TO ARREST OR NOT TO ARREST? THAT IS THE QUESTION

"Have you ever been arrested?"  Not an everyday sort of question but exactly the sort of question that can be on an application form for eg some types of insurance, a job, a visa or another inquiry where personal integrity is a pre requisite.  This is not so surprising as there has to be a prima facia case of law breaking. To quote the appropriate government website, "To arrest you the police need reasonable grounds to suspect you’re involved in a crime for which your arrest is necessary." According to Citizens` Advice..........

 

When can the police arrest you

Police can arrest you if they have a valid arrest warrant. There are also some situations where they can arrest you without a warrant. These are where:

• you are in the act of committing certain offences
• they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you are committing certain offences
• they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you have committed certain offences
• you are about to commit certain offences
• they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you are about to commit certain offences.

The police can also arrest you if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting you have committed or attempted to commit any offence, or if you are committing or attempting to commit any offence, but it is impractical or inappropriate to serve a summons. However, they can only do this if one of the following conditions applies:

• they do not know, and cannot get, your name
• they think you have given a false name
• you have not given a satisfactory address. This means an address where the police can contact you
• they think you have given a false address
• the arrest is necessary to prevent you causing physical injury to yourself or others, suffering physical injury, causing loss or damage to property, committing an offence against public decency, or causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway

• they have reasonable grounds for believing that arrest is necessary to protect a child or other vulnerable person. 

So  far so clear.............However when a former Chief Constable admits that she told officers to "arrest first" and investigate later when dealing with rape cases one has to be concerned.  Presumably this instruction was based on the notion that victims have always to be believed in the first instance; a policy which, thankfully, is beginning to be perceived as misguided at best and oppressive at worst.  

Such was the operating procedure of the recent incumbent as Surrey Chief Constable.  Whether or not similar orders are still operating under the new Chief of that force cannot be ascertained from its website. That former Chief Constable now heads the National Crime Agency where as is the fashion all major departments are now "commands". On May 16th she made what I presume was her policy speech  in her new post.  In her opening she included ,"How do we build public confidence and avoid appearing distant from the public? And how can we ensure that we are always acting with the public’s consent? " 

My answer to her questions would be to admit that her policy in Surrey was flawed. 

JUDGE SWEARS TO ENFORCE THE LAW

Following on from yesterday's`s post about the crown court judge who responded to a defendant`s volley of four letter insults with a backhand return worthy of the centre court at Wimbledon it appears, surprise surprise, that a complaint has been served  at the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.  No doubt this is but the opening  in a prolonged contest.

LEST YE BE JUDGED

I have opined previously that magistrates are more likely to feel the wrath of authority for perceived minor infractions than their full time brethren.  What would happen if a J.P. swore at a defendant in court  doesn`t bear thinking about.  So it will be interesting to find out if a complaint is made to the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office concerning HH Patricia Lynch QC and her robust response at Chelmsford Crown Court in the face off what can only be described as abusive language from a low life scum.  The newspaper headlines themselves might be enough for her to be asked questions. What I do know is that if a magistrate responded similarly s/he would be lucky if the JCIO merely issued a reprimand.

DAVID LAMMY M.P. AND REVIEW OF LEGAL BIAS

It is disturbing that it appears that many black people are looking to America to discover their binary relationship in being black and British.  But perhaps it is not surprising.  How many generations did it take for Anglo Saxons to consider themselves English, Normans to become anglicised, French Huguenots to "become British" or Irish navvies to consider themselves British of Irish heritage.  In America countless millions of Italian, Irish, Jewish and Scots Americans celebrate their origins even at the tenth generation removed. But they were all white or almost white skinned.  My own visits and sojourns to the deep south leave me in no doubt that there is still a deep division between white and black Americans.  So why is it in that direction that some black Britons look for inspiration in their aspirations when the degree of racial harmony in this country puts America and other places to shame? 

David Lammy is a black politician who throughout his career has seemed to  to ride on the backs of two horses at once attempting to balance between the left and the right. He is currently   leading a review of the Criminal Justice System in England and Wales to investigate evidence of possible bias against black defendants and other ethnic minorities.  He is certainly no shrinking violet........is any politician?  He has issued more than one interim account of his work this being the latest. When he comes to his almost inevitable conclusion one would hope that his work is better researched than those of the newest black grouping to wrap itself in the folds of Americans who have very good cause to justify their slogan of "Black Lives Matter".  Fullfact.org   have corrected some numbers from the British "Black Lives Matter" organisation.  In such contentious circumstances it is essential that statistics are fact checked to the "n"th degree before publication.  

And a final word on Mr Lammy; his voting record on E.U. matters is open to doubting his true affiliations.  In 2007/8 he was apparently a supporter of integration within the E.U. but was mostly absent on E.U. connected votes since then.  He was, however, the first M.P. to publicly announce his support for a second referendum after the result was announced on June 23rd.  He has been quoted as saying, "63% of the electorate did not vote for Brexit". Using the same arithmetic almost 60% of his north London constituency did not vote for him in the 2015 election. He was elected!  I would hope his aforementioned review which is certain to cause some headlines when published is on firmer foundations than his numerical reasoning. 

CULTS AND THE PATHOGENICITY OF SUPPOSED HATE CRIME

On July 14th  I posted on the disturbing policy of Nottingham Police on what it constituted as hate crime and a detailed further report on July 27th of the calamitous effects on a young school girl of that force`s totally inappropriate and possibly unlawful use of its powers of arrest and detention.  The policy and the atrocious behaviour subsequently are caused by a combination of centring a justice system around a so called victim and seeking offensiveness however inocuous and only in the eye of that "victim" as a hate factor to be sought out as the witchfinder general saught his prey in the 17th century. 

This week an article in the Spectator clearly reveals the reality of a body politic which has been infected by a policy virus which has been zealously transmitted to police and prosecutors   alike.  As with all such plagues in history it will eventually sow the seeds of its own destruction when the infected hosts become too few to sustain its pathogenicity. But by that time countless lives will have been damaged or worse.  When western society is experiencing the politicisation of cults in the form of Trump, Sanders and Corbyn followers who worship the man before the politics and who are supposedly adult in status all we can do is hope that like the Beetlemania of teenagers of another era it will pass and  ideas will eventually prevail over personality. 

JEREMIAH AND NEW JUSTICES OF THE PEACE RULES

Whilst in office I tended not to attend events arranged by the social committee.  Generally I liked and/or respected my colleagues but there were exceptions as I suppose there are in all similar gatherings. But when it came to bench meetings I rarely missed the three or four times a year evening.  Apart from the formally constituted annual election meeting the other two or three in the year usually allowed a wide range of discussion  around an agenda often used for that very purpose.  That was until HMCTS took control and the Justices` Clerk, not the affable and familiar Deputy, assumed a greater role in the proceedings.  Indeed I well remember an occasion when that J.C. told the bench chairman as I was on my feet that the particular topic and point raised was not a matter for the bench.  He was told exactly where his authority ended.  Such occasions might now be stymied. On July 31st  Justices of the Peace Rules 2016 came into practice. Within these rules  amongst other things regarding bench meetings it is written:-

7.

Justices for an area shall meet no less than once per year between 1 April and 31 March to carry out the purposes in paragraph 8.

            8.

The purposes of Bench meetings include:

a). enabling justices to liaise with other bodies to share information relevant to the

work of the magistrates’ court;

b). representing the views of Justices (principally through their Chairman or Deputy Chairmen) including to the Judicial Business Group and other governance groups of justices;

  c). making recommendations to the relevant body responsible for training for inclusion in an annual training plan and any training necessary to ensure that Justices maintain their competence;

 d). providing a forum for training agreed under the training plan.

By stipulating the minimum single meeting required (the election meeting) it is likely that many benches will abandon the idea of having any other meetings throughout the year.  Thus there will be less opportunity for  bench  members to discuss matters important to them but not necessarily contained within the above parameters.  This will increase the power and influence of HMCTS and reduce yet again the ability of individual justices to have some control of their judicial career.  

I hope I`m just a Jeremiah making noises off stage but I doubt it. 

THE UNACCEPTABLE WORDS OF A DISTRICT JUDGE

All members of the judiciary must follow strict protocols in their words and behaviour inside and outside the courtroom. These protocols apply equally to members of the Supreme Court as they do to every Justice of the Peace. With judges in particular the bible they must observe and the advice and/or instructions to which they must adhere is the Guide to Judicial Conduct. From s.8 of that document the following is of interest:- "A judge should refrain from answering public criticism of a judgment or decision, whether from the bench or otherwise. Judges should not air disagreements over judicial decisions in the press".

Last week at Kirklees Magistrates Court a lay bench of J.P.s disposed of a charge of racially aggravated threatening behaviour............a very woolly offence which in some circumstances can be conjoured up over a very minor and spontaneous atypical verbal outburst........by the imposition of a 12 months conditional discharge. From the report which has only the barest of details it appears it was another example of a police officer milking a situation for all it was worth.  Nevertheless West Yorkshire branch of the Police Federation made a big splash about what they described as, "an utter joke of a sentence".  As the police trade union there was nothing exceptional about its opinion being put into the public domain.  What followed was indeed exceptional.  The same offender, earlier this week on August 3rd, appeared before District Judge Michael Fanning at Huddersfield Court on charges of breaching court orders.  During that hearing the judge commented, "He got a conditional discharge and I can’t see how when you commit a racially-aggravated offence in these circumstances for which you were convicted in your absence. It seems to me that it was dealt with very lightly". 

It is my strong opinion that by criticising disparagingly  in front of the offender in a public courtroom the sentence previously handed out to him by the lay bench  this judge has brought the law into disrepute.  I hope the chairman of the bench in West Yorkshire has the cajones to complain to the Senior Presiding Judge on behalf of all his/her colleagues.

EBB AND FLOW OF RUSSIAN PAGE VIEWS

I don`t know whether I`m pleased or not that the sudden influx of page views from Russia  last weekend seems to have passed.  Currently it is unlikely that the daily numbers of the comrades will reach three figures.  Such is a graphic example of the ebb and flow on the world wide web.

SILENT WITNESS & AN IGNORANT GOVT. MINISTER

Yesterday I posted on the words used by a High Court judge during a hearing within the family division.  Perhaps it is only politicians as a group  who should care more for their public utterances.  When ministers of the crown offer their opinions especially outside Westminster they should be doubly mindful of what they say.  When the minister is one of the few remaining former barristers (Kenneth Clarke MP is another) still flaunting in his biographies the courtesy title of Queens Counsel awarded to members of that profession purely as a result of being elected to parliament and certainly not as a sign of recognised excellence, a practice quite correctly discontinued about 25 years ago, we gain a glimpse of the inner man.   Notwithstanding that background the Hon.....oops......Rt Hon gentleman is now Minister of State at the Ministry of Justice. Recently he made an official visit to Liverpool Crown Court where he commented on the improvements taking place within the courts` system.  Amongst other things in a report in the Liverpool Echo he was quoted as saying, “This court is one of the first to use new technology, which allows cross-examination of a witness, which is recorded in advance. “It means they know that they have given their evidence and that is that. It gives them a sense of closure. “They have already had a horrible experience. To come to court and have to live it again and experience cross-examination, which could be very long, was difficult."  This all very laudable.   As is the current fashion he appears to place "victims" at the centre of the justice system; a practice that will be seen in time as great endeavour but highly misplaced.  However, of more significance, he goes on to say, "Sometimes the jury cannot agree on a verdict and you can then have a retrial, when they had to go through it all over again. “We don’t need to when we have already got their evidence pre-recorded."

Think about that. The necessity of a re-trial as he is discussing is because a jury cannot agree a majority verdict. And that in itself indicates that the evidence presented is not sufficient to erase that shadow of doubt in the minds of at least three jurors.  The logical next step is that the evidence of witnesses at a re trial should be further cross examined to remove any lingering doubts before another jury.  The very idea that the same video being presented to it which might have left unanswered questions at the previous trial should simply be replayed on the second occasion is frankly nonsense. Indeed it is more than nonsense.  It is an abrogation of the function of a trial by jury.  For such an opinion to be propounded by the minister responsible is a travesty.  Once again the arrogance and ignorance of a senior politician is before us for all to see.   

HIGH COURT JUDGE HAS LOST HIS MORAL COMPASS

Long before my occupation of the middle chair I came to the conclusion that legal advisors and lawyers  were often unaware that the language they were speaking was almost unintelligible to the court users to whom it was addressed. When I was authorised to occupy the middle chair I was in a position to remedy these failings.  Lawyers mildly chastised along those lines invariably accepted with good grace and usually a smile that my interruption was merely to speed up the process for all.  Pointers in the other direction whether of substance or style were usually of more substance.  Criticism of a High Court during proceedings is a rare event.  However outside the courtroom it obviously has no legal effect but the ramifications can be explosive.  Mrs Justice Hogg and the Ellie Butler case was an example.  

Another High Court judge of the family division, Mr Justice Holman, made remarks in a recent case that seem to have been largely overlooked. A Saudi father  has kept his  British daughter in a cage for four years at his home in Jeddah.  Whatever the rights and wrongs involved, (a report is available here,) the judge did nothing to enhance the reputation of British jurisprudence when he said, "We have to be careful about asserting the supremacy of our cultural standards."

It is just this levelling down of the basis of our legal and cultural heritage which I find nothing less than nauseating. Taken to its logical conclusion we must assume that in the judge`s mind there is no moral, legal, cultural, historical or religious basis for the way in which we conduct or attempt to conduct our society in what we consider the most satisfactory manner for the benefit of all of us. Mr Justice Holman might be a High Court judge but if these comments are a reflection of his thinking processes the Appointments Committee missed a trick granting him the honour and privilege of occupying that most prestigious of chairs. He has lost his moral compass.