers to "training" which it implies could be improved. Part of its remit as a charity is to provide training for magistrates. "<i>reform, as well as additional investment in training and transparency, is needed, to restore public confidence in the Single Justice Procedure."</i></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">It should be questioned as to why, by this observation, its members [and nowhere near all J.P.s are members] are lacking in the ability or knowledge to function to a higher required standard. A lack of accountability has been built into the system since its inception. Those law makers and the M.A. should be answerable for the diliteriness in approving the legislation in the first place. It was apparent from the start that the SJP was an affront to open justice. The House of Common debate in which this whole fast forwarding of justice was discussed on 25th March 2014 is available <a href="https://www.theyworkforyou.com/pbc/2013-14/Criminal_Justice_and_Courts_Bill/09-0_2014-03-25a.4.0?s=single+justice+procedure#g4.51" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;">The Magistrates Association is a registered charity governed by the rules of the Charity Commission for England and Wales on the website of which is written, </span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;">"</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #0b0c0c; font-size: 19px; text-align: justify;">ROYAL CHARTER OF 12 NOVEMBER 1962 AS AMENDED 1 JANUARY 1971, 9 DECEMBER 1980, FEBRUARY 1995 AND 9 FEBRUARY 2005.</span></span></div><div class="row mb-3" id="" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0b0c0c; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; font-size: 19px; margin-bottom: 1rem !important; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-md-1 " id="" style="box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 8.33333%; max-width: 8.33333%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 75px;"></div></div><div class="row mb-3" id="" style="background-color: white; box-sizing: border-box; color: #0b0c0c; display: flex; flex-wrap: wrap; font-size: 19px; margin-bottom: 1rem !important; margin-left: -15px; margin-right: -15px;"><div class="col-md-11 " id="" style="box-sizing: border-box; flex: 0 0 91.6667%; max-width: 91.6667%; padding-left: 15px; padding-right: 15px; position: relative; width: 825.047px;"><h2 class="govuk-heading-m" style="-webkit-font-smoothing: antialiased; box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 1.5rem; line-height: 1.25; margin-bottom: 20px; margin-top: 0px;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Charitable objects</span></h2><p class="text-truncate__h-6 text-justify" data-visibility-toggle-id="visibility-toggle__charitable-objects" id="content__charitable-objects" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin-bottom: 1rem; margin-top: 0px; text-align: justify !important;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">THE OBJECTS FOR WHICH THE ASSOCIATION IS ESTABLISHED AND INCORPORATED ARE TO PROMOTE THE SOUND ADMINISTRATION OF THE LAW BY THE FOLLOWING MEANS: (A) <b>EDUCATING AND INSTRUCTING MAGISTRATES AND OTHERS IN THE LAW, THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS</b> AND THE BEST METHODS OF PREVENTING CRIME; AND (B) ISSUING PUBLICATIONS AND PROMOTING CONFERENCES AND DISCUSSIONS ON DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE." {<b>my bold</b>}</span></p></div></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">It would appear in my humble opinion that the M.A. has failed to live up to its own charitable objects. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><br /></span></span></div><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Readers will by now, I hope, have enough information from which they can make their own informed opinions. </span></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><i><br /></i></span></div><div><br /></div></div></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-52453464732029360382024-03-19T14:35:00.002+00:002024-03-19T14:38:58.497+00:00IS THE END NIGH FOR BRITISH JUSTICE?<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4jIGHXOjtT5Y7T4_0U6mvnBmcZjeiSon2BDTV81P_xwu4pu_Q-BsOhWCsoo-IMOtPXor0ng_q5W_lzbPE5Ljc-6EM3BNaul5jf_tHrnq3emsPvGS0rz_AAI5aFNYlQ7xjhghokfBGyBek-2PLRkjrkmEHXESwIBnAwdMoE6LHHyOFor_R-DfQXF-XGTst/s1136/HELP.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="708" data-original-width="1136" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg4jIGHXOjtT5Y7T4_0U6mvnBmcZjeiSon2BDTV81P_xwu4pu_Q-BsOhWCsoo-IMOtPXor0ng_q5W_lzbPE5Ljc-6EM3BNaul5jf_tHrnq3emsPvGS0rz_AAI5aFNYlQ7xjhghokfBGyBek-2PLRkjrkmEHXESwIBnAwdMoE6LHHyOFor_R-DfQXF-XGTst/w640-h398/HELP.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />Many will be no longer fascinated by the recent attempts by China, Japan, India, USA to land unmanned space vehicles on the moon. Perhaps those who were agog at watching live on TV the first time that human beings walked on the moon in July 1969 are now just passive observers to the many sociological and political changes that afflict the planet and have changed the face of this country as much as any war might have done in decades past. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">With a general election expected before Christmas pollsters will be bombarding the media with the results and opinions of their paymasters on what is likely to influence the electorate in our individual voting decisions. No doubt previous successes from before the age of Tik Tok will be rehatched to reach a generation that was in short trousers when Labour ended its 13 year reign in the House of Commons. “It's the economy stupid” was a phrase coined by James Carville in 1992 when he was advising Bill Clinton in his successful run for the White House. Like the rotten boroughs of times past, by all accounts an extra £1,000 per annum in the pocket of Mr, Mrs or Ms average earner`s bank account will be enough to buy a vote. The esoteric notions of foreign policy or mass hysteria over a foreign war are unlikely to be considered worthy of mention in any through the letterbox leaflets. Unfortunately the deliberate break up of our once admired justice system will be similarly classified; not worthy of debate but arguably in its many forms just as likely to affect our lives as a penny on or off any taxable item. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">We all depend on the police. Their popularity with the public seems to rise and fall like a child on a trampoline. On one hand events of the years since the brutal murder of Sarah Everard have exposed that there aren`t just some misbegotten rotten apples but rotten barrels full of misbegotten rotten apples. But on that other hand it is the police who stand between peace on the streets and anarchy. When PC Paul Fisher was acquitted of dangerous driving in November last year four years after he crashed on his way to the scene where Sudesh Amman had stabbed two people there were some murmurings that he had "got off". That he was on trial at all for attempting to save innocent lives seemed incongruous to many within and without the policing and legal professions. His <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-67520916" target="_blank">case</a> seems to sum up the push me pull me of Dr Doolittle fame in our attitudes to policing. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Whilst I was active the persistent shoplifters had a pseudo legal adornment to their propensity to steal; "prolific", the essence of which was that even when an individual case was of low value an offender with a history of dozens or perhaps hundreds of previous convictions was to be treated for the entirety of his convictions thus ensuring that the maximum sentence of six months immediate custody was available as a true reflection of his/her law breaking. That was the theory but the practice was very different last year. Recorded offences rose 25% but charges fell. In the year ending 30/6/23 police recorded 365,164 shoplifting offences but only around 12% of suspects were charged. In the year before Covid almost 19% of suspects were charged. This decline is just a symptom of failures for more serious matters. If the government proceeds with its stated intention to remove custodial sentences from the arsenal of disposals at magistrates courts one can expect an exponential rise in theft from shops and an increasing number of stores having security guards inside and outside their premises as in most large retail premises in America. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"> Knife possession and knife crime have both increased and despite the wooly words of Justice Secretaries since 2010 the proportion of knife offences resulting in a suspended sentence has increased by almost 100% to the end of September 2023 resulting in almost a quarter of such offenders avoiding prison. Further statistics show that even for repeat knife offenders in the same period 40% were not sentenced to immediate custody despite legislation that instructed judges to do just that. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Between 2017 and 2021 more than 35,000 of the 142,275 motorists who totted up 12 points avoided being banned due to claiming 'exceptional hardship'. From my own personal knowledge and experience [posted here many times and available using the search box] magistrates are too quick to offer relief to drivers with 12 or more penalty points. A Google search shows that hundreds of solicitors are advertising their expertise in arguing successfully for "exceptional hardship". Their lucrative income stream and magistrates misplaced sympathies must surely come under scrutiny by a future Justice Secretary and be formalised. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">And so to our judges who can be castigated for speaking out of turn but can be incompetent in their sentencing without retribution unless the case is particularly a high profile one attracting photogenic witnesses, available finance or public relations experts and sometimes all three. In the last 20 years prolific offenders represented nearly half of all convictions; 243,000 people aged over 21 with at least 16 convictions or cautions. In 2022 hyper prolific offenders with 45 or more convictions or cautions offended almost 10,000 times and were subject to non custodial sentences 53% of occasions. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Hundreds of judicial decisions </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">in sentencing miscreants, </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">which have been made according to</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> the Sentencing Guidelines, have been tossed aside.</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> Known only to individual judges offenders who should be in jail are walking the streets because the MOJ has instructed the judiciary to use non custodial outcomes because the prison population is at breaking point. Recent police and judicial decisions regarding the treatment of those who openly spout religious hate in their marches for so called Palestinian freedom from "the river to the sea" are bringing this government to a point of no return in the interface between anarchy and democracy. Simple but deep philosophical questions on the freedom of judges` sentencing options, jurors` rights to bring in "perverse" verdicts, police interpretations of the law in conflict with parliament`s interpretation of said law, prison governors` and parole boards` decisions in overriding original sentencing decisions and many other policies and decisions below the public horizon are about to be tested. MOJ </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">spending figures show a planned 4.8% cut in operational spending on justice to £10bn in 2024/25 from £10.5bn in 2023/24. Russian oligarchs, their estranged wives, Arab property developers, disgruntled media stars and others similar might consider London the best place to spend their favoured currency on their favourite high priced KCs but for Josephine Bloggs alighting from the Clapham all electric omnibus needing help on a dark winter night as she walks home the legal future is bleak. Is the end nigh for British justice? Can somebody help?</span></span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-91919931211429675222024-03-12T13:04:00.001+00:002024-03-13T19:39:24.982+00:00MACRO MICRO AND THE LEGAL ROOST<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhKC87n9YA0N6itTFgI9rb5YuStQWRak2s7FMGGl9SItXvsOmjqdHea71gUFch-6dSgycJm37yaLk4lkJI20QTHGJajA0tXNjunTBQjE_YYaVzvNMYbWDCwjEYwfr7UlZK9uF0498cJkjO7EYW6nhtgdc02hFeptNM_Qx4kx_tXxZr8kW5nBjX5LmhCugO/s688/MACRO%20OR%20MICRO.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="688" data-original-width="526" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjhKC87n9YA0N6itTFgI9rb5YuStQWRak2s7FMGGl9SItXvsOmjqdHea71gUFch-6dSgycJm37yaLk4lkJI20QTHGJajA0tXNjunTBQjE_YYaVzvNMYbWDCwjEYwfr7UlZK9uF0498cJkjO7EYW6nhtgdc02hFeptNM_Qx4kx_tXxZr8kW5nBjX5LmhCugO/w490-h640/MACRO%20OR%20MICRO.jpg" width="490" /></a></div><br />The word macro describes something that is very large or something that is related to things that are large in size or scope. Macro is also used as a combining form meaning “large” or “great.” The word micro describes something that is very small or something related to things that are small in size or scope. Both terms are often used in academic studies. As with many commenters on myriad topics this blogger has, consciously or unconsciously, pontificated from both aspects at any one time. The more distant the time when being active in the middle chair was laterally almost a weekly occurrence the more perhaps a macro or overview of magistrates courts and their inner workings appeared here. Sometimes reports of actual courts` proceedings or activities can and should bring a sudden state of the here and now into any esoteric commentary. Three such matters have today caught my attention persuading me to turn from the macro to a micro view of the workings of magistrates courts every day at every court. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Perhaps the most complicated cases I can recall were those brought by a local authority against those who had ignored or in some other ways had failed to comply with enforcement notices often under under section 179(2) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. I distinctly remember an offender represented by a then QC telling me as the presiding magistrate that the bench would not be capable of understanding his client`s complex arguments and that we should adjourn to a date for the matter to be heard by a District judge(MC). We gave him a polite response noting his objection and invited the prosecutor to proceed. In another similar situation the prosecuting solicitor for the local authority presented a bundle he was relying upon and, as he thought helpfully, argued that we need read only some specified two dozen of more than 200 pages. We retired to read the whole bundle. A further case where the claim was for £22,000 had the offender who had pleaded poverty in his personally delivered mitigation writing a cheque for the full amount on his guilt being established. There were many offenders who had to be threatened with contempt for refusing or delaying the court`s requirement for audited accounts to be presented by a future court date. And so it was with interest that I noticed <a href="https://news.camden.gov.uk/camden-secures-record-fine-against-landlords-failure-to-comply-with-a-planning-enforcement-notice/" target="_blank">this report</a> by Camden Council in London where justice was certainly seen to be done. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Fly tipping has, over the decades, slowly crept up the ladder of environmental offending. Whereas it had been in the post war years an "annoying" offence it`s now on a par with some offences causing bodily harm. The seriousness of such offending can be gauged by the <a href="https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Environmental-offences-definitive-guideline-Web.pdf" target="_blank">Sentencing Guidelines</a>. Once again on a personal level if memory serves correctly my bench fined a sole trader of a fly tipper around £20,000 for what the offender considered just "a few bits and pieces" he`d dumped at the side of a quiet street. It was interesting to note that <a href="https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-68537202" target="_blank">a fly tipping offender was subject to a six weeks custody order</a> but owing to current politics it was suspended. With government having given notice that magistrates courts will soon be unable to impose any custodial terms immediate or suspended there is going to be a huge ill considered gap in the justice system. I suppose when a government in power for 14 years does not provide enough prisons or prison cells to house offenders in a humane manner nor provides sufficient trained staff both in the prison service and probation to oversee sentencing and sentences there is little surprise of chickens coming home to roost.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">I cannot recollect having a police officer in the dock throughout my time on the bench although there were not a few who committed perjury from the witness box with a straight face. On consideration I assume that in today`s world things would be different for colleagues. The current climate certainly gives one hope that, without prejudice, erring officers are more likely than in past years to face justice for offending. Last week Swansea Magistrates Court saw a serving police officer appear on a charge of sexual assault by penetration. What is interesting is the statement of Nathan Adams, criminal lawyer at Reeds Solicitors in Cardiff. It can be found along with a statement by Senior Investigating officer Detective Superintendent Huw Davies <a href="https://pembrokeshire-herald.com/90089/police-officer-in-court-today-charged-with-sexual-assault-by-penetration/" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Criminal offending affects real people on both sides of the legal divide. Sometimes the judgements, emotional, theoretical, intellectual and judicial are based, notwithstanding the tome that is the Sentencing Guidelines, at a macro level. There can be no confidence in a judicial system where consideration at the micro level is overlooked and unfortunately that is what has happened over the last few years and is, in my humble opinion, likely to continue whatever party is ruling that legal roost this time next year. </span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-44561592711531456712024-03-05T12:46:00.000+00:002024-03-05T12:46:44.640+00:00JUSTICE IN THE SHADOWS<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFYHEwpJ0i-NpQOgKwufnP-DjFQCpu6lZUW0J_fBybNU5Bf6-DC1yYSCTOl8-9IYyTx1gk0GQd4hgAMDKIVk6hDJhNSZt04EhfHXd8I-ysXX0zXMBZvRZeS44q7ALBGx6esGZ8w-klO_KA_hQN1TM9J4ykoWVaXzyJic1Hh2B94diefVxx5XzXzwNstpFr/s804/JUSTICE%20IN%20THE%20SHADOWS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="804" height="448" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgFYHEwpJ0i-NpQOgKwufnP-DjFQCpu6lZUW0J_fBybNU5Bf6-DC1yYSCTOl8-9IYyTx1gk0GQd4hgAMDKIVk6hDJhNSZt04EhfHXd8I-ysXX0zXMBZvRZeS44q7ALBGx6esGZ8w-klO_KA_hQN1TM9J4ykoWVaXzyJic1Hh2B94diefVxx5XzXzwNstpFr/w640-h448/JUSTICE%20IN%20THE%20SHADOWS.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />At the turn of the century if one turned on the TV to watch a police or crime thriller it was almost certainly a work of fiction. Over the next few years TV executives and writers began exploring the possibilities of a sub genre; mockumentaries and "reality" programming centred around routine police work and true life investigations. Fast forward to present day and all manner of true crime is reflected on our screens from static traffic cams, motorway patrols to historical investigations of gruesome murders from initial crimes to eventual outcome for offenders. Perhaps that format has outlived its popularity for some but with an ever expanding supply of visual media to be available for an insatiable viewing public demand must be satisfied.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">This blog has long advocated and predicted that live court TV will eventually be sanctioned in this country and probably from magistrates courts locally funded with national control on advertising policy. That is the future but the live televising of a court was initiated in September 2015 when STV became the first broadcaster to televise a Scottish court case live and in full. Four cameras were used in court one of the Court of Session in Edinburgh to cover a two-day Election Court case involving Alistair Carmichael. Four constituents were seeking to have Carmichael deselected as an MP after he leaked a memo in April to The Daily Telegraph which suggested that Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon had told the French Ambassador she would prefer David Cameron to remain prime minister. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">On July 28th 2022 for the very first time a Crown Court judge`s sentencing remarks were televised live. Her Honour Judge Sarah Munro QC in sentencing 25 year old Ben Oliver for the manslaughter of his grandfather said, "Time spent in remand would be deducted, resulting in a term of nine years and 63 days. Once you have served that term, you will be entitled to apply for parole. However, you will not be released by the Parole Board unless they conclude you no longer pose a risk to the public. If you are released, you will remain on licence for the rest of your life." And the pattern was set. Since then broadcasters have filmed the sentencing of 33 offenders including Thomas Cashman and Wayne Couzens. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">February 26th was arguably the date on which another legal taboo was breached. It was the broadcasting by ITV of the first of two hour long episodes concerning the killing of his wife by British Airways pilot Robert Brown. Some distressing footage was shown including some of Brown`s police interviews. He was found not guilty of murder but was sentenced to 24 years custody for his admission of manslaughter. The programme appeared to have been inspired by pressure from the deceased`s mother and friends when they were informed that Brown was due to be released under license having almost served half his sentence. Pertinent sections were portrayed by actors from the trial transcript. Understandably the programmes ended with observations by Brown`s lawyers that he was fairly cleared of murder by the jury according to the evidence and is entitled to fair treatment under the law including eligibility for parole. The images of the jurors reacting with sorrow or perhaps disbelief at the judge`s remarks presumably based on eye witness accounts when he explained the unusually harsh manslaughter sentence were certainly designed to show that with some of them there was a realisation that they had reached a perverse verdict. As is his prerogative the Lord Chancellor blocked his release on license; a very unusual decision. The matter will now go forward to a hearing of the Parole Board. It is interesting to note below an extract of a letter of 1st December 2023</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"> Letter from the Minister of State for Justice</span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">The Government has also introduced amendments to the proposed reforms of the Parole Board, as well as changes to the creation of the Independent Public Advocate. The Government’s latest proposals reflect the concerns raised by the Chair of the Justice Committee in a letter to the Lord Chancellor on 7 June 2023.</span></i></div><div><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">On Parole, the Government’s initial plans would have allowed the Lord Chancellor to “call in” Parole Board decisions to release certain prisoners. The Committee said: “We cannot understand how a Secretary of State sitting in Whitehall can be better placed to make a release decision than the Parole Board which has had the opportunity to hear evidence from the prisoner first-hand.” The Government has now dropped this plan, and instead proposes to introduce a power to allow the Lord Chancellor to refer a certain release decision to the Upper Tribunal or the High Court.</span></i></div><div><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div><div><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Sentencing for serious criminality is apparently now a major attraction for broadcasters. When such sentencing seems out of kilter with public perceptions especially in the most awful murder cases and/or bereaved families are particularly articulate or photogenic all pressures to pursue the victims` families` complaints are likely to be met with some sympathy by TV media with half an eye on their ability to attract audiences in this country and abroad. I would opine that the outcome of the heinous murder of three people last year in Nottingham, when the judge accepting expert evidence that the accused <span style="color: #1f2025;">Valdo Calocane would be detained in a high-security hospital following his sentencing at Nottingham Crown Court, will be high on a list of suitable cases to be considered for in depth TV analysis. Once again a sentencer`s sentencing remarks have provoked profound dismay within and without the legal fraternity insofar as he remarked </span></span><span style="color: #1f2025; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">that Calocane is likely never to be released, so that he can receive treatment for paranoid schizophrenia – a mental illness that can be “mitigated” with treatment but not cured. Judge Mr Justice Turner added he was satisfied Calocane would not have committed his “appalling” crimes had he not been suffering from the illness."</span></div><div><span style="color: #1f2025; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #1f2025; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="color: #1f2025; font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It is unlikely that the aforesaid decisions by judges have gone unnoticed by the policy wonks at the MOJ however with an impending general election affecting almost everything coming from government sources it will almost certainly be the next government which faces the reality that justice cannot be kept in the shadows from a wider audience for much longer. The only caveat I can envisage is that by hurriedly exploiting a much tougher law `n order policy Tories would hope that their traditional voters will be less likely to abstain. </span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-34512669280503054742024-02-27T11:46:00.001+00:002024-02-27T11:46:43.656+00:00SWEEPING JUSTICE UNDER THE TORY CARPET<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCsdSckRawwJF4B_RxxV9D8cU1hOx-hDZ8fQYNwYNO-b-tpEpoqDNXEhPTDk99GWV9av6pvuxzzJh6vjgcYvAP-TPRHTarRcTu8ULyU5vErx9Yfih47vCm2L2pZwgGtBibh1dGFtbcKc6d6xhLcEY5UeVDByvVm-IBkOgtXFHmHlIUqVgTjI3ky2KcY901/s601/JUSTICE%20UNDER%20THE%20CARPET.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="439" data-original-width="601" height="468" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiCsdSckRawwJF4B_RxxV9D8cU1hOx-hDZ8fQYNwYNO-b-tpEpoqDNXEhPTDk99GWV9av6pvuxzzJh6vjgcYvAP-TPRHTarRcTu8ULyU5vErx9Yfih47vCm2L2pZwgGtBibh1dGFtbcKc6d6xhLcEY5UeVDByvVm-IBkOgtXFHmHlIUqVgTjI3ky2KcY901/w640-h468/JUSTICE%20UNDER%20THE%20CARPET.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />There are many reasons why some populations can be considered "patriotic" or unified and others less so. Climate change, external threats, political gerrymandering, immigration and in current terms unseen infiltration by aggressive AI from known or unknown sources. Governments are elected to predict, control and counter where and when possible threats from the above sources and others. Common to most political regimes are justice systems which vary in quality from totalitarian (virtually non existent and which Russia is a prime example) to "progressive" where excessive zeal has created a virtual free for all which is the basis of the democratic system`s near breakdown in Israel with consequences for all its citizens. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">In between is U.K. where pride in a justice system has been broadcast loud and proud for a century or more. Not any more: this century has seen belief within and without the legal and associated professions diminish when the ability of many to access the justice system has been deliberately constrained by the imposition of costs for not just those of low income but also for many middle income earners in both criminal and civil courts. There is however another factor at one time reluctantly accepted as a necessity of government which pervades the justice system; secrecy. Appointments to the higher ranks of the bar and to the judiciary at all levels were carried out by whispers in cloisters or smoke filled rooms. Some of the more atrocious activities have had light shone upon them but many remain. By their very nature they resist exposure but events sometimes cast a fleeting glow on what governments are trying to avoid.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">One such event was the verdict and sentencing of three terrorist supporters at a recent march supposedly in sympathy with Gazans and their terrorist overlords Hamas. Earlier this month a senior district judge (MC) with sentencing options of six months custody allowed the offenders to walk out of court with a conditional discharge, the lowest but one non financial sentence available to him. However reporters digging for details, as is their prerogative, discovered that this judge had shown sympathy in social media with those who had accused Israel of terrorism against Palestinians; similar sympathies of which the trio had been found guilty. In addition this judge was no ordinary district judge. Tanweer Ikram in 2017was appointed Deputy Senior District Judge (Chief Magistrate). To add to that Tanweer was appointed to the Judicial Appointments Commission as a Judicial Commissioner for a term of three years from <b><u>14 December 2023.</u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><b><u><br /></u></b></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Now from the viewpoint of that person on the Clapham omnibus comes the non activity of those who are supposed to expose questionable or ill advised judicial actions. None of the bodies which has powers of oversight has chosen to use those powers to determine whether there was bias in Tanweer`s sentencing of those offenders. The <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/judge-tan-ikram-paraglider-palestine-hamas-protest-israel-b1139382.html" target="_blank">Evening Standard</a> has published a fair account of the situation thus far. It would appear that having been promoted in December those in an oversight role of the judiciary have decided to close ranks fearing ridicule of their protégée. In other words they hope this case of disgraceful judicial bias will fade away from the public mind to be replaced by positive headlines for a government desperately trying to convince us that it should be re-elected. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It seems that a political lesson from times long gone have been forgotten; it`s the cover up wot got `em. In the modern era from Richard Nixon onwards trying to hide scandal under a bush is a sure way to exposure. Apart perhaps from the military and all that that word entails our justice system still reacts as if it indeed is a law unto itself from dealings with lowly magistrates to those at the top of the tree. Secrecy is the bedfellow of demagogues and for those aspiring to such exalted position. I hope we will soon hear more about this discredited judicial office holder. The Tory carpet cannot have room for much more to be swept under it. </span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-13222966696190439532024-02-20T12:51:00.000+00:002024-02-20T12:51:18.633+00:00MUSLIM JUDGES AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARADOX<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYQLf5DS0KgTTo5INBRSoncdUnMAyFhl4tTsoBq2RpPBhwm84C7FrRvJ7ZGv72BVhGTO9afd8SGqsS43XgNiP0BBotnm90_YtlmsVxnzHpNC2G_vhncFaF1C3fvfsp1q4o2Ip3AnqKf1e0bVACFaXZR056-MGxsNGQcWVqro5mMuZC2xgxrrft0RJ0zUgy/s1054/PARADOX%20OF%20DEMOCRACY%20%202.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="600" data-original-width="1054" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjYQLf5DS0KgTTo5INBRSoncdUnMAyFhl4tTsoBq2RpPBhwm84C7FrRvJ7ZGv72BVhGTO9afd8SGqsS43XgNiP0BBotnm90_YtlmsVxnzHpNC2G_vhncFaF1C3fvfsp1q4o2Ip3AnqKf1e0bVACFaXZR056-MGxsNGQcWVqro5mMuZC2xgxrrft0RJ0zUgy/w640-h364/PARADOX%20OF%20DEMOCRACY%20%202.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />With a general election on the horizon there is much media comment on how a divided political party is a turn off for voters. But what has faded into the political background is that His Majesty`s Loyal Opposition; the Labour Party, is itself still divided over an apparent acceptance of antisemitism in its ranks depending on who are labelled as such and those who at heart are still Remainers. Although the issues are not as stark or as many as in USA this country is exhibiting bitter divisions over weekly marches by groups using Palestinian sympathises as a cloak for hatred of all Jews not just the 7 million residing in Israel. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">The history of nations where there is unreconciled division is ominous. The French Revolution of 1789 was followed by a disastrous European war until the defeat of Napoleon in 1815. Subsequent to the American Revolution in 1776 those who were on the side of Great Britain and remained unreconciled to being subjects of the new United States fled to Canada the first use of which as an official name came in 1791 when the Province of Quebec was divided into the colonies of Upper Canada and Lower Canada. In 1841 the two colonies were united under one name; the Province of Canada. The American Civil War literally almost divided the new nation until the Union success of 1865. Millions were killed in post 1917 Russia following revolutions and the subsequent civil war.</span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Post the Great War Ireland had its own civil war between unreconciled political parties and unremitting antagonism between fascists and communists was played out in the Spanish Civil War.</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Whilst 2024 is not exhibiting the first symptoms of violent disorder in the UK the history of these islands has demonstrated all the signs that have preceded our current state: civil war in the 1400s AKA the Wars of the Roses, actual civil war 1642-51 and the final defeat of the Jacobites and the threat of a Catholic monarch in 1746. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">The social divide over Brexit in 2016 subsequent to the ouvert division in Scotland from the 2014 referendum, the opposition to the Covid 19 shutdown and the increasing threat from Islamist extremists shouting very loudly over the silence of many of their co-religionists is provoking verbal, literal and political opposition verging on violent threats in some quarters. The failure, apparent or otherwise, of political and police authorities to contain current examples of an unholy trinity of Palestinian sympathisers, marxists and fascists on the streets of London and other cities weekly since October 7th should be provoking anxiety in 10 Downing Street. The influence on events of the Secretary of State for Justice is an unknown factor. However when activities of those who seek to force their opinions on others by tactics of obstruction in some way or other the dirty washing on the clothes line of justice is there for all to see. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">One cannot complete a form for many occasions or applications of one sort or another some voluntarily, some essential without it seems ticking boxes to describe all or some of one`s ethnicity, sexuality, gender, skin description, heritage, education etc etc etc. France, officially a Catholic nation, on the other hand has been deaf, dumb and blind to such intrusions on privacy since 1972. Since 2004 there has been a ban in public schools of wearing religious symbols; hijabs, kippa and crucifixes. There is an estimated Muslim population of 7%-9% mainly from 1950s and 60s immigration from Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. This Muslim minority, increasing annually, is likely to be a large factor in the next French presidential election. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">In the Uk over the last 30 years we have had our own share of Islamist violence. We also have our own share of Islamist judges and magistrates in our courts, numbers unknown, sitting in judgement on those whose views they might share when it comes to public disorder. Indeed despite the authorities knowing almost how many hairs are on the heads of magistrates the number of Muslim magistrates is unknown. According to the Office of Judicial Statistics they do not currently publish these figures in their annual Judicial Diversity report. The Judicial Office who are the data owners have offered the following statement:- </span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Magistrates can provide information on their religious affiliations. However, disclosure of this information is optional and therefore Magistrates may choose not to disclose this information. As a result, the information held on the religious affiliations of Magistrates at this time is not of suitable robustness (i.e. the declaration rate is too low) to be published publicly, as doing so may lead to inaccurate and misleading interpretations being made.</span></i></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">And so to last week when Heba Alhayek, 29; Pauline Ankunda, 26; and Noimutu Olayinka Taiwo, 27; were found guilty of a terror offence in the wake of the incident at a pro-Palestinian march in central London a week after Hamas militants entered Israel. Deputy Senior District Judge Tan Ikram said he had decided their lesson had been “well learned” and he did not intend to punish them sentencing them to effectively a slap on the wrist; a conditional discharge. This blogger and many legal bigwigs have indicated their outrage and demanded appropriate intervention to make the punishment fit the crime. My point today, belatedly perhaps, is how many sentences on similar offending are being conditioned by magistrates whose public profiles are by far and away below the horizon of public and media scrutiny? When the scrutiny of Advisory Committees who select magistrates is deep enough to view the proverbial angel on the proverbial pinhead why is religious or non religious affiliation not a compulsory feature for every aspiring Justice of the Peace? My own opinion is that it`s a case of the three monkeys; the MOJ doesn`t want to hear, see or speak the answers or the numbers for the simple reason they would, perhaps by pressure, have to publish those very numbers and they`re fearful of what these numbers would reveal especially in areas where Muslims constitute a quarter or more of the population. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Our nation has a history of peaceful protest protected by law. The political convolutions over the last decade have proved that existing law is strained to breaking point. Almost daily institutions and private and company premises are being invaded with criminal damage caused, lives are being seriously disrupted by obstructive tactics, weekly demonstrations have led to under policed and under contained public disorder and Jewish citizens have undergone record numbers of occasions of direct antisemitism including children at school. </span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">There comes a time when a democracy must consider apparent undemocratic actions to preserve that very democracy. Such an occasion is described as the Democratic Paradox. Recognising the situation unchanged an early question for the next government is firstly to admit its reality and secondly when or if to apply a remedy and finally to justify and select an appropriate redress. Failure will be a catastrophe. </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"> </span></div><div><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-33519035281406308922024-02-13T12:48:00.000+00:002024-02-13T12:48:01.318+00:00IS THIS REALITY?<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTKRHfOEyOCdKkiImKYJX5_wnHsxr1UHZ0FAGxDQrgM0sJUH_eN0py45O0WFINJzYQ92ewMVvbGNKoAEhOme-pQjfe7xpOPkpQilVMopcNNala1GsJIoSni70Gd_efR1vUH_4mm1vU9NwQV4Jrm8KZUmDnArUWtv3943oUcJZ-xGgww-An4nFcZBUbkHrC/s564/IS%20THIS%20REALITY.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="564" data-original-width="564" height="640" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhTKRHfOEyOCdKkiImKYJX5_wnHsxr1UHZ0FAGxDQrgM0sJUH_eN0py45O0WFINJzYQ92ewMVvbGNKoAEhOme-pQjfe7xpOPkpQilVMopcNNala1GsJIoSni70Gd_efR1vUH_4mm1vU9NwQV4Jrm8KZUmDnArUWtv3943oUcJZ-xGgww-An4nFcZBUbkHrC/w640-h640/IS%20THIS%20REALITY.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div> </span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It`s now two weeks since I underwent major surgery. Having had anaesthesia problems as a young man when I underwent elective surgery I was very careful and fortunate enough to be able to select not only my surgeon but also the consultant anaesthetist who worked alongside him. Whilst the operation was successful I later learned that owing to unforeseen complications chemical anaesthesia was not possible even partially and I underwent full blown gaseous anaesthesia. Common sedative agents used during rapid sequence intubation include etomidate, ketamine, and propofol. Commonly used neuromuscular blocking agents are succinylcholine and rocuronium. Certain induction agents and paralytic drugs may be more beneficial than others in certain clinical situations. CW my anaesthetist was long gone when I awoke a surprisingly long time after schedule according to my surgeon. But what I do remember and committed to my diary of these events were my first words to the recovery nurse, " Is this reality?". Indeed I repeated the same question three times. I felt like Rip Van Winkle on magic mushrooms. It was a further day or so into my recovery programme that it dawned on me that when I compare my first experiences of being inside our justice system in 1998 with the current situation I could also remark; "is this reality"?</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Of these 26 years 14 were were overseen by Tory governments. The coalition years will fade into the ether as rightly they should. That first Conservative Secretary of State for Justice Kenneth Clarke proudly announcing his support for austerity commented that he was the first around the Cabinet table to implement budget cuts; in his manor 23.8%. Oh how they drooled. Others soon followed with police numbers being reduced by 20,000, prison officer numbers being cut, the probation service being decimated and secret magistrates courts taking on a million + cases annually under the cloaking device AKA as Single Justice Procedure. Notwithstanding that all this was in the public domain being excused by government rhetoric daily that would have had Cicero cutting his own throat years before "<i>together with his son, his brother, and his brother's son and all his household, his faction, and his friends" (Appian, Civil Wars, IV.19.1). Cicero was killed on December 7, 43 BC, aged sixty-three, his head and hands (having penned the Philippics) hacked off</i>." For even the most miserable, incompetent, arrogant Justice Secretary this nation has ever endured Chris (failing) Grayling [2016-19] who took the probation service into penury and disarray resignation was not even a footnote in his diary. Throughout 14 years of incompetence half the courts of England and Wales were closed and even with that process which continues the cry of "local justice" and "diversity" scream from the depths of Petty France where woke reigns supreme. His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunal Service now has the publishing rights for several areas where local court reporting has become part of local history. So we cannot be certain that what`s being published in local media reflects the reality of court happenings in local areas. In the last two years magistrates courts` sentencing powers have been increased to 12 months custody from the previous 6 months and reduced again to 6 months. Notwithstanding those decisions there is current parliamentary process in action to remove custody as an option altogether. But here`s the rub; owing to the inaction or inability of the Metropolitan Police to curb disorder occurring in so many so called "marches for Palestine" in future protesters who climb on to war memorials could face up to three months in jail under new laws put forward by the government. Security minister Tom Tugendhat told MPs people who scaled national monuments could also be fined £1,000. Apparently the irresistible force of no more jail available to the lower court will meet the immoveable object of a 3 month jail sentence for those guilty of breaching the new proposed legislation. That means that those cases will be added to the lists of crown courts where some matters are estimated to be heard not sooner than two years from now. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div>The unbelievable incompetence of those aforementioned inhabitants of Petty France added to the equally do lally knuckle dragging grunters of the Home Office has resulted in our prisons being unable to accommodate all those who should lawfully, morally and societally be there. The scandal and it`s nothing less than a scandal, of "suspended sentences " will continue and indeed accelerate. If there is one factor above the reducing numbers of lawyers undertaking uneconomic legal aid work in and out of the courtroom to the detriment of low income defendants it`s the release of prisoners when they have completed only a half of their supposed well rehearsed and logically deduced sentences whether or not they deserve such beneficial treatment. The list of failings and incompetence goes on but this is a blog post, not a treatise or novella. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Perhaps my Rip Van Winkle could have met the Sleeping Princess and seen the world through her eyes without a frog in sight. Perhaps we can elect some politicians who are of A Level quality in place of the GCSE failures who are leading us into penury and misery down almost every political avenue we have to navigate for the next decade. Perhaps we can be under a general anaesthetic until then and upon awakening wonder in awe; "is this reality"?</span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-91433151761931499822024-01-23T12:32:00.000+00:002024-01-23T12:32:33.354+00:00NO LONGER SEEN OR HEARD<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy487XTcrR4gL_l2rWGbEPdmSIPlBafaGEukn-IZJW3yK35lsXd7iaU60DDSmHIf3JDrByea5DjxVu8CBcfGjhKcbTKoQ_6bTjz9RuLHdRQy0Xrw7zK9THmKKbmj-A3DvVEMb5nyt1s0LGlc95P5UmjMq-rOnbIJBP5iWfFg35kIx2X_tg17qrT28uK5GV/s840/NEWS%20REPORT%20MISSING.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="840" data-original-width="599" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjy487XTcrR4gL_l2rWGbEPdmSIPlBafaGEukn-IZJW3yK35lsXd7iaU60DDSmHIf3JDrByea5DjxVu8CBcfGjhKcbTKoQ_6bTjz9RuLHdRQy0Xrw7zK9THmKKbmj-A3DvVEMb5nyt1s0LGlc95P5UmjMq-rOnbIJBP5iWfFg35kIx2X_tg17qrT28uK5GV/s320/NEWS%20REPORT%20MISSING.jpg" width="228" /></a></div><br />During my first few years on the bench as a winger it became apparent to me that the chairman, or to use current nomenclature, the presiding justice fitted clearly into two classes; those competent in dealing with the duty to run the court in both an orderly and lawfully correct fashion and those who could not. There was no middle way. I also noticed that those who failed to meet my expectations failed on both hurdles. Although from the beginning lay magistrates were and are schooled in the mantra that legal advisors advise on the law it was obvious to this newbie that colleagues who had knowledge skilled themselves in such basic offences considered at magistrates courts e.g. the law on bladed articles or the criteria of exceptional hardship also seemed to have an inert ability to deal with the efficient direction of the court with regard to ensuring that in the widest possible sense justice was not only done it was seen to be done. When I became qualified to sit in the middle chair I continued to have on the bench my personal folder of topics carefully annotated to provide instant reference when needed in order that I might stay one step ahead of our legal advisor if possible. This practice was apparently strictly forbidden but nobody ever told me to my face. What it did was to allow me to manage the court as efficiently as possible without having to refer to the legal advisor unless I considered it necessary. I would imagine that currently I would be chastised by over zealous and arse licking colleagues seeking brownie points from the Deputy Justices Clerk. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Having made my position clear as above I read with disdain of the sheer incompetence of a magistrate. There is a well written but second hand report <a href="https://www.holdthefrontpage.co.uk/2024/news/axe-magistrates-who-dont-know-law-about-naming-the-dead-says-editor/" target="_blank">here</a> of the failure of an unknown magistrate probably based in Wiltshire to comply with the law relating to a S.45 notice on reporting restrictions the full guidance on which is available <a href="https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Reporting-Restrictions-in-the-Criminal-Courts-July-2023.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. Although the magistrate`s name in question would have been published outside the courtroom like so much else in the courts system s/he remains an unknown figure. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Considering the personnel changes within the magistracy since 2010 it`s not unlikely that many more JPs than expected, with limited experience, have been catapulted into the senior position with fewer capabilities than previously when DJCs could to some extent pick and choose who to promote. The current tick box process as in so many other factors of our society is not the best way to choose a candidate. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">One aspect of this whole episode has come to light and it`s not a pleasant thought as far as this blogger is concerned. The website reported above <a href="https://www.wiltshire999s.co.uk/" target="_blank">Wiltshire 999S </a> does not feature the report. It also seems to have been deleted from X [Twitter]. If this is self censorship by a well known news reporter or his bosses it is worrying. If they have been pressurised by powers that be it is a matter of great concern to those of us who consider that our courts are being subjected to ever increasing government control. Those who follow current legal events especially the situation re postmasters` scandal will no doubt have their own opinions. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span>Finally I have to report that owing to my imminent need for elective surgery this blog will be silent for the</span> next couple of weeks or so. </span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-39144603084984066782024-01-16T11:43:00.001+00:002024-01-16T11:43:51.537+00:00SEX ON THE BENCH<p> </p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz6oifT54bcyTSI0s3oEfieF0zqhOlkJR_ELX8wsR4uTiw_4CnyqRgl0UrP5Z2y7vVLNW1JgQJ5iGHV-9JZxPFI8yJ2T1pcJoNHve9rz3TT_IRhUX35Q_Co2tQ7LGmmBGEwHYZ0pT6U2ielRzqD8YgmiGWUUdm0IdrdXSUMUdR4t0EnAsasFuDIRB2FWfW/s690/SEX%20ON%20THE%20BENCH.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="499" data-original-width="690" height="462" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiz6oifT54bcyTSI0s3oEfieF0zqhOlkJR_ELX8wsR4uTiw_4CnyqRgl0UrP5Z2y7vVLNW1JgQJ5iGHV-9JZxPFI8yJ2T1pcJoNHve9rz3TT_IRhUX35Q_Co2tQ7LGmmBGEwHYZ0pT6U2ielRzqD8YgmiGWUUdm0IdrdXSUMUdR4t0EnAsasFuDIRB2FWfW/w640-h462/SEX%20ON%20THE%20BENCH.jpg" width="640" /></a></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: x-large;"><br /></span></div><div><span> </span><br /><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">During my time on the bench I had a position on our Rota Committee. In those days the committee had an overview of each court`s composition produced by an early computerised data base overseen by an experienced court officer and finalised by the bench Rota Committee. That method followed the guidelines at the time and the oversight my colleagues and I performed ensured that anomalies of any sort were avoided. </span></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><br /></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-left: 36.0pt; mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">The
topic appeared on the now long defunct forum of the Magistrates` Association
insofar as it pertained to the question of whether or not there was guidance on
the issue of same sex benches in the adult court or perhaps as one wag put it,
“same gender benches”: a comment that perhaps would now produce the wrath of God or the J.C.I.O. upon the "offender". My bench was split about 50/50 on sex………..I will resist a
temptation to go slightly off topic…………so mathematically a random approach to
the rota which we employed would usually produce MFM or FMF. MMM or FFF was generally the exception. In addition in a highly mixed ethnically diverse area
reflected in a correspondingly higher ethnic mix on the bench as a whole race
and religion produced more diverse benches than sex alone. As far as I was aware
any composition of J.P.s on a bench would effect justice on any matter before
it. There was no guidance. The good sense of all ensured it was not required. </span><span style="font-family: Times New Roman, serif;"><o:p></o:p></span></p></div></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-84048892791954183332024-01-09T12:53:00.001+00:002024-01-09T12:53:22.602+00:00PUBLIC DISSENTING OPINION OK FOR SUPREME COURT BUT NOT FOR MAGISTRATES<div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyp-FilQV8xerIaiQdwx8mOONsZjpg4HZbfkmMTX-b2TWnJQf9raymC9RFmzkovw1cCt0ZOKfhDa7gmNjuEsV-u5p0j4byC-HSyY9Ijn9S-PeQUYaGmbT1EdK6zowe0o-n-w0vWItvWAO3bfy2hbyUY-fsSAp1wK9vj2FWb0QGFGXPML_S9r3N2USOFNcF/s817/DISSENTING%20OPINION.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="802" data-original-width="817" height="628" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhyp-FilQV8xerIaiQdwx8mOONsZjpg4HZbfkmMTX-b2TWnJQf9raymC9RFmzkovw1cCt0ZOKfhDa7gmNjuEsV-u5p0j4byC-HSyY9Ijn9S-PeQUYaGmbT1EdK6zowe0o-n-w0vWItvWAO3bfy2hbyUY-fsSAp1wK9vj2FWb0QGFGXPML_S9r3N2USOFNcF/w640-h628/DISSENTING%20OPINION.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It would be presumptuous to say that everyone has now at least a passing acquaintance with the Post Office scandal but for those involved in criminal law there are probably subtle signals that what was known by professionals is gradually becoming if not public knowledge then certainly a situation which has been to a lesser extent part of the civil justice system for many years. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">In the magistrates courts where reputations might be at stake miscarriages of justice are unlikely to make headlines. For the uninitiated a bench is usually composed of three magistrates although currently only two person benches seem to be more frequent in recent years. To bring a guilty verdict (on a full bench) a majority must find the prosecution case proved beyond a reasonable doubt but when that is announced in open court there is no acknowledgement that one magistrate might have come to a different conclusion. Surely then it is logical to consider that the bench as a whole unit had that reasonable doubt. A single District Judge (MC) has only his or her own conscience to which to answer. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">My own practice after pronouncing a finding of guilt was to advise the offender of the process of appeal. When the verdict was split perhaps I put more emphasis on the detailed manner to go about that appeal. I was unable when I was active and am of the same opinion now as to why a split verdict, at least of guilt, cannot be made publicly. When crown court judges were allowed to accept majority verdicts of 10:2 in 1967 there was general agreement in parliament and legal circles that it was of benefit to the concept of justice not only being done but being seen to be done. It seems illogical that the lower court does not follow the example of the higher court. Even the Supreme Court allows for a dissenting opinion. An interesting essay on this topic can be accessed<a href="https://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/10/14/why-we-allow-dissent-by-our-judges/" target="_blank"> here</a>. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Current numbers suggest that there were around 5,000 appeals from magistrates courts to the crown court where a judge sits with two magistrates for a re- hearing. The percentage rates of success on appeal were 30% for conviction appeals and nearly 68% for sentence appeals. It seems that the MOJ no longer supplies detailed statistics on such appeals. All this is rather confusing. The latest verified statistics I can find are below:-</span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8OIK9WItvZMiTtrSRjx6S5If5emILgcEhizmzTa7IPkh9MqirMgiCw2TIXo2fy-f3aqhGQgr0uhzJyBdB0pbFgpPU44WyYjsW57cQmiSiEGIYHPpc1wIRHPHysHNAK7SAVArQmW9uIo2aPaza5vrxr6A102LBVfhqO1Zt5K2LiU616ZrwwXv7x3JFSm2V/s1355/APPEALS%20AT%20CROWN%20COURT%205%20YEARS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="371" data-original-width="1355" height="176" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj8OIK9WItvZMiTtrSRjx6S5If5emILgcEhizmzTa7IPkh9MqirMgiCw2TIXo2fy-f3aqhGQgr0uhzJyBdB0pbFgpPU44WyYjsW57cQmiSiEGIYHPpc1wIRHPHysHNAK7SAVArQmW9uIo2aPaza5vrxr6A102LBVfhqO1Zt5K2LiU616ZrwwXv7x3JFSm2V/w640-h176/APPEALS%20AT%20CROWN%20COURT%205%20YEARS.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Whatever the actual numbers are the principle of dissent should be applied to magistrates courts. There is no justifiable reason to oppose that except for the law for the ordinary citizen to be an increasingly tick box exercise which is a lot cheaper for government than the facade that justice is available for all. </span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-34714580701738019572024-01-02T12:38:00.003+00:002024-01-02T12:51:10.473+00:002024 MORE OF THE SAME OR WORSE TO COME?<p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Aotd1wpECQI2YlZQwiE4-6zjVdM1Z3AOjJr-MroNscCU0LzfaYeXc4kknEWeT7ZYiTDnGyt-JNCTkz9tInrKVnrb-xPMShT7OTRgfVm9ZMRoCrby9PAehPxp1ILad8Dzwt_O3ZaKk9aY6qWUHG4yoRDSqhI7UjDism_aNPu6they7jm8SkPin4KPGYg5/s1280/4%20CLOCKS.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="572" data-original-width="1280" height="286" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg0Aotd1wpECQI2YlZQwiE4-6zjVdM1Z3AOjJr-MroNscCU0LzfaYeXc4kknEWeT7ZYiTDnGyt-JNCTkz9tInrKVnrb-xPMShT7OTRgfVm9ZMRoCrby9PAehPxp1ILad8Dzwt_O3ZaKk9aY6qWUHG4yoRDSqhI7UjDism_aNPu6they7jm8SkPin4KPGYg5/w640-h286/4%20CLOCKS.jpg" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br />In this, my first post of a new year, it would be gratifying to have been able to look back on 2023 with the faint hope that improvements or increased efficiency within the justice system particularly re magistrates courts were just an early sign of better things to expect in 2024. Alas great expectations remain just that. </span><p></p><p><br /></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><a href="https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com/2021/10/does-this-government-really-want-to.html" target="_blank">14years ago</a> I mused that magistrates and their powers in their then current form would be on the road to<a href="https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com/2022/01/end-of-days-for-magistrates.html" target="_blank"> extinction</a>. That they`re still here, is for some, a disappointment especially amongst the fraternity of criminal lawyers; an ever diminishing band of legal brothers. Considering the havoc brought about by the musical chairs being played about at Petty France and especially the incompetence of that address`s most abject failure "Failing Grayling" it might occur to many that we`re fortunate that the magistrates courts system is still functioning at all with half the number of courts cf 2010 and one third the number of magistrates owing to various bad planning decisions or indecisions since then. An example from 2016 on the thinking behind court closures can be read in this paper; <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/499527/sw-consultation-response.pdf" target="_blank">Response to the proposal on the provision of court etc</a></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">The June 2019 report House of Commons </span><span style="font-weight: bold;">Justice Committee "</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"><a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/1654/1654.pdf" target="_blank">The role of the </a></span><b><a href="https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201719/cmselect/cmjust/1654/1654.pdf" target="_blank">magistracy: follow-up</a>" </b>did not exactly endorse the previous nine years of a cataclysmic mismanagement by the MOJ. </span></div><p><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></i></p><p><i style="font-family: georgia; font-size: x-large;"> </i><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Judging by</span><span style="font-family: georgia;"> retirements and recruitment figures it seems reasonable to deduce that around one third of magistrates have less than five years experience and that the personal, academic and employment profiles of magistrates have changed considerably since my appointment. The result is that few benches have many members who were sitting when their courts were semi independent of government and a certain free thinking was the order of the day. So called post code sentencing lottery by local magistrates has been abandoned for the algorithmic Sentencing Guidelines which appear to be but a stepping stone to "the computer says "X" when sentence is determined. </span></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">The last year has seen sentencing maximum of six months increased to 12 months and reduced again to</span><a href="https://thejusticeofthepeaceblog.blogspot.com/2023/03/magistrates-marched-to-top-of-custody.html" style="font-family: georgia;" target="_blank"> six months.</a><span style="font-family: georgia;"> The next few months will herald another fundamental change when magistrates courts will no longer have the option of any custodial sentence for offenders who appear before them. I would imagine that District Judges(MC) who increasingly take a greater proportion of what are termed "high profile" cases will have their noses out of joint. Prison overcrowding and severe court backlogs have meant that the judicial tail is wagging the judicial dog. </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">In Scotland by comparison with its long established independent justice system </span><span style="font-family: georgia;">Justices of the Peace powers of punishment are limited to 60 days' imprisonment or a fine of up to £2,500 or both. With such changes in England and Wales unimaginable even a year ago who`s to say that somewhere in the bowels of Petty France locked in a secure cabinet there is not a Green Paper with government thinking on reducing further the punishment levels open to magistrates and reintroducing custodial sentences in the future with the proviso that only salaried District Judges will in future be able to impose them. </span></span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">My opinion as written above has not changed; only the time frame has changed. </span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-50378232727215089202023-12-19T15:14:00.001+00:002023-12-19T15:20:08.738+00:00LAW AND POLITICS IS LIKE WATER<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPHzH0aWILJ1z_lIaepX9tDDMPW5qcolEnrGHWlSn4DHu0LN01ebOKuU0Q9aeZC8FafuUHtMeaTLCdD8fgkHCg-gOR3WJS6zhyUoAhnNp1Gr6e9V_Ss7n0bYGqGcUvUEXLPiZqqi5NIcvvyYkfMXLUbi-TLU4d0ewwBDBF62TvvgDsDfMoaZ7clbAZq_NH/s640/LAWYERS%20TO%20THE%20RIGHT%20OF%20ME%20POLITICIANS%20TO%20THE%20LEFT.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="461" data-original-width="640" height="462" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjPHzH0aWILJ1z_lIaepX9tDDMPW5qcolEnrGHWlSn4DHu0LN01ebOKuU0Q9aeZC8FafuUHtMeaTLCdD8fgkHCg-gOR3WJS6zhyUoAhnNp1Gr6e9V_Ss7n0bYGqGcUvUEXLPiZqqi5NIcvvyYkfMXLUbi-TLU4d0ewwBDBF62TvvgDsDfMoaZ7clbAZq_NH/w640-h462/LAWYERS%20TO%20THE%20RIGHT%20OF%20ME%20POLITICIANS%20TO%20THE%20LEFT.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />We have all been led to believe that the British system of trial by jury is a wonderful example of justice being blind and all are equal before the law. All are blind who continue to believe that. It was only a century ago that an Appeal Court was incorporated into the system to counter miscarriages of justice and half a century ago that hanging was abolished. As we are all too aware these modifications were leisurely in coming into being and were not universally welcomed by vociferous if small minorities. Miscarriages of justice still occur. The Criminal Cases Review Commission has published its latest statistics:- <br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Referrals and decisions (April 1997 – October 2023)<br />826 cases referred to appeal courts<br />803 appeals heard by the courts<br />566 successful appeals<br />222 decisions upheld<br />15 abandoned by applicant<br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">These matters would have been heard originally by a jury in the crown court. Prior to their retirement to consider their verdict the jury would have been advised that they must come to a verdict based only on the evidence presented to them; a simple enough instruction on the face of it but one in which the words of the judge have in recent cases been stretched to breaking point. The departure from decades of almost total compliance with such judicial direction became aware to the public by “the Colston Four”. In 2020 four defendants all admitted to taking an active part in removing Edward Colston’s statue and disposing of it in Bristol Harbour as the prosecution had alleged. Their defence to the charge lay in why the statue had been removed. Colston was a slave trader who invested heavily in his native city. They were cleared of criminal damage. Last month nine climate change protesters were cleared of causing £500,000 worth of criminal damage to the windows at the headquarters of HSBC bank in London. They were acting under the name of Extinction Rebellion. Sally Hobson, prosecuting, said: <i>“They accept that on 22 April 2021, they went to the HSBC building armed with hammers and chisels and they also accept that they used those tools to break the windows – they were responsible for the damage. “The value of the damage caused is in the region of £500,000 and additional security measures caused further expenditure so as to ensure damage was not caused again. “Although the defendants accept they caused the damage, they deny that their actions amount to criminal conduct. Simply put, the damage was caused during a protest and the defendants say that they were lawfully justified in doing what they did. “We say that whatever the purpose behind them causing the damage there was no lawful excuse for doing so. It was, we say, unlawful conduct outside of a lawful protest.” </i>Criminal damage is lawful if the defendant believes the owner of the property consents to the damage (as found in section 2 of the Criminal Damage Act 1970). <br /><br />There have been other similar cases. In 1982 Clive Ponting was acquitted of breaching the Official Secrets Act despite admitting to leaking documents relating to the sinking of the Belgrano during the Falklands War. The judge directed the jury that Ponting’s duty lay to the civil service and that he had no viable defence. In 2007, Toby Olditch and Philip Pritchard were acquitted of sabotaging US bombers at the outset of the Iraq war. The defendants suggested that the bombers would have been used to commit war crimes. <br /><br />Lords Devlin and Thomas in 1956 and 2011 respectively agreed that even when the evidence is overwhelmingly to convict, the law does not prevent juries from returning a perverse verdict. The Bar`s code of conduct does not allow a barrister to inform jurors of their right should they so wish to bring in a perverse verdict; it would constitute misconduct. The logical conclusion is that a defendant in such circumstances in order to follow the examples of Ponting or the Colston four in arguing from that angle would have to be self representing. That conclusion itself is somewhat paradoxical or Kafkaesque. <br /><br />There are some learned professors of law who argue that juries should have the right to hear arguments of perversity and not to be directed that only evidence presented in court should be considered in their coming to a verdict. From my lowly position as a retired magistrate it`s my view that that argument would lead to not only more perverse verdicts but politically motivated verdicts examples of which are current offences against British companies or subsidiaries of Israeli companies on the pretext that they are acting against Palestinian interests. <br /><br />Law and politics are essential to our way of life. Like water we cannot survive without them in combination but also like water too much can kill us. It`s also the case when the H is separated from the O2 the situation is combustible. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It`s that time of the year again when a spurious date approximating to the winter solstice was allocated to the birth of a Jewish boy in Bethlehem, a village in Judea an area which is unfortunately less peaceful than it could be. Nevertheless the message is clear: goodwill to you all and thank you for spending a few of your valuable minutes reading this and perhaps some previous offerings on this site. <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH8B_iNDXJ3RrXC4kCgSmHxEgz8F44M0xSzsaf0VwUlUCw7sNxDmVaL1h62b3dIrQwL6mtM9bRpTVP_Phig459EklFwGImvvxa32lL2D7_Dq4cEH6CFDRwzL67Sy8sunP7veAbD92JfQTNTCOTWH6dpHJdFfHXDHum0cpdnu0F_Zx2gFb7RJ4eCS99L8w-/s318/download.webp" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="318" data-original-width="318" height="318" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgH8B_iNDXJ3RrXC4kCgSmHxEgz8F44M0xSzsaf0VwUlUCw7sNxDmVaL1h62b3dIrQwL6mtM9bRpTVP_Phig459EklFwGImvvxa32lL2D7_Dq4cEH6CFDRwzL67Sy8sunP7veAbD92JfQTNTCOTWH6dpHJdFfHXDHum0cpdnu0F_Zx2gFb7RJ4eCS99L8w-/s1600/download.webp" width="318" /></a></div><br /></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p style="text-align: left;"> </p>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-12600406562986808742023-12-12T12:34:00.000+00:002023-12-12T12:34:08.789+00:00CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR ORDER OR SOCIAL INNOVATION<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsY_ht0sEkpXy1pMDticCKOLlFhF0NUyC-0nU186XRgLQPnnClMLZgiEXN19suiTCexqmuTMm7gc8RtPbhphCxyOmwW318L67tAMpO8HOtn3EA6jFaY3nFCC5ZnT1xPbNHwCLN0N70_UaQNoWzIc-95v6KRhU_KC72SziG3jDyzBhXJP88_zkchGztn0Hv/s954/CRIMINAL%20BEHAVIOUR%20ORDER.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="477" data-original-width="954" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgsY_ht0sEkpXy1pMDticCKOLlFhF0NUyC-0nU186XRgLQPnnClMLZgiEXN19suiTCexqmuTMm7gc8RtPbhphCxyOmwW318L67tAMpO8HOtn3EA6jFaY3nFCC5ZnT1xPbNHwCLN0N70_UaQNoWzIc-95v6KRhU_KC72SziG3jDyzBhXJP88_zkchGztn0Hv/w640-h320/CRIMINAL%20BEHAVIOUR%20ORDER.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /> "Keep the bastards out of prison". It`s not too difficult to imagine that directive being given from one senior civil servant at the MOJ to his/her assistant. What might be surprising to many is that that conversation would have taken place in 2012 or 2013. By that time the original supposed deterrent to antisocial behaviour was ASBO; antisocial behaviour order beloved by prison governors because it reduced the tendency of having to allow for ever increasing numbers of miscreants being subjected to short custodial sentences in their already crowded prisons. It was "sold" to magistrates and local councils as a method by which local nuisances both in noise and behaviour by local hooligans which might fall short of actual criminal behaviour could be contained without the high bar of trial and beyond reasonable doubt to prove guilt and local witnesses or council officers being able to submit anonymous statements. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">I suppose all that began with a new Tory government in place not long after the 1979 election. Home Secretary William Whitelaw had announced he was going full steam ahead on a key manifesto promise – the Short Sharp Shock. To a euphoric Tory party conference in October 1979, the urbane and aristocratic Whitelaw told delighted delegates that detention centres for teen lawbreakers would no longer be ‘holiday camps’. This played on widely believed media stories of young hooligans leading cosseted lives behind bars. “Life will be conducted at a swift tempo,” he assured the party. The belief was that a regime of early wake up calls, military drill and manual labour over a three month period would shock young offenders out of a life of crime. To break even the most determined spirit periods of recreation could be denied and silence was the general rule with only 30 minutes of chat between prisoners permitted each day. It wasn`t long before there was a rising disquiet amongst many in the legal fraternity and pressure groups that such sentencing did little to improve or deter criminal behaviour at the lowest end. So in 2013 ASBO begat CRASBO later shortened to CBO or Criminal Behaviour Order. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">On <a href="https://thejusticeofthepeaceblog.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-very-first-criminal-behaviour.html" target="_blank">21/06/2016</a> I posted of my personal involvement in this historic legislation. Generally I consider that this form of civil sanction [the breach of which <i>is</i> a criminal offence] is displacement legislation. "Don`t commit an offence within <i>our</i> boundaries; go elsewhere to offend." So from pillar to post the offending continues. Breach of an anti-social behaviour order is triable either way with the maximum sentence for this offence in magistrates’ courts of 6 months’ custody and a maximum 5 years’ custody at the crown court. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It seems that it`s taken eight years for the message, for what it`s worth, to get through to <a href="https://www.barnsley.gov.uk/news/the-first-ever-criminal-behaviour-order-sought-by-barnsley-council-issued-by-barnsley-magistrates-court-following-a-conviction/" target="_blank">Barnsley Council</a>. The offender in this case had previously been issued with another of these so called orders; a Community Protection Notice. As far as I am aware the MOJ has no knowledge of the deterrent value of these civil orders. It has been unable or unwilling to provide numbers of those breaching them and being subsequently convicted as above. All that can be said, in my humble opinion, is that it reduces the burdens on police and prisons. Whether or not such orders are another sign of outcomes determined by cost cutting or an innovative process to control low level but aggravating local misbehaviour is as much dependent on political opinion as social innovation. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div><br /></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-11912269670186903452023-12-05T13:04:00.002+00:002023-12-05T13:04:29.089+00:00I HAVEN`T CHANGED MY OPINION<div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1HDtXWVzHvvtaQf2Rvv93J3ywSVpTRPIbRpLhv6ZqctYymkrx9g1IZBy5kA5vGTIzwGZGawJeUNmv103ieIHVtkUcPGP1BEq1NffxGJZLXFtgqSmDpcmKxIZNlSDxws90goSv8jHHawhwnO5jPg8ET2FFSLQszI6y2YKPVtFn0lVEwwUWREIzrs9uDW3F/s225/OPINION%202.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="225" data-original-width="225" height="400" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh1HDtXWVzHvvtaQf2Rvv93J3ywSVpTRPIbRpLhv6ZqctYymkrx9g1IZBy5kA5vGTIzwGZGawJeUNmv103ieIHVtkUcPGP1BEq1NffxGJZLXFtgqSmDpcmKxIZNlSDxws90goSv8jHHawhwnO5jPg8ET2FFSLQszI6y2YKPVtFn0lVEwwUWREIzrs9uDW3F/w400-h400/OPINION%202.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />I have never sat on a jury. Indeed many decades ago I received my one and only summons for that purpose but I had to request an exemption owing to my professional undertakings. Now my intellectual and/or physical capacity according to the MOJ renders me unfit for such duties. I must be content with voicing my opinions here and occasionally elsewhere. A three person bench of lay magistrates is in effect a mini jury. Its members have been trained how to consider evidence in a structured fashion supposedly simplified by the introduction of Sentencing Guidelines introduced over a decade ago to remove the effects of a perceived post code lottery in outcomes. In some matters, as I have written previously, it seems only a matter of time until algorithms take over much of the human function but for the present most people`s experience of a court is in a magistrates court and their futures, for better or worse, in the hands of those selected for their apparent abilities to satisfy a selection process written by civil servants in the MOJ. <br /></span><br /><span style="font-family: georgia;">Last month Grant Roberts JP was castigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office; his [crime] misdemeanour was improper use of the internet insofar as, "had conducted an independent internet research on the defendant to assist him in reaching a decision." The full statement is available<a href="https://www.complaints.judicialconduct.gov.uk/disciplinarystatements/Statement3723/"> here</a>. From the report a couple of points emerge in addition to the matters of principle which I will address. It would seem that the legal advisor must have been present in the retiring room to hear the then "innocent" admission by Mr Grant. From My earliest days on the bench following the examples set by those senior to me whose abilities impressed me I would request legal advisors to leave the bench in private to discuss any matter which required a decision after of course we had been advised of any facet of the law which was or could be pertinent to the matter in hand. Once I had assumed the middle chair most L/As were content except one newbie who insisted she must be present as she had always been at her previous court. After much reluctance she left us to discuss a post trial decision. She was never to repeat her interloping whilst I was sitting. Of course the situation re Mr Grant might have hinged on an absent L/A being informed by the other winger or the Presiding Justice of his junior colleague`s supposed inadvertent error. <span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;"><br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #333333; text-align: justify;"><br /></span>Now let me offer a "what if" scenario which must occur at some if not many post trial decision making sessions. Every person in some form or another has specialist knowledge of something. At my former bench there were people from all backgrounds and occupations from bus driver to jeweller to teacher to builder to health professional etc. each with his/her own specialist knowledge; knowledge that others might need Mr Google to verify. The scenario continues: discussion centres around a witness`s oral statement which a bench member knows categorically is untrue. Does the magistrate inform his colleagues that with his undisputed knowledge the erroneous or lying evidence is false? If s/he does not and is questioned as to why he has come to a conclusion that perhaps is the minority conclusion a misjustice might have occurred. If, on the other hand, he does make his specialist knowledge of the topic a basis for bringing the false testimony to the discussion how different is that [in a particular case] much different from ascertaining a fact from the internet? <br /><br /></span></span><div><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">At this point I must make my own opinion clear. I remember exactly my own divulgence to my colleagues of a false statement made under oath by a defendant that I knew to be false from my professional expertise. My comment was recognised by my colleagues and adopted into our weighing the evidence. Was my action inappropriate? I did not consider it thus at the time and I haven`t changed </span></span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">my opinion.</span></div></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-18487528869869272752023-12-01T12:11:00.001+00:002023-12-01T12:11:35.829+00:00CAN JURIES SPURN THE LAW?<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5D0s2j1FlGqDhx1IQJoayslFMvpjp0nVU3ExIsH5rehCWjWQGE2b605ybVPsPFCqj_oDCzhmToWbv2DiXMOPxfb4plrTHQyV6-_a3snyGeoGkfMonIo9Ejvp0xPlXL0MPfsFm-RHErrM7zX9hr9zk2VTyCgyUcJz5VCmPpwErc58fj_raqMo55kTHn0Tu/s249/2%20FINGERS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="249" data-original-width="182" height="249" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj5D0s2j1FlGqDhx1IQJoayslFMvpjp0nVU3ExIsH5rehCWjWQGE2b605ybVPsPFCqj_oDCzhmToWbv2DiXMOPxfb4plrTHQyV6-_a3snyGeoGkfMonIo9Ejvp0xPlXL0MPfsFm-RHErrM7zX9hr9zk2VTyCgyUcJz5VCmPpwErc58fj_raqMo55kTHn0Tu/s1600/2%20FINGERS.jpg" width="182" /></a></div><div style="text-align: left;"><br /><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">A most interesting essay on whether juries can spurn the law in the Law Society Journal by Joshua Rosenberg can be read <a href="https://edition.pagesuite.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=4b262e04-f912-4f6f-841a-67d732a1440e&pnum=11&utm_source=gazette_newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Gazette+weekly+edition+1+December+2023_12%2f01%2f2023" target="_blank">here.</a> </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">In due course I hope to discuss this with relation to magistr</span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">ates.</span></div><p></p>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-27904121669202554692023-11-28T12:45:00.001+00:002023-11-28T16:46:47.021+00:00SECRECY AT PETTY FRANCE<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicJB132G_fn9pBGMwUSCpjye5Myp3uI3G-3DsVi0BRKi4E65e6X13i8wHS2cyD0rUyLbfoOYZVbnxp6OoB5os7fYshORwkvGWWiw8Ilk-br6qpzLC5OMDf0wk2e6PZm1Qazxqx5jg8NSx7zfqMOYxg7ueajr5ZAdjZxxCGVwRYWS0UMF9Q8iN7VCWYR9D7/s1160/PLAUSIBLE%20DENIAL.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="696" data-original-width="1160" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEicJB132G_fn9pBGMwUSCpjye5Myp3uI3G-3DsVi0BRKi4E65e6X13i8wHS2cyD0rUyLbfoOYZVbnxp6OoB5os7fYshORwkvGWWiw8Ilk-br6qpzLC5OMDf0wk2e6PZm1Qazxqx5jg8NSx7zfqMOYxg7ueajr5ZAdjZxxCGVwRYWS0UMF9Q8iN7VCWYR9D7/w400-h240/PLAUSIBLE%20DENIAL.jpg" width="400" /></a></div><br />If there is one factor above many others that serves to distinguish a totalitarian regime from what we loosely term a democratic nation it is openness. In this country it is exemplified by The Freedom of Information Act which was passed on 30 November 2000 in the first Labour government under Tony Blair. However in his memoirs of 2010 with a coalition government now installed he wrote, "“<i>Freedom of Information. Three harmless words. I look at those words as I write them, and feel like shaking my head till it drops off my shoulders. You idiot. You naive, foolish, irresponsible nincompoop. There is really no description of stupidity, no matter how vivid, that is adequate. I quake at the imbecility of it. Once I appreciated the full enormity of the blunder, I used to say – more than a little unfairly – to any civil servant who would listen: Where was Sir Humphrey when I needed him? We had legislated in the first throes of power. How could you, knowing what you know have allowed us to do such a thing so utterly undermining of sensible government?”</i></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">Tony Blair, A Journey, Hutchinson, September 2010</span></div><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">I suppose the underlying motivation for governments of all colours to withhold information from the public is that knowledge is power and the less power to the proles the better. The judicial system is a prime example of secrecy in power, for power by power. Magistrates are at the bottom of the pecking order and are supposed to represent a conduit between the professional government financed judiciary and the common folk who are suspected of law breaking. Despite having a hybrid status of themselves being common folk volunteering their time unpaid they are arguably subjected to higher degrees of the requirement to adhere to strict rules and regulations as to their conduct in court and out. When I was appointed both government and the Magistrates Association took great pride in the old English system of the magistracy with an emphasis on "local justice for local people" notwithstanding the fact that an increasing number of paid District Judges(MC) were being appointed with no concern for their or any geographical affiliations. At the receiving end of the system where those accused of transgressions in their judicial or personal activities are judged by the Judicial Conduct and Investigation Office the guilty, until very recently, were identified by name and the bench to which they belonged. That is now no longer the case. For those for any reason seeking to identify any Justice of the Peace admonished or worse by the JCIO some detective work is now required to identify the miscreant magistrates` localities as their bench is no longer identified. It seems that secrecy rules. The current inquiry into the handling of the Covid epidemic will be studied for years as to whether information withheld within and by government led to unnecessary fatalities. From top to bottom, from Number 10 to the lowliest PPS the order is plausible denial and obfuscation as a backstop. The JCIO gagging order is just another, if minor, worrying sign of a government covering as much of its backside as it can under the realisation that it will not be around much longer to cover its tracks. </span></p>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-46410877930255225472023-11-20T16:55:00.000+00:002023-11-20T16:55:12.151+00:00A PIPE DREAM<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwpjG_wL9WVV-2y6ce45Ac48AxY1167ZSjo2JVg-dI6xaMj39AEPebWjTo1_M5Bscsp_VTYYB0KWqkxyV5UxIZKg2Az1tzE9VPxX_ZX78XWtiBOSDMgsAVWpGfmsFOXbwOhrDLEcAGemzXWkKVTxrqD1r6euxF0bg2M7dnBulTkXUzcGJIM_BzgnAcBVAc/s1536/PIPE%20DREAM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="1041" data-original-width="1536" height="217" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjwpjG_wL9WVV-2y6ce45Ac48AxY1167ZSjo2JVg-dI6xaMj39AEPebWjTo1_M5Bscsp_VTYYB0KWqkxyV5UxIZKg2Az1tzE9VPxX_ZX78XWtiBOSDMgsAVWpGfmsFOXbwOhrDLEcAGemzXWkKVTxrqD1r6euxF0bg2M7dnBulTkXUzcGJIM_BzgnAcBVAc/s320/PIPE%20DREAM.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />When learned folk talk or write about "courts" more often or not the reference is to a court at the higher level of our jurisdiction system as opposed to the lower. A casual observer might opine that that is not surprising; the higher the level of jurisdiction the higher the level of prosecution or dispute when considering civil cases. For those very reasons tradition has made available a ladder to indicate the legal and/or intellectual prowess of those who keep warm the benches in these superior courts. We might then surmise that whilst a crown court judge in army terms is a major, a High Court judge is a colonel, an Appeal Court judge a lieutenant general and a judge of the Supreme Court a field marshall. Where does that leave the district judge and the lay magistrate? I would suggest the former is a sergeant and the latter a corporal who`s considered by his commanding officer to be capable of taking on the rank of sergeant. Those who appear before the lower court might be thought of as privates some of whom have disobeyed orders. They differ from real offenders in that their employer is also their judge and that employer wants to have them back at work as soon as possible whilst simultaneously ensuring that any punishment is seen as a deterrent to others who might err. In the real world the armed forces, to use the vernacular, have skin in the judicial and legal game. Not so our world. Those who formulate the criminal justice system are as distant from their final product as can be. After all Secretaries of Defence, Education, Health are at risk of trauma, children with poor arithmetic or language abilities and suffering poor health. They all have skin in the game but not judges or magistrates. They don`t fear being removed from office by the electorate; only by failing in a personal or professional capacity. And with a slight leap in imagination these sentencers are far removed from the results of application of sentences the design of which is increasingly able to be formulated by AI with little human input. Indeed a glance through the Sentencing Guidelines for eg <i>assault</i> requires but a modicum of original thought. It can be argued that the outcomes of sentencing exercises depend more on what`s inputted than what`s expected or hoped for as an output. <br /><br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Every day at magistrates courts there are examples of the self imposed limitations in the system. Indecent exposure and similar offences have been shown to be high risk factors for reoffending at a higher level of indecency or worse. <a href="https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/23897847.no-restraining-order-dickleburgh-naked-walker/" target="_blank">This offender</a> surely needs to be restricted in a secure establishment until his deviant tendencies can be considered cured. If a positive outcome is unobtainable the public must be protected; their importance and safety outweighs the freedom of such an individual to roam until further convictions. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Arson is a very serious offence but it is classified as an either way offence meaning it can be tried in the magistrates or crown court the lower court having a maximum sentence of only six months custody. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDcEOGCOs0x2HNSwFlZ1rKkJsWUjBJBdWhTBzi_QdM-BXD5rvGsYYVXgLrqKobMT-Day0v0kB79DXyzPoLC-83MP-LgrFM9VrXACgu87M94xyaMMkLVvHqkIIq2S9Z4csRQe-72zk5iN9wAyefOaKKyVZ8qenjSXsYKfeqGF5oYvZyfGvSyHcCUn-N4NSh/s1155/cat3.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="658" data-original-width="1155" height="364" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgDcEOGCOs0x2HNSwFlZ1rKkJsWUjBJBdWhTBzi_QdM-BXD5rvGsYYVXgLrqKobMT-Day0v0kB79DXyzPoLC-83MP-LgrFM9VrXACgu87M94xyaMMkLVvHqkIIq2S9Z4csRQe-72zk5iN9wAyefOaKKyVZ8qenjSXsYKfeqGF5oYvZyfGvSyHcCUn-N4NSh/w640-h364/cat3.jpg" width="640" /></a></div></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><br /></div></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">In my time on the bench I never sat on such a matter. Indeed I would suggest that few of my colleagues past or present have but at <a href="https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/south-shropshire/ludlow/2023/11/19/railway-station-arsonist-has-sentence-increased-after-failing-to-comply-with-punishment/" target="_blank">Kidderminster Magistrates Court</a> such a case was heard. Apparently considered as a Category 3 offence the offender is still free to continue his daily life. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">When six consecutive four week jail terms are handed out to an offender the seriousness becomes apparent but not so apparent that immediate custody was deemed suitable. That <a href="https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/local-hubs/telford/2023/11/19/driver-repeatedly-caught-at-the-wheel-while-disqualified-narrowly-avoids-immediate-jail/" target="_blank">get out of jail free card </a>was played also by the bench of Kidderminster Magistrates Court</span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: x-large;"> </span><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;">in the form of a suspended custodial sentence. </span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: medium;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia;"><span style="font-size: large;"><br /></span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">Finally an offender of no fixed abode requested an </span><a href="https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/crime/2023/11/20/homeless-man-asks-to-be-jailed-as-alternative-to-being-out-on-the-streets/" style="font-family: georgia;" target="_blank">immediate</a><span style="font-family: georgia;"> prison sentence, a request with which the court complied. </span></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It is common knowledge that there has been, is and will officially soon be a directive from the MOJ regarding the availability of custodial sentences for magistrates courts. As things stand now there is often little or no adequate outcome for many offenders. Around 3%-4% historically have received immediate custody orders and for those sentenced in the community, a blanket term with no meaning if ever there was one, a decimated probation service is generally all that is available to attempt rehabilitation by, inter alia, doing good works in the community. For others there are so called banning orders, courses in anger management, domestic abuse and other therapies. But in all these cases the offender is free to mix with the population. I have long advocated that an interim form of deprivation of freedom combined with professional therapists and trainers would fulfil that purpose. In Dickens` time it was called the workhouse {search box will identify previous posts on that word} and fulfilled the local needs as were considered then socially beneficial both to the receivers and the public. <br /><br />It is common sense and economically very sensible that protection of the public should be combined with remedial therapies to prevent re-offending. Until there is some fundamental way in which we govern ourselves I am realistic enough to be aware that such innovation will remain a pipe dream. </span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-5604450134548330322023-11-14T12:35:00.000+00:002023-11-14T12:35:40.459+00:00IS OPTIMISM ENOUGH TO SEE US THROUGH?<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZq-g7BetiGMkgE3p6jM2JTOo-mHMdDd_EXabocFABwplPBp2pttawzjjVkwKmKbiUbD6W_aX5iJTr7iCSgKSVPcPGkRqS2-gSLesrso5rRS_Tpd7TEdTvlVMcQwFRVMKwKRNGahXP1_c6NdPq0aR2K4Yeop2JsZ1su2Ja3_p4pSZwKxE2lJHt7CvWIQXY/s251/OPTIMISM%20PESSIMISM.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="201" data-original-width="251" height="513" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiZq-g7BetiGMkgE3p6jM2JTOo-mHMdDd_EXabocFABwplPBp2pttawzjjVkwKmKbiUbD6W_aX5iJTr7iCSgKSVPcPGkRqS2-gSLesrso5rRS_Tpd7TEdTvlVMcQwFRVMKwKRNGahXP1_c6NdPq0aR2K4Yeop2JsZ1su2Ja3_p4pSZwKxE2lJHt7CvWIQXY/w640-h513/OPTIMISM%20PESSIMISM.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />Today 14th November 2023 our Prime Minister in emphasising that his government was all set for "change" appointed a previous prime minister as Foreign Secretary; a prime minister who had resigned from parliament a few months after the result of his ill conceived ineptitude and dismal failure of his "referendum policy". Perhaps this single appointment sums up all the failings of the last 13 years. I have a picture in my head of a boy scout on an overnight expedition in self sufficiency being unable to light a campfire with a simple sparking kit and asks the scoutmaster for a box of matches. And so it is with magistrates courts. <br /><br />For many decades offenders at magistrates courts with few exceptions have been subject to legislation which limited sentencing powers to a maximum of six months custody. The Magistrates Association, a body ignored by increasing numbers of magistrates, has repeatedly pressed for that limit to be increased although no historic papers on that topic are available on its website which, for non members, is carefully edited to avoid controversy. But as with many aspects of all our lives the Covid epidemic changed all that. The ruthless pruning of court buildings from 2010 [300 to 150] and the ignoring of the situation in that year when it was predicted that almost half of magistrates would be retired within a decade threw all previous assumptions on prison capacity into turmoil. There is an old adage, <i>what goes around comes around. </i>Another that seems suitably appropriate is the Conservative Party`s <i>chickens have come home to roost. </i>We are now on the 11th Secretary of State for Justice/Lord Chancellor since 2010 proof if it were needed that with the confusion, obfuscation and crass intellectual failings in Petty France the law `n order banner of the Tory Party is well and truly shredded. In an attempt to repair that once upon a time headline policy of safeguarding the nation`s streets from crime the delayed realisation that there is simply no prison space remaining and no time before a general election to build more prison accommodation the government has decided to march magistrates courts sentencing powers not just up the sentencing hill and then march them down again but to march them underground. <b>On 2 May 2022, the Government gave Magistrates the power to impose a sentence of up to 12-months' custody for a single triable either way offence (Section 224(1A) of the Sentencing Act 2020 inserted by section 13(1)(b) of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022). </b>{my <b>bold</b>} The government justification for this increased sentencing limit is available<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/magistrates-to-help-tackle-backlog-as-sentencing-powers-doubled" target="_blank"> here. </a> The Magistrates Association was quick to respond to the extended sentencing powers of May 2022. <i> "We advocated for an extension to magistrates’ sentencing powers for more than a decade to help speed up justice for complainants and defendants. It’s anticipated that 1,700 days of crown court time will be freed up every year now that magistrates can hear more cases." </i><br /><br />On 22nd March this year the well respected <a href="https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/34538/documents/190150/default/" target="_blank">House of Commons Justice Committee</a> wrote to the then Lord Chancellor. A week later magistrates courts were marched down again. <b> <u>The Sentencing Act 2020 (Magistrates' Court Sentencing Powers) (Amendment) Regulations 2023, authorised by Mr Mike Freer, amended section 224(1A)(b) of the Sentencing Act 2020, reducing the maximum sentence for an either way offence from 12 to 6 months. The change came into force on 30 March 2023</u>. </b> {my<u> underline</u>} Once again the Magistrates Association responded by saying it (The Magistrates Association) expressed disappointment about the reversal, cautioned about resignations, and said it would be urging the Government to restore the extended powers as soon as possible.<i><br /></i><br />In 2021 a poll indicated that the public thought that sentences had been shortened but in fact crown court sentences had increased. Indeed the prison population has increased by 20% in the last 20 years. The inevitable result of this crass mismanagement is that this dying administration has concluded that sentencing reform is a pre requisite for any other reforms to the prison problem. The government is the maker of its own misfortune. Sentencing reform means promotion of community sentences tough enough to punish, deter and rehabilitate. This sounds simple enough but requires a reinvigorated probation service already decimated by probably the most incompetent Justice Secretary this country has ever experienced, Chris Grayling. To that end we can only hope there is a basis for optimism. <br /><br />But for magistrates there is more to come. Last week the King`s Speech had something interesting within its many bland pronouncements: "<i>To address recent concerns about prison capacity and reoffending, Mr Chalk has stated the government would legislate to introduce a presumption that custodial sentences of less than 12 months would be suspended.[33] Offenders would instead serve their punishment in the community. Mr Chalk said the government did not plan to dispense with short sentences completely because a custodial sentence would remain the appropriate sanction in some circumstances</i>."<br /><br />So there in brief, we have it. A justice system in its death throes, its death having been inflicted by a thousand self inflicted cuts. Were an individual to inflict such mutilation on her/himself or another s/he would be immediately sectioned. Defence, Health and Education have their own stories of blundering, mindless, gross and asinine inefficiencies and mismanagement. For all our futures 😱 is no help. Optimism is part of human nature. I hope it`s enough to see us through. ☝</span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p>.</p>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-74291290332266598992023-11-07T13:38:00.001+00:002023-11-07T14:28:42.909+00:00IS THE BLINDFOLDED METROPOLITAN POLICE INSTITUTIONALLY ANTISEMITIC?<div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnbBN3AkOrNhWmcbRq4YlCSXsyQnLrPtKvLqNNfytv9XDeo5iGoOZB2CPzZruHLM4nzGBhFHXLbNP2DERkwuG4bwhVZC_hDvH4m23me9vOuAHe-dSEK7dx11iAUefn9S7IibvOzhWpVadxiDpIDWdi3RmLlk6CxXmFkbbHwIfxPT5FFdZi2aBJwQhzweGw/s675/BLINDFOLD%20POLICE.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="675" data-original-width="672" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnbBN3AkOrNhWmcbRq4YlCSXsyQnLrPtKvLqNNfytv9XDeo5iGoOZB2CPzZruHLM4nzGBhFHXLbNP2DERkwuG4bwhVZC_hDvH4m23me9vOuAHe-dSEK7dx11iAUefn9S7IibvOzhWpVadxiDpIDWdi3RmLlk6CxXmFkbbHwIfxPT5FFdZi2aBJwQhzweGw/s320/BLINDFOLD%20POLICE.jpg" width="319" /></a></div><br />The term "hate crime" is now, I suppose, recognised by all those who have a finger on the pulse of UK social mores and is now a common charge heard at magistrates courts. In the year ending March 2023, there were 145,214 hate crimes recorded by the police in England and Wales (excluding Devon and Cornwall police) a decrease of 5% from the year ending March 2022 (153,536 offences) the first fall since the comparable time series began in the year ending March 2013. Prior to the fall seen this year police recorded hate crime offences rose between the years ending 2013 and 2022; this prolonged period of increasing offences was thought to have been driven by improvements in crime recording by the police and better identification of what constitutes a hate crime. There were 101,906 race hate crimes, a fall of 6% from the previous year when there were 108,476 offences: this was driven by a decrease in racially or religiously aggravated public fear, alarm or distress offences. As in previous years the majority of hate crimes were racially motivated accounting for 7 in 10 of all such offences (70%; 101,906 offences). Religious hate crimes decreased by 4% from 8,602 to 8,241 offences. In the light of current events the next set of religious hate crime figures will be interesting. </span><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /><br /></span></div><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Latest figures suggest that there are 3.9 million declared Muslims in England representing 6.5% of the population and 271,000 Jews representing 0.50% of the population. The number and proportion of religious hate crimes recorded by the police, by the perceived targeted religion, year ending March 2023 was 3,400 concerning Muslims 44% of the total and related to Jews 1,510 equating to 19% of the total 7,756 such offences. One doesn`t need to be a mathematician to note that the level of hate crimes against Jews is out of all proportion to their numbers in the population. What can be assumed is that these crimes can be constituted under the term <i>antisemitism</i>. <br /><br />When it comes to the prosecution of hate crime the Crown Prosecution Service works to the following guidance:- such crimes are covered by legislation (Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and section 66 of the Sentencing Act 2020) which allows prosecutors to apply for an uplift in sentence for those convicted of a hate crime including of course crime based on religion. For a complete understanding of CPS guidance on religious hate crime there are tens of thousands of words to read<a href="https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/racist-and-religious-hate-crime-prosecution-guidance" target="_blank"> here</a>.<br /><br />Generally until October 7th Muslims regarded themselves [and the statistics seem to bear this out] as the pre eminent victims of religious hate crime. Since that dreadful day; dreadful in the eyes of most right thinking observers but justified in the minds of those eaten up by a combination of Marxist Islamist propaganda, Tweeters with nazi sympathies and the gorgeous luvvies who follow every progressive trend, have demonstrated hate crime at levels unknown in this country for 70 years. It has been allowed to fester with little application of the law available to prevent it. Crowds of estimated 100,000 have twice thronged London`s parliamentary area behaving in a manner not conducive to public order but arrests were relatively few at only 29. In contrast Jewish assemblies at Trafalgar and Parliament Square by up to 4,000 peaceful demonstrators required police only to protect them unlike the marches where thousands from the Met and beyond were summoned to ensure that there should be no disturbance to the King`s peace. Of the weekend just gone the Independent reports, <br />" <i>29 arrests were made in the capital, including two people on suspicion of breaching the Terrorism Act over the wording of banners at the event. A man suspected of making anti-Semitic comments in a speech was also arrested suspicion of inciting racial hatred, while three others were arrested on suspicion of assaulting a police officer. Later in the evening, police said some demonstrators launched fireworks into crowds and toward officers, resulting in a dispersal order being issued to clear the area.</i>" Can it be assumed that all the others involved were not considered as having broken the law? I would suggest no. The Met Police have been overwhelmed and face in my opinion a charge of institutional antisemitism insofar as their application of the laws available to them has been lax to say the least. <br /><br />Notwithstanding the above when it comes to perceived criticism of Muslims in one form or another police in all regions are not slow to invoke that legislation which had been ignored over the last few weeks in relation to the war against Hamas. Quoting direct from the CPS website:-<br />"<i>An MP has been found guilty of racially abusing a member of the public today (3 November 2023) at Westminster Magistrates’ Court after a one-day trial. Robert Stewart MP, was convicted of a racially aggravated public order offence after he told a member of the public to go back to his country, demonstrating racial hostility likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to those present at the time. He was attending an event hosted by the Government of Bahrain when he used racist language towards the victim outside of the venue. Stewart was fined £600, which the court said would have been £400 had it not been for the seriousness of the hate crime he committed. Claire Walsh, of the CPS, said: “The court has found today that Robert Stewart's language amounted to a racially aggravated offence. "His claim that his words were misinterpreted were rejected by the court in light of evidence presented by the CPS, including footage filmed by a witness and the victim's testimony</i>. “<i>Hatred of any kind has no place in society and wherever our legal test is met, the CPS will not hesitate to prosecute those who perpetrate hate crimes.</i>" A report from LBC is available <a href="https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/tory-mp-bob-stewart-guilty-racial-abuse-activist-go-back-bahrain/" target="_blank">here</a>. Readers will or have decided whether the application of hate crime legislation is partial or impartial. <br /><br />Police have been observed tearing down posters in London and elsewhere of pictures of children kidnapped into Gaza by Hamas terrorists. Their response has been that their action was to prevent public disorder. So the assumption must be that police consider an image in a legally allowed public space of a kidnapped child is a provocation for some misguided people to be disorderly or commit a public order offence. The latest news on forthcoming protests scheduled for this Sunday November 12th Armistice Day is that the Metropolitan Police have asked the organiser of a proposed march on that day to postpone it. That request has been <a href="https://news.sky.com/story/met-asks-pro-palestininan-protesters-to-urgently-reconsider-armistice-day-march-13002192" target="_blank">refused</a>. </span><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">I</span><span style="font-family: georgia;">f the Met has made it clear (and it has) why it considers the protest should not take place on Sunday why does it not ban it for those very reasonable fears? Jews and many others will have their opinions. Thank you for giving a few minutes of your time to read mine. </span></span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: medium;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-14234251618972209272023-10-31T11:53:00.000+00:002023-10-31T11:53:19.652+00:00POSSIBLE EMPLOYERS` PROBLEMS WITH NON DISCLOSURE OF SPENT CONVICTIONS<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMOoNxgIWyL02nxZJaFOd4VN0lSo3d-pbjklu4gdAiiSGrYpk053lbhw1Vlv9mtSXxEGSFes9QJmM0riQvKvAsgxvA2VVbOuh0SSl-hxpyEGCFtw3vLLmbvVgF4XmcIqnz_oVV2aighp9DxyHjP_podRQDBrQ1ADJtKEL7PVrTuznIMdOVTe4d2MP9Bw4f/s1136/SPENT%20CONVICTIONS.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="708" data-original-width="1136" height="398" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhMOoNxgIWyL02nxZJaFOd4VN0lSo3d-pbjklu4gdAiiSGrYpk053lbhw1Vlv9mtSXxEGSFes9QJmM0riQvKvAsgxvA2VVbOuh0SSl-hxpyEGCFtw3vLLmbvVgF4XmcIqnz_oVV2aighp9DxyHjP_podRQDBrQ1ADJtKEL7PVrTuznIMdOVTe4d2MP9Bw4f/w640-h398/SPENT%20CONVICTIONS.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />Yesterday the government announced that many released prisoners will no longer be required to disclose to prospective employers their convictions. The press release is available <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/barrier-to-employment-lifted-for-thousands-of-ex-offenders?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=govuk-notifications-topic&utm_source=1f5128e6-c73a-49a1-9d1b-5bad6b20cb48&utm_content=daily" target="_blank">here.</a> <br /><br />The reasoning for such a major change is that in the government`s eyes by having "a steady income, routine and purpose reoffending is cut and fewer members of the public will becomes victims of crime". The government has estimated that the changes will assist about 125,000 in gaining employment. Ostensibly this policy change appears to be of benefit to society as a whole; after all re-offending increases strain on all the justice services from police to courts, to probation and finally to a prison system at the point of collapse. But what of the unmentioned factor in all this ; the employer. A notable supporter of this policy is likely to be the boss of Timpsons, a long established retailer specialising in shoe repairs and key cutting whose 2000+ little shops cover the country. But what of the small firm whose boss is likely to be hands on from interviewing candidates to being last one to lock the door at night. S/he will be unaware of the real gap in a prospective employee`s history if said person lies about his patchy CV. If said person upon being employed commits eg theft or burglary on the premises will his insurance company pay out for a claim? If said employee brings to the job an illegal habit he had hidden and is subsequently fired what would be the situation re a possible claim against the employer? Especially in small towns there might be those employed who harbour grudges against third parties or themselves be the subject of discrimination from those who had suffered in some way from the employee prior to employment. <br /><br />There are many hoops through which an employer must jump to be on the right side of employment legislation. As it stands this relaxation of disclosure requirements adds a further difficulty. It also might lead to employers making assumptions on a genuine gap in an applicant`s CV for various reasons and lead them to assume the worst when such assumptions are simply wrong. Of course somebody with a history of a prison record under this legislation need not remain silent and could admit his/her "spent" convictions. Like much hasty legislation that has emerged from this government the knock on effects are likely to be considerable and a surprise to some. </span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p><br /></p>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-13629461275313269422023-10-24T14:24:00.002+01:002023-10-24T16:39:28.075+01:00POLICE ACTION AND INCREASING INACTION<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXS57a5v_xMNnJvkyh3rPm5whTKLIfuqqytfqtS9iCmPlzrOQlbRidJ2mkHa6aYJhdnoHepGktukRPPmIJJNJDE-1amWXzUIhw0sOjuxTpjQKW-T3hrNmtgPvPeusuzgSKYK_IkUaho0eWuyrHTKQlephyUfEv5XzCzIN3cM6OKONrnyKRubzgZHV1BqR_/s750/BLACKBOARD%20POLICE.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="590" data-original-width="750" height="252" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgXS57a5v_xMNnJvkyh3rPm5whTKLIfuqqytfqtS9iCmPlzrOQlbRidJ2mkHa6aYJhdnoHepGktukRPPmIJJNJDE-1amWXzUIhw0sOjuxTpjQKW-T3hrNmtgPvPeusuzgSKYK_IkUaho0eWuyrHTKQlephyUfEv5XzCzIN3cM6OKONrnyKRubzgZHV1BqR_/s320/BLACKBOARD%20POLICE.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />As an interested non legally qualified person I suppose the legislation under which we are all governed and have requirement to obey is only as efficient as those who draft it and those who indicate their approval by voting for it as it passes its various stages in parliament. And so we have the Public Order Act the terms of which have caused a difference of opinion between the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Prime Minister. In the light of current events it is helpful to know the sections in question: <b>[my bold]</b></span></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">1Riot.<br />(1)Where 12 or more persons who are present together use or threaten unlawful violence for a common purpose and the conduct of them (taken together) is such as would cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for his personal safety, each of the persons using unlawful violence for the common purpose is guilty of riot.<br />(2)It is immaterial whether or not the 12 or more use or threaten unlawful violence simultaneously.<br />(3)The common purpose may be inferred from conduct.<br /><b>(4)No person of reasonable firmness need actually be, or be likely to be, present at the scene.<br /></b>(5)Riot may be committed in private as well as in public places.<br />(6)A person guilty of riot is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or a fine or both.</span></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-size: medium;">18 Use of words or behaviour or display of written material.<br /><b>(1)A person who uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, abusive or insulting, is guilty of an offence if—<br /></b><b>(a)he intends thereby to stir up racial hatred, or<br /></b><b>(b)having regard to all the circumstances racial hatred is likely to be stirred up thereby.<br /></b>(2)An offence under this section may be committed in a public or a private place, except that no offence is committed where the words or behaviour are used, or the written material is displayed, by a person inside a dwelling and are not heard or seen except by other persons in that or another dwelling.<br />(3)F65. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .<br />(4)In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to prove that he was inside a dwelling and had no reason to believe that the words or behaviour used, or the written material displayed, would be heard or seen by a person outside that or any other dwelling.<br />(5)A person who is not shown to have intended to stir up racial hatred is not guilty of an offence under this section if he did not intend his words or behaviour, or the written material, to be, and was not aware that it might be, threatening, abusive or insulting.<br />(6)This section does not apply to words or behaviour used, or written material displayed, solely for the purpose of being included in a programme [F66included in a programme service].</span></div><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It is s.18 which has been widely quoted by some media commentators more qualified than I. It appears that much of the argument centres around the meaning of the Arabic term "<a href="https://www.unaoc.org/repository/Esposito_Jihad_Holy_Unholy.pdf" target="_blank">JIHAD</a>". Below I`ve copied the 3rd paragraph on the first page of this most informative essay. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><i>"Since the late 20th century, the word jihad has gained remarkable currency: used by resistance, liberation, and terrorist movements alike to legitimate their cause and motivate their followers. The Afghan Mujahiddin, the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, have waged a jihad in Afghanistan against foreign powers and among themselves; Muslims in Kashmir, Chechnya, Daghestan and the southern Philippines, Bosnia and Kosovo have fashioned their struggles as jihads; <b>Hizbollah, HAMAS, and Islamic Jihad Palestine have characterized war with Israel as a jihad; </b>Algeria’s Armed Islamic Group has engaged in a jihad of terror against the government there and Osama Bin Laden and al-Qaeda have waged a global jihad against Muslim governments and the West."</i></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Other learned experts have offered definitions similar to the author of the above. The argument of the Commissioner seems to revolve around the various definitions. There can be little doubt that these disagreements of the semantics are a get out of jail free card by the Commissioner to avoid taking action against those who knew exactly what they meant and whose audience amidst their cheering knew that also.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">The other argument used although I have not seen the exact clause or section stated explicitly is that for presumably s.1 to be used the subjected individual must be "present at the scene." In other words the offence cannot be committed in a vacuum. This begs the question. There is an old adage; <i>can a rose be red at night? </i>The basis of this is that the rose has colour only when light is reflected from it, such light entering a human eye which has the ability to determine the wavelength interpreted by the brain as "colour". Is the intrinsic value of the rose red or is it a subjective appreciation the reality of which requires that above mentioned eye to validate it? Imagine two observers of the rose one of whom suffers from a colour blindness where red and green are indistinguishable. In daylight to that person the idea of "red" is incomprehensible. However when both observers view the rose at night they experience the same subjective result; the rose is lacking colour to both. They will see a similar shade of grey. The rose of course is unchanged: its molecular structure is unchanged, its shape is unchanged ; it is the same rose as it was before sunset. And so with s.1. Let the legal eagles of government and the Commissioner accept the worldly view of the Muslims involved and present, and non Muslims {Jews} who were not, that the definition of Jihad is as above then the requirements to charge have been met. But no action was taken and reasons for that are disingenuous in the extreme. The plain truth is that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, some Chief Constables and the Crown Prosecution Service were fearful of causing upset or worse in a crowd of 100,000 people, a sizeable proportion of which they considered might have become violent. That is a perfectly reasonable position for police to have taken and for observers to have understood. The trouble is, as in so many cases, police action [remember the vigil in memory of Sarah Everard kidnapped, raped and killed by a firearms licensed police officer when Met Police brutally broke up a peaceful gathering mainly of women] or inaction is condemned only many months later when uniformed weasels make non apology apologies. This weekend`s inaction is one of those occasions. It follows the evening of 2/12/21 when Jewish teenagers were <a href="https://www.thejc.com/news/uk/bbc-amend-article-suggesting-victims-of-oxford-street-antisemitism-used-racial-slurs-1.523267" target="_blank">wrongly accused</a> of provocative words and/or acts which provoked assault by Muslims. The crime was <a href="https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/oxford-street-attack-29-november-2021" target="_blank">never solved</a> although how deeply the Met investigated is a moot point. Another deeply disturbing inaction was in May 2021 when a convey of cars containing Palestinian supporters with flags being waved out of the windows drove along Finchley Road in north London; a busy main road in an area with a high Jewish population. Nobody has appeared in court for these activities. When consideration is given to these and other incidents involving Jews and Muslims the<a href="https://www.hamhigh.co.uk/news/23139381.finchley-road-convoy-antisemitism-charges-dropped/" target="_blank"> reticence</a> of police action is there for all to see. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">We are unfortunate in experiencing a government in disarray seeking desperately which avenues it might choose to alleviate a probable humbling next year at the ballot box. If it decides that facing up to the political advancement of Islamist Hamas supporting politicking is a vote winner then that might be a single decision which benefits all of us who have taken for granted that our western Judeo Christian civilisation can continue even when social and medieval ideas and practices from the backwoods of Pakistan are gaining traction amongst many. </span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">FYI below is the statement [relevant section] that the Met Police put out to explain their non action.</span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></p><p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJqC6c3MbHljxeuO6Wze5UBCSJI3YK35Hz25bvrY75VW9lGoFNqDp7lhZX9FlnwVOM6rnh6rZnxMdJLnqvxIAjWuCL4MCtG4qaZFI2cKZMlzRNy5mamwVkVilvYo7SdGhikUsjhPN5tbJ3xL1kF1ll4C4Qea7P7PipL35WPwyYMf8eUKEUxRrYPC7OcBq/s774/MET%20POLICE.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="680" data-original-width="774" height="562" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgWJqC6c3MbHljxeuO6Wze5UBCSJI3YK35Hz25bvrY75VW9lGoFNqDp7lhZX9FlnwVOM6rnh6rZnxMdJLnqvxIAjWuCL4MCtG4qaZFI2cKZMlzRNy5mamwVkVilvYo7SdGhikUsjhPN5tbJ3xL1kF1ll4C4Qea7P7PipL35WPwyYMf8eUKEUxRrYPC7OcBq/w640-h562/MET%20POLICE.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span><p></p>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-18172744142347228832023-10-17T14:40:00.001+01:002023-10-17T14:40:28.543+01:00OUR JUSTICE SERVICE//WORRYING TIMES AHEAD<div style="text-align: left;"> <div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMe8gn2C8sSCZFA5FkHzRUMBsPuysz_b1ZR_9y1dRUwKFGCV0MzRSMB_4qpnECHbMBh4mYLGM4TT3WqTxyfKIT2LsXMwFYcfk_ld3_-mRHecZiROeqcBWnUV8slAzEsWsArxQmYjP59ms-JoPFopLwHqd9xeWrZtpIkti3zXPdJuLrg0JKtxDYe0rAk9q4/s275/WORRY.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="426" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjMe8gn2C8sSCZFA5FkHzRUMBsPuysz_b1ZR_9y1dRUwKFGCV0MzRSMB_4qpnECHbMBh4mYLGM4TT3WqTxyfKIT2LsXMwFYcfk_ld3_-mRHecZiROeqcBWnUV8slAzEsWsArxQmYjP59ms-JoPFopLwHqd9xeWrZtpIkti3zXPdJuLrg0JKtxDYe0rAk9q4/w640-h426/WORRY.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br /><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">There are various definitions of what constitutes a justice system. I suppose the following is as good as any:- <b style="font-style: italic;">a set of government institutions and systems whose purpose is to apprehend, prosecute, punish, and rehabilitate criminal offenders. </b>From that in simple terms the requirements are a police service, a courts service, a prison service and a probation service. When a Secretary of State for Justice following on from the incompetence of his erstwhile colleagues in the Home Office in emasculating the police finally makes public what has been going on behind closed doors of Petty France are we to be astonished or relieved? <br /><br />To help clear the crown court backlog repeat shoplifters could be prevented from requesting trial by jury as the charge is being removed from those termed "either way". Those on remand whilst awaiting sentence for serious crimes e.g. rape might be free to walk the streets. Ministers are considering that prison recalls might be scrapped and early release increased. It`s not unlikely that after the flip flop on magistrates` sentencing powers the pendulum will swing the other way but more of that later. <br /><br />147,000 police officers in 2010 were reduced to 120,000 by 2019. Since then frantic efforts to recruit have been made by the Home Office. The result is thousands of ill equipped officers mentally and physically are on our streets. The average attrition rate in 2022 was calculated to be 9.1%, or 2,567 leavers out of 28,173 recruits. Excluding transfers 9,347 police officers left the 43 territorial forces in England and Wales in 2022/23, the highest number in a financial year since comparable headcount data began in 2006/07. Until last year, retirement was the dominant reason for losing officers but now most choose to quit following warnings of rising anger over pay, working conditions and treatment by the government. It won`t have gone unnoticed that every week or so we read of heinous criminality of police officers being investigated. No wonder police morale must be at an all time low which hardly makes for public confidence in the system. <br /><br />I would suggest that over the last decade all manner of instructions have been relayed to magistrates [and of course District Judges MC] to avoid immediate custodial sentences except when absolutely necessary. The reasons are diverse. Since 2010 half the magistrates courts in England and Wales have closed. From around 29,000 magistrates in that year there are now under 13,000. The notorious variable and various statistics on criminality since 2010 are no help in understanding why there were 347,820 outstanding cases at magistrates courts at 30/09/2022; that in 2022 the custody rate at these courts fell by 1%. For the year ended June 2022 926,689 offenders were sentenced at magistrates courts of whom 24,455 {2.64%} received immediate custody and 21,332 custody suspended {2.3%}. In 2022 the average custodial sentence was 3.2 months. On 2 May 2022 the Government gave magistrates the power to impose a sentence of up to 12-months' custody for a single triable either way offence (Section 224(1A) of the Sentencing Act 2020 inserted by section 13(1)(b) of the Judicial Review and Courts Act 2022). On 30 March 2023 those powers of increased sentencing were removed. The Criminal Bar Association (CBA), which represents barristers, had previously criticised the plan and said it could increase the risk of people being jailed for short sentences, piling further pressure on prisons. The Magistrates Association said it was “incredibly disappointed” at the decision – which it said was after efforts to cut prison overcrowding – and warned it would “slow down justice”. The above numbers are to give only a flavour of the current situation. If ever there was a clear example of the disarray within the MOJ the Duke of York`s sentencing march up the hill and down again must be it. Combined with statistical analyses which need staticians to explore, only the most dysfunctional aspects of that courts system are easily interrogated. <br /><br />And so to the prison service under the control also of the MOJ. The ups and downs, ins and outs, to and fros of prisons, prisoners, prison officers and governors is a total shambles. Apparently the cells in magistrates courts are being made available for the prison service. Poorly remunerated staff are on record levels of sick leave resulting in their charges being locked in their cells for over 20 hours a day. I have visited both Pentonville jail [built in 1840] and Wandsworth [built in 1849] to hold 1,000 prisoners. It now has an official capacity of around 1,600 across five wings but inspections have consistently found it to be overcrowded with between 60% to 80% more inmates than it was designed for. In 2020/21, 24.4 percent of offenders who were released from custody in England and Wales went on to reoffend. In 2010 the rate was 31%. Much can be read into this apparent "improvement". I am neither a statistician, criminologist, social worker nor probation officer by training but considering all the surrounding numbers of what happens before, during and after an offence such numbers are observational only. It is little wonder that with a disillusioned and broken probation service as a result of the MOJ Secretary Chris Grayling`s "reforms" in 2014 only to be reversed in 2020, rehabilitation is a work in progress.<br /><br />Faith or trust in a justice system is a pillar of any democratic society. There have been in the last decade many instances where people`s confidences have been shaken and stirred. The estimated 50% - 60% of our population who have never had any dealings with the courts professionally or otherwise cannot be expected to have strong opinions but for those of us who should know better, worrying times ahead are already in view. </span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-68204064617117062612023-10-10T12:42:00.000+01:002023-10-10T12:42:56.596+01:00THE PARADOX OF PRESERVING A DEMOCRACY<p><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"></span></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEaWtnylw0lPGhWsqsbucKWHaOcEpvLvvmjfrHbSk6_F4gSfIp5sDaAej_1hHvUiy5A6r1dmd3YvD3IJvfMqhB-pU88K8G3l2hkOgKrGtMDXakijFJF0Lae8i4FxiM3xqg3YJRKr3eHOobKngVSEYYET7B2PQXQ4tUbOtiaJ2YCraf6SOwOUc0TcU9C4gQ/s600/Paris-Commune-barricade.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="381" data-original-width="600" height="406" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhEaWtnylw0lPGhWsqsbucKWHaOcEpvLvvmjfrHbSk6_F4gSfIp5sDaAej_1hHvUiy5A6r1dmd3YvD3IJvfMqhB-pU88K8G3l2hkOgKrGtMDXakijFJF0Lae8i4FxiM3xqg3YJRKr3eHOobKngVSEYYET7B2PQXQ4tUbOtiaJ2YCraf6SOwOUc0TcU9C4gQ/w640-h406/Paris-Commune-barricade.jpg" width="640" /></a></span></div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br />This blog usually comments on matters relating to the law in general and magistrates in particular. Occasionally however there are events and/or circumstances that supercede such limitations. The dreadful events of the last three days constitute such circumstances. </span><p></p><p><br /></p><p><span style="font-size: large;"><span style="font-family: georgia;">On 26th November 2021 the Islamist terrorist group Hamas become a proscribed terrorist organisation in the UK in its entirety, following Parliament’s approval of an Order which was laid in Parliament a week previously. This means that members of Hamas or those who invite support for the group could be jailed for up to 14 years. That seems simple enough but like so much legal drafting it leaves interpretation to the courts. On 9th October Sky News broadcast a live interview with the Head of Political and International Relations in Hamas, Dr Basem Naim during which he denied that any Israeli civilians were killed. According to his perverted thinking all Israeli citizens are military targets. That interview can be viewed </span><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Egipqa0ZhUk" style="font-family: georgia;" target="_blank">here</a><span style="font-family: georgia;">. I am old enough to remember that during the height of the Troubles in Northern Ireland from October 1988 to September 1994 the British government banned broadcasts of the voices of representatives from Sinn Féin and several Irish republican and loyalist groups on television and radio in the United Kingdom. Margaret Thatcher initiated this ban. Considering the IRA was close to blowing her up in Brighton her personal feelings must have been disturbed to say the least. Her thinking seems to have been that such people can be seen but not heard. In not banning images I suppose she considered that she was still allowing freedom of speech; a pillar of our democracy. It was a foolish compromise and was widely mocked. Three decades later the security situation is quite different. 9/11 in the USA and 7/7 here have exposed an awful weakness; a weakness and paradox all democratic nations eventually have to face. Can a democratic society like the UK refrain from using autocratic ways and means to protect that self same democracy from falling to forces of anarchy and terror? If we have not reached that point we are close to it. The previously mentioned interview was a soundbite for the approval and praise for murdering Jews. (I write "Jews" and not Israelis. The murderers knew that many of their victims and hostages were from foreign countries.) That interview should not have been broadcast. </span></span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br />In our midst we have seen TV footage of screaming fanatical Muslims in Manchester, Liverpool and London not only castigating Israel but repeatedly calling for the elimination of the State of Israel as an entity because calling for a Palestine from the river to the sea means just that: a Palestine occupying all the land from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea. Looting a kosher restaurant in the high street of Golders Green shows how perilously close these Islamists are to emulating albeit on a very small scale so far the actions of the Nazis in 1938 Germany. The full force of existing law must be brought to bear on them. So far Scotland Yard is showing a reluctance to considering that hate crimes are taking place. The paradox of preserving a democracy by undemocratic means is ever closer. The history of Paris after 1789 should be compulsory reading for all politicians. </span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-59962055232235401632023-10-03T14:45:00.000+01:002023-10-03T14:45:39.973+01:00SHEEP AND THE POLITICIANS WHO CRY WOLF<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4iGJbd3amoT7czn6v154oLCm2IkwZe_-2Zca5AfqLB8himbnlSl0gtpHbE7mngdoEfRT6DdnbJZ-_mrqzuA6PcPIXbT4IaBHA-0pqRpyhHZT451LOXWvy0UYzPsG9hJ9lj6v5T4Pv_CU3yK3n6Jrn_scKkhFzlBiS9PCvUHBEpnMjrqBxvwyHih1s8N1t/s284/BOY%20WHO%20CRIED%20WOLF%202.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="177" data-original-width="284" height="399" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh4iGJbd3amoT7czn6v154oLCm2IkwZe_-2Zca5AfqLB8himbnlSl0gtpHbE7mngdoEfRT6DdnbJZ-_mrqzuA6PcPIXbT4IaBHA-0pqRpyhHZT451LOXWvy0UYzPsG9hJ9lj6v5T4Pv_CU3yK3n6Jrn_scKkhFzlBiS9PCvUHBEpnMjrqBxvwyHih1s8N1t/w640-h399/BOY%20WHO%20CRIED%20WOLF%202.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />Notwithstanding the tens of thousands of individuals who are even loosely termed "court workers" the only people remotely interested in what goes on in the magistrates courts are perhaps just a few thousand who work in the mainly print media and of those the majority don`t work for the Daily Mail or The Times or other mass media; they work for the hundreds of local media companies struggling to financially survive against a tsunami of sometimes unregulated competitors on and off line. Local magistrates court reporting remains one of the few activities where such businesses provide information services which are usually unobtainable elsewhere. Having myself, from time to time whilst active as a presiding magistrate, been the subject [albeit with the offender] of such reports I have nothing but admiration for those undertaking this work. There is still a majority of the British public without their name on the police national computer. Unless involved academically these law abiding citizens have absolutely no conception of how the law works in the 97% of criminal cases which begin and are concluded in the magistrates courts until, of course, they are themselves accused of offending. The pressure and lobbying organisation Transform Justice has, for that very reason, initiated a court watchers group to inform on such proceedings. My opinion in that regard is that the project has merit but care should be taken by these folk that reporting on the court is one thing; offering opinion is another and I have noted that sometimes the twain are confused. Arguably no topic within the legal system is perhaps as significant as sentencing although it`s fair to add that the whole system rather like the concrete used to construct some of the court buildings has been crumbling from the top for over a decade: 2010 to be precise. <br /><br />From time to time I have offered cases where the invisible directive from the MOJ for sentencers to keep out of jail many who should be behind bars borders on political arrogance taking we the public for idiots. Politicians preach hard guidance and courts apply hand wringing misplaced benevolence. Below are just a pitiful few recent examples where the sentence does anything but fit the crime.<br /><br />The dreadful cases of murder and rapes by serving Metropolitan Police officers and others provided a well earned shock to authorities who have shouted loudly that such cases, the tip of a known iceberg, will in future be treated with the severity they deserve. One such observation was that indecent exposure, an offence which most magistrates have had to listen to, would no longer be treated as a relatively minor offence. It would be treated as an indication that the offender was on an unstable ladder likely for him to lead to falling further into depravity. <a href="https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/sarah-everard-we-still-treat-indecent-exposure-as-merely-a-nuisance-offence" target="_blank">Academic studies</a> have justified this reasoning. A sex offender denied his guilt until the day of his trial when he admitted indecent exposure to a 14 year old girl. Not only was that cowardly delay likely to have caused even more distress to the child his late guilty plea was of no avail insofar as he was sentenced to virtually the maximum available to the bench; 23 weeks but against all logic it was suspended. Obviously only those in the courtroom heard all the evidence and mitigation but common sense comments are valid. Those in the local area interested in the topic must be at best confused and at worst dismayed. The report is available <a href="https://www.rossgazette.com/news/courts/sex-offender-handed-suspended-sentence-640997" target="_blank">here</a>. <br /><br />In Derby a 22 year old drunk driver was guilty of her third such conviction in three years. The Sentencing Guideline for this offence is <a href="https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/excess-alcohol-driveattempt-to-drive-revised-2017/" target="_blank">here</a>. Not only was she well over the limit she tried to deceive police by pretending she was a passenger in the vehicle; an aggravating circumstance if ever there was one. She was sentenced to 18 weeks custody which was suspended for two years. In addition she was disqualified from driving for four years and ordered to pay £199 in financial penalties. A 100 day alcohol monitoring tag was ordered to be attached and she was required to attend 25 rehabilitation sessions. How seriously all that will be monitored by an emasculated probation service we will never know. But how can we have confidence in our legal system when such a <a href="https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/chellaston-woman-22-weeps-escapes-8798963" target="_blank">dreadful disregard for the law</a> is treated almost as a misdemeanour. <br /><br />Another case at Southern Derbyshire Magistrates’ Court gives me cause for disquiet. It seems to me natural justice that when a violent offence is committed against an obviously pregnant woman the law should punish the offender and mitigation if any should be treated with the utmost caution. When the court was told the same offender, the partner of the victim, was convicted for ABH against her in November 2022 <i>immediate</i> custody should surely have been the correct sentence. But no! The District Judge, to his shame suspended the sentence. Any right minded person must weep at this blatant observing of those aforementioned invisible guidelines from those who have underfunded prisons and their workforce since 2010. Such indifference to the public will lead to vigilantism and a further disregard for politicians and their public offerings of nirvana. The on line report can be read <a href="https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/expectant-dad-assaulted-pregnant-partner-8750381" target="_blank">here</a>. </span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">Knife offending in this country is endemic. Hardly a day goes by from Cornwall to <a href="https://www.nwemail.co.uk/news/23339532.one-third-knife-crime-offenders-jailed-cumbria/" target="_blank">Cumbria</a> without such an offence taking place. And still, this government like so many others, is by passing immediate custody and offering ever improved <a href="https://www.merseyside.police.uk/news/merseyside/news/2023/june/following-the-sentencing-of-two-women-for-knife-crime-offences-merseyside-police-secure-first-serious-violence-reduction-orders-in-england-and-wales/" target="_blank">sentences</a> for offenders as if they were offering new improved washing powder. <br /><br />I have taken the opportunity to publish below <i>Proposals 4 & 5 of "Consultation outcome Government response to consultation and summary of public responses (accessible)<br /></i><i>Updated 2 October 2023."</i><i><br /></i><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">The complete document on knives and bladed articles is available <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/machetes-and-other-bladed-articles-proposed-legislation/outcome/government-response-to-consultation-and-summary-of-public-responses-accessible#:~:text=The%20government%20is%20clear%20that,lawful%20authority%20or%20reasonable%20excuse." target="_blank">here</a>. </span></div><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></p><p style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>Proposal 4 - The Criminal Justice System should treat possession in public of prohibited knives and offensive weapons more seriously.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>Question 10: Should the Criminal Justice System treat those who carry prohibited knives and offensive weapons in public more seriously?</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>81. We asked respondents for their views on whether the possession of a prohibited knife in a public place should be treated more seriously. We asked respondents to tick one of the following responses and explain the reasoning for their answer. The provided responses were:</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>Yes</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>No</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>82. There was a total of 2,333 responses to this question.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>83. The majority of responses (65%) agreed with this proposal with comments from some respondents talking about the devastating impact knife crime has on lives and communities and that this change will better reflect the severity of the crime.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>84. Some respondents, including practitioners working with young people, suggested that this proposal may impact negatively on young people who may carry knives in public for self-defence purposes or because they are coerced into carrying the article.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>Government response</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>85. We note concerns raised in relation to this proposal having the potential to impact on vulnerable people who may be coerced into carrying knives. Similar concerns were raised in relation to proposal 3. The courts will always consider each case individually and will take into account mitigating factors, such as age, lack of maturity and vulnerability.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>86. The government is clear that it is unlawful to carry knives for self-defence purposes. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it an offence to carry offensive weapons in a public place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Carrying a knife is likely to entice knife crime in local communities rather than discourage it and will put young people at risk as a result.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>87. The government will ask the Sentencing Council to consider amending sentencing guidelines on possession of bladed articles/offensive weapons to treat possession of a prohibited weapon in public more seriously.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>Proposal 5 - A new possession offence of bladed articles with the intention to endanger life or to cause fear of violence.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>Question 11: Do you agree with the proposal?</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>88. We asked respondents whether they thought the government should introduce a new offence of possession of bladed articles with the intention to endanger life or to cause fear of violence. We asked respondents to tick one of the following responses and explain the reasoning for their answer. The provided responses were:</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>Yes</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>No</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>89. There was a total of 2,361 responses to this question.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>90. The majority of respondents to this question (64%) agreed with this proposal. Respondents in favour of this proposal argued that current legislation does not recognise the severity of carrying a knife with the intention to cause fear and the increased likelihood of escalation resulting in harm or threat to life. Respondents stressed the need to act before the actual act of threatening another person occurs.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>91. Some respondents agreed with the proposal, but they shared their views that they thought it would be difficult to prove that there is an intention for an individual carrying a bladed article to endanger life or cause fear of violence.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>92. There were also respondents who were of the view that this is already covered under current legislation; the majority of respondents who provided these comments had selected ‘no’ as their answer to this question.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>93. Some respondents, including practitioners working with young people, suggested that this proposal may impact negatively on young people who may carry knives in public for self-defence purposes or because they are coerced into carrying the article.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>Government response</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>94. The government will seek to introduce a separate possession offence of bladed articles with the intention to injure or cause fear of violence with a maximum penalty higher than the current offence of possession of an offensive weapon when parliamentary time allows.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>95. We believe that there is a gap in knife legislation between simple knife possession and possession and threatening another person. This proposal mirrors existing firearms legislation that has been effectively implemented by prosecutors. We expect that this proposal will support the police in tackling violence before the actual harm has been done and where there is evidence, for example on social media, of taunting or threatening behaviour.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>96. We note concerns raised in relation to this proposal having the potential to impact on vulnerable people who may be coerced into carrying knives. The courts will always consider each case individually and will take into account mitigating factors, such as age, lack of maturity and vulnerability.</b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b><br /></b></span></i></p><p><i><span style="font-family: times; font-size: medium;"><b>97. The government is clear that it is unlawful to carry knives for self-defence purposes. The Prevention of Crime Act 1953 makes it an offence to carry offensive weapons in a public place, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. Carrying a knife is likely to entice knife crime in local communities rather than discourage it and will put young people at risk as a result.</b></span></i></p><p><i><br /></i></p><div style="text-align: left;"><i><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><br /></span></i><div><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUkOEjL1k-U" target="_blank">Governments</a> of all shades, <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/hp/front/justice-secretary-jack-straw-backtracks-on-knife-offenders-6886643.html" target="_blank">Secretaries of State for Justice</a> and <a href="https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/theresa-may-and-ken-clarke-in-new-row-on-knife-sentencing-6359643.html" target="_blank">Home Office Ministers </a>have spouted on for decades about what they`ll do about knife crime. It`s fair to say that very few of the public now take anything they say on the subject except with a large pinch of salt. The old adage of the boy who cried wolf has survived for centuries owing to the underlying truth, reasoning and logic conveyed by those few words. What is not immediately flagged up is the effect on a society when a government duly elected operates under that very proverb crying wolf so often that electors finally disregard its words and as a result seek the apparent simplicity of the demagogues who offer manna from a utopian heaven the price of which, unsaid, is the loss of democratic rights. I am fearful that we are slowly entering that period when the value of almost any political policy promised by government or those who seek government is discounted, disregarded and held as an example of the need by some voters for "strong government". The lesson is there before us. The point is whether the sheep are listening to the politicians who cry wolf. </span></div></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1294928770519722820.post-21148730396894837852023-09-26T13:03:00.000+01:002023-09-26T13:03:17.702+01:00SELECTING GUN CARRYING POLICE OFFICERS<div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;"><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi70pCQQmSqQv0j6uqYGJTyJkNqGbKt8zzNJ8bjAx3F4-Xt1UiCJGS34Ov4B9V5Gae10Z2TC0RXFCSjnPHkzgR9T4SsiTrmUjXjeI65qXbgRW6VcJRkZtIlsFSTtdi3oYKUFwgc3awHE3pfYLNamIz0UZ9O1Uq9j3Su6wPX5lB4_gWCSDXR67B9hxlLvm0U/s813/POLICE%204.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="229" data-original-width="813" height="180" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi70pCQQmSqQv0j6uqYGJTyJkNqGbKt8zzNJ8bjAx3F4-Xt1UiCJGS34Ov4B9V5Gae10Z2TC0RXFCSjnPHkzgR9T4SsiTrmUjXjeI65qXbgRW6VcJRkZtIlsFSTtdi3oYKUFwgc3awHE3pfYLNamIz0UZ9O1Uq9j3Su6wPX5lB4_gWCSDXR67B9hxlLvm0U/w640-h180/POLICE%204.jpg" width="640" /></a></div><br />Once again there are headlines about the police. I suppose in an era when a personality or a member of a subset of a group sneezes the rest of society reaches for a handkerchief. When recent events follow on almost simultaneously with the publication of the <a href="https://www.met.police.uk/police-forces/metropolitan-police/areas/about-us/about-the-met/bcr/baroness-casey-review/" target="_blank">The Baroness Casey Review</a> it`s hardly surprising that many with or without knowledge are offering an opinion on the short lived mutiny amongst the licensed firearm officers of the Metropolitan Police. Some facts are usually the basis of any discussion. The Police Federation last polled its members in 2018 on the subject of armed officers. That is available<a href="https://www.polfed.org/media/14713/mps-routine-arming-report-not-protectively-marked-12-04-18-v1.pdf?FolderGuid=3A04468ECBBC4955BDE848FBE2913749/MPS%20Routine%20arming%20report%20%20(not%20protectively%20marked)-%2012-04-18-%20v.1.pdf" target="_blank"> here</a>. For previous posts from me on this topic write "armed police" in the search box. The latest official statistics on firearms use by police is now <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/police-use-of-firearms-statistics-england-and-wales-april-2021-to-march-2022/police-use-of-firearms-statistics-england-and-wales-april-2021-to-march-2022" target="_blank">available</a>. This subject has always been what could be described as a hot potato. Interested bodies are only too pleased to throw the topic to others. Too hot to handle might be another apt description. With police now often seen patrolling not just with a holstered side arm but with sub machine guns many commentators seem to have forgotten that it was only in 2009 that such weapons were authorised for general use e.g. when patrolling at airports, public buildings and the like. My own recollection of such armed police patrols was on a visit driving through Belfast in 1968. All cross roads in the city centre had a machine pistol armed officer of the Royal Ulster Constabulary on guard close by. I was shocked then, shortly before the official start to the "Troubles". Reporting to a sergeant at a Santa Barbara police station some decades ago that my rented car had been stolen I was somewhat shocked when he said to me, "If you see the car don`t go near it. You might get shot". He was advising me that police would have information on the vehicle and would be suspicious of anyone attempting to use it. Such conversations stay with you for a long time. <br /><br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">A simple fact of which I recently became aware was that armed police do not receive any extra pay over and above their colleagues. I asked myself then and I ask you, a member of the public like me, why do those individual officers volunteer for a job which involves the possibility both of facing deadly violence and protecting themselves, their fellow officers and us, the public for no financial gain. I would venture one possible answer insofar as they actively want to be involved in precisely such situations where there is the possibility of using deadly force. All those with a license to carry guns are trained, we must assume, to the highest standards. The very few times a police weapon is discharged is evidence of that but is it a coincidence that in the last couple of years three high profile cases of serious criminality have been proved against officers licensed to carry firearms on duty. Currently 260 police officers in the Met are due to face misconduct charges and one firearms licensed officer is currently facing a charge of murder. There are no figures for how many of those 260 are licensed gun carrying officers. <br /><br /><br /></span></div><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: georgia; font-size: large;">It is a common comment by amateur psychologists that those who most seek power are those best not to have their desires satisfied. Official guidance for chief constables on granting of an ordinary firearms license for a member of the public can be found <a href="https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/818022/Draft_firearms_statutory_guidance_-_16_July.pdf" target="_blank">here</a>. I can find no publicly available information on the criteria required and the selection process for granting a license for a police officer to carry a gun on duty. Can it be the case that those who volunteer for no extra pay or promotion and seek to carry guns are those whose applications should be scrutinised in the very finest detail? And should that whole application process be publicly available? After all, if magistrates whose powers include depriving a person of up to six months liberty, are subject to a very onerous open selection process why not gun carrying police officers whose powers include shooting to kill? </span></div>The Justice of the Peacehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05795957459681808206noreply@blogger.com0