LONDON PHONE THEFTS AND NEW YORK`S BROKEN WINDOWS

Like so much shouted about the Metropolitan Police being the largest most efficient and oldest police force in Great Britain these claims are not true except the first.  The idea of a civic force to keep order on the streets was pioneered in Glasgow arguably in 1789 but not until 1800 did the establishing Act receive Royal Assent. The aims of its founders were absorbed forty years later by Robert Peel and the Met was established in 1829.  And to this day the louder the trumpeting of Scotland Yard the quicker its shine is covered in ordure. 

In more recent times 1994 the New York Police Commissioner Bratton and  Mayor Giuliani coined the term zero tolerance  as their policy for reducing the criminal activity which had exploded in the preceding decade and was infecting many activities within the city especially commerce and tourism.  The example used was that every minor incident of law breaking eg broken windows would be investigated and the offenders seen to be punished.  Building on that policy increasingly successful prosecutions against career criminals produced a real reduction in serious crime. Between 1990 and 1999 homicide dropped 73%, burglary 66%, assault 40%, robbery 67%, and vehicle theft 73%. Whilst employment and standard of living rose in the 1990s contributing to crime reduction there is no doubt that a significant factor was the expanded NYPD and a crack down on all crime including minor offending.

From a personal point of view I well remember driving along 5th Avenue in 1995 and seeing a police officer at every corner of each block and another at every cross road. 

And so it is mid afternoon on the last Sunday in March and my son and his fiancee are strolling near Leicester Square in London`s west end when she discovers to her horror that the youth who had rudely brushed by her a couple of minutes previously had stolen her iPhone.  After that initial shock they reacted by doing what is advised in such a situation and summarised below:- 

1. Report the Theft:

File a Police Report:

Immediately file a police report with the Metropolitan Police Service (or your local police force). This is crucial for potential insurance claims and for helping the police if they can track down your phone. 

Contact Your Mobile Provider:

Call your mobile network provider (e.g., Vodafone, EE, O2, Three) and report the theft. They can block the phone and SIM card to prevent unauthorized use and help with a replacement SIM. 

2. Secure Your Accounts:

Change Your Passwords:

Change the passwords for all your important accounts, including email, banking, social media, and any other accounts accessible from your phone. 

Contact Your Bank:

Inform your bank about the theft and request that they freeze your cards and any mobile banking access to prevent unauthorized transactions. 

Notify Insurance Providers:

If you have insurance that covers your phone, contact your insurance company to file a claim. 

3. Additional Steps:

Remote Wipe (If Necessary):

If you suspect your phone is in the wrong hands and you can't recover it, consider remotely wiping the data to protect your personal information. 

Track Your Phone (If Possible):

If your phone has a tracking feature (like Find My iPhone or Find My Device on Android), use it to try and locate it. 

Note Down Device Information:

If you haven't already, write down your phone's make, model, serial number, and IMEI (International Mobile Equipment Identity) number. This information can be helpful for police and insurance purposes. 

Using my son`s phone they did most of the above and within half an hour had traced the phone`s location to one of two flats at WC2H ### about a short brisk walk away from their current position.  Of course they had told the police immediately of this location but the Metropolitan Police officer told them they were unable to assist.  In 2023 it`s estimated that in London alone 64,000 mobile phones were stolen and between July 2023 and July 2024 84,000 were stolen. Criminologists suggest that organised criminal gangs are at work supplying ready markets in China and other countries.

The above tale of woe is a further example of how slowly and steadily British society is disintegrating and democratic political choices seem incapable of providing answers.  From a  prime minister accepting funds from a Labour donor to enable him to have designer glasses and suitable clothing to MPs guilty of assault via additional MP`s expenses to keep a dog and myriad other examples to corruption, misconduct and malfeasance  in public office by senior police officers, faith in the justice system is at an all time low. 

In addition confidence that supervisory bodies are fulfilling the requirements entrusted to them to keep NHS bodies safe for use is hardly encouraging.  Despite the publicity given to illegal immigration on small boats it is legal immigration seemingly out of control which has supplied the massive increase to our population over just a few short years. 

Just how long can a society hold out against such pressures as above which are but a microcosm of the failures of government going back half a century.  Rome wasn`t built in a day but the decline of the Western Roman Empire is generally considered to have begun in the late 4th century AD with significant events marking this period. While there is no single date that signifies the start of the decline several key factors and events contributed to it:

Crisis of the Third Century (235-284 AD): This period saw political instability, economic decline, and military defeats, which weakened the empire significantly.

Division of the Empire (285 AD): Emperor Diocletian's division of the Roman Empire into the Eastern and Western Roman Empires created administrative challenges and set the stage for divergent paths.

Barbarian Invasions: From the late 4th century onward, various tribes, including the Visigoths and Vandals, began invading Roman territories, leading to significant territorial losses.

Sack of Rome (410 AD): The Visigoths, led by Alaric, famously sacked Rome, symbolizing the empire's vulnerability.

Fall of the Western Roman Empire (476 AD): The traditional date for the fall of the Western Roman Empire is 476 AD, when the last emperor, Romulus Augustulus, was deposed by the Germanic king Odoacer.

Overall, the decline was a gradual process influenced by internal strife, economic troubles and external pressures.

It doesn`t take wild powers of imagination to overlay the above litany with events post 1945 in the UK.

Mobile phone theft is for us the broken windows of New York. But we in London most surely do not have a Bratton or Guliani; would that we had. Do those who rule us have awareness of our dire situation or are they ignorant and hoping for the best? As my post 18th March ended: time will tell.

JUSTICE NOT SITTING AGAIN

 

ANYTHING YOU SAY MIGHT BE USED ETC ETC ETC

Once again the provincial press is the vehicle of choice for the MOJ to spread some largesse to the local press barons and others who are finding it more and more difficult to balance the books when an ever increasing number of on line sites are licking the financial cream offered by Gen Z and Millennials.  As I opined last week with reference to the supposed benefits to the prospective employer of employing a magistrate a valid interpretation could be with apologies to President Kennedy at his inauguration: "It`s not how  a magistrate can boost an employer; it`s how an employer can boost a magistrate".  Now it is over 20 years since the minimum age for magistrates was reduced from 27 to 18; an early example where political expediency and fashionable expectations overcame common sense and experience for appointers and appointees. A time when school pupils became students and child centred learning was the modus operendi of educators. When the acquisition of knowledge was secondary to the attainment of understanding.  When the hardships and ups and downs of everyday life were  classified as syndromes or medicalised to be assisted by an expanding cadre of "specialists" and an enlarging pharmacopeia. 

The published remarks of a recently appointed magistrate, a current example of an advertising agency`s answer to a MOJ demand for "local people for local justice" are quite revealing.  My bench like most I suppose had a sprinkling of solicitors and barristers some of whom were practising criminal law.  In common with many colleagues our opinions of those people were offered only in private and to whom we had faith in their confidentiality.  At age 22 with two children, displaying her idiosyncrasy of body piercing and ambition to be a barrister readers might consider that she is a much needed token to youth or that I retain the essence of my dinosaur heritage.   

Every day there are published unusual cases involving magistrates courts and sometimes magistrates themselves.  There are a few recently that I personally never encountered nor any remotely similar. 

An airline pilot failed to respond to air traffic control last week causing a major incident at Manchester airport.  The limited report doesn`t offer an answer to the obvious question of what was the reason for the pilot`s silence.  There is no mention of when this incident took place.  Are authorities hoping this matter will just fade away?  

A Christian teacher was found guilty of  unacceptable professional conduct after telling her pupils  "that being LGBT+ was a "sin" and that transgender people were "just confused".  On its own that case is clear but if preachers in mosques can lecture their congregations on their being obedient to their religion by espousing the establishment of sharia in UK,  the encouragement of antipathy to the other monotheist religions and the heresy of some legal relationships there is a wilful gap in the mindset of those charged with that discredited concept of all being equal before the law.  

A fine example of how the tail of prison overcrowding is wagging the dog of justice is exemplified by the case of this drunk driver.  How can law abiding people have any confidence in our legal system with such sentencing aberration?  

Public space protection orders (PSPO) give the police wide discretionary powers to deal with a nuisance or problem that harms the local community's quality of life.  They are aimed at ensuring public spaces can be enjoyed free from anti-social behaviour.  It seems that in Cleethorpes walking a dog on the beach breaches such an order as this dog walker discovered.  I am not a dog owner but I recollect walking on the beach at Weston Super Mare a couple of years ago and feeling the canine happiness as dozens of dog owners played with, walked and occasionally chased their pets almost to exhaustion.  

To conclude this week a further example of why magistrates should, as many broadcasters do, operate a five second delay on anything they might say in the court, in the court building, and/or to any colleague or court employee, defendant, witness, legal representative or delivery van driver.  Anything you say will be taken down and might be used in evidence of misconduct as was the case with Mr Michael Berry JP. Perhaps he would have been better off going no comment.

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW AND TIME WILL TELL

Are we ruled by government or lawyers?  For those with a passing interest in government viewing the scene from the top of that proverbial Clapham omnibus  that question in one form or another has been a feature of leader writers and opinion formers for some months.  The riots last July subsequent to the awful murders in Southport were a likely starting point for the topic to break into public discourse.  However the increasingly obstructive antics of fanatical supporters of some ecological cause or another have affected many British hearts and minds.  My enlarged prostate did not take kindly to being held up for two hours on the M25 not by highwaymen but by climate protesters a couple of years ago.   The recent jail sentences for sixteen environmental activists [a few reduced on appeal] caused an uproar by some "progressive" lawyers and others insofar as they considered that the end  i.e.  the planet`s welfare, justified the means. 

Indeed some commenters have suggested that the cases of non-violent disruptive protesters should be governed by what they call “the integrity principle”. This would spur a radical rethink of how the courts approach the trials of such protesters.  This is a dangerous path to take and for lawyers a deliberate attempt to allow politics to be a factor in determining guilt and/or sentence.  If this advice were to be followed where would it end?  I would suggest its end of the road would be confirmation of the end of our democratic tradition where equality before the law is still just about hanging on if rather precariously. The Guardian, that most woke of publications, offers an insight into the minds of those who consider means justify ends.  

Considering the title of this blog I would opine that many readers will have been aware that the numbers of magistrates courts is now about half the number of 15 years ago and consequently the numbers of Justices of the Peace until recently declined in tandem.  As with police numbers many current magistrates are relative newbies with fewer old timers around to offer advice and direction.  The latest advertising recruitment splurge of which this is an example emphasises the benefits to an employer for allowing a staff member to apply and be accepted as a magistrate with some emphasis that this will be beneficial to that successful applicant insofar as being on the bench will offer advantages to employees in rising up the employment ladder.  In simple terms the advertisement  is geared to showing an applicant that being a magistrate is primarily a selfish voluntary act to propel his/her own ambitions in business or profession.  When I applied in the 1990s I found that most of my new colleagues had become magistrates for the position itself and what they could offer with no consideration of how that position might enhance their life outside court in their chosen occupations. There were of course a few exceptions and the crucial point is that most of the bench saw those self seekers for what they were; arrogant aggrandising individuals who were less able than the vast majority.   

As the old adages say, the end justifies the means; you reap what you sow; and time will tell. 

CONSISTENTLY UNDER UTILISED

 

BETWEEN THE DEVIL AND DEEP BLUE SEA

From being a socialist orientated student to a conservative who believes that capitalism must be controlled there comes a time when the inevitable choice arises between government and the law.  Before the dreadful day of 7th October 2023 the people of Israel faced that very dilemma.  It is a problem there still to be solved.  At grassroots that is the situation currently with the Sentencing Council at loggerheads with the Justice Secretary.  Government makes the law which includes a range of sentences for every offence.  As can be noted from recent events maximum sentences for what many consider the most heinous offending seem to be in short supply at the top end and rarely applied at the lower, eg shoplifting, car theft or burglary where perhaps the reluctance of police to investigate is much of the problem. 

Two tier policing became the catchphrase for the ineptitude of initially the Metropolitan Police in allowing public support for a proscribed terrorist organisation and breaches of the Public Order Act to go unpunished for over a year yet simultaneously being over officious in clamping down hard on non violent suspected hate crime.  

Two tier sentencing has been the phrase now employed to describe the Sentencing Council`s intention to rectify a problem others say does not exist.  The controversy centres around supposedly different criteria for those facing custody from the crown court depending on their ethnic, religious or cultural minority status.  Even disclosure of being transgender is included as "cultural minority".   The chairman of the council, Lord Justice William Davis, has stated that guidance must not be dictated to judges by ministers.  A leading solicitor has written publicly that those from "ethnic minorities" are more likely to be arrested, charged and convicted than white people; a rather non legalistic comment when one considers eg white skinned Muslims,  Jews [Ashkenazi white or Sephardic sometimes brown skinned] or people of Chinese origin.  The argument centres around the eligibility and of uptake of pre sentence reports where custody is an option.  The differentials are put down to racism.  As I was led to understand as a magistrate, sentencing guidelines were just that; guidelines and not tramlines.  Section 59 of the Sentencing Act 2000 directs all courts to follow the guidelines but not to do so if "it would be contrary to the interests of justice".  I have personally followed that route in court but of course fewer that 4% of offenders at the lower court receive immediate custodial sentences.  

The Sentencing Council with the apparent approval of the previous government announced that from April 1st there should be certainty that pre sentence reports be made for the aforementioned minorities. Those supporting this proposed policy seem to be from the cupboard of the "progressive usual suspects".  On the other hand pragmatists as I like to consider myself,  seek to understand and formulate a conclusion to a situation or problem  whilst "progressives" have a pre determined mindset which they apply to such situations.   In 2022 statistics showed that "Asian and black offenders were 6% and 4% more likely to be sentenced to immediate custody in comparison with white offenders".  But also the facts were that in crown courts over the previous five years white defendants consistently pleaded guilty [68%-77%] thus obtaining sentence reductions up to one third cf black ethnic groups [58%].  

For every pre sentence report a probation officer must be available for its being obtained and presented.  The staff statistics are not rosy as seen below considering the rise in the prison population: cause or effect?

Not all countries have sentencing guidelines.  This paper from America might be of interest.  It was 1999 that the state of Michigan initiated the American idea of sentencing guidelines and it was from that origin that similar guidelines developed in the British nations.  I have no doubt that with AI so far advanced that it`s only a matter of a few years until the sentencing process itself will be AI driven with human input as a failsafe.  

The bottom line on the current situation and future similar divergencies is that there will be a time when the choice is to be ruled by government or by lawyers; the devil or the deep blue sea some might say. 

JUST ANOTHER DAY

 

INEQUALITY OF ARMS + UNLEVEL PLAYING FIELD

The Victim Personal Statement scheme was introduced in England and Wales in 2001 following a commitment in the Victims' Charter of 1996. The right to submit a VPS is contained in the Victims' Code. In contrast to other jurisdictions the right is not currently based in statute. The Code of Practice for Victims of Crime in England and Wales is available here. The VPS doesn`t  affect the nature of the sentence on its own but its purpose is to help the judge to make a better informed decision on sentencing by taking into account the overall effect the crime has had on the victim. It follows that the quality of the statement might persuade a judge to override the level of sentence according to the guidelines.  Can it honestly now be the case that the system is truly neutral when the result of an action according to the prosecution [victim] is a consideration indicating that crimes of ostensible equality result in unequal sentencing? The concept of equality before the law or level playing field is supposed to convince British citizens that long standing traditions now brought up to modern standards are the birthright of all. And despite rare exceptions we are expected to believe that the old adage British is Best applies to the forms of justice encountered daily not only through the legal system but with myriad councils, tribunals and supervisory bodies etc. In polite terms there will be little disagreement that the preceding sentence is now wishful thinking or perhaps colloquially, bollocks.

Early training as a magistrate in the years before the millenium emphasised that the so called legal level playing field between state and defendant was a pillar of justice. How compliant my colleagues and I were to listen blithely to the trainer. Equality of arms was another euphemism employed to imbibe we newbies with the philosophy that nowhere on this Earth was there a justice system where individuals were more able to be assured that they would receive a fair hearing and trial where they would have every opportunity to plead their innocence.




I think my disillusionment was triggered by the establishment of the victim surcharge introduced in the UK in April 2007 as a flat rate of £15 initially only applied to offenders receiving a fine; however it has since been expanded to apply to most criminal sentences with the amount varying depending on the severity of the sentence and the offender's age, essentially making offenders contribute to the cost of supporting victims and witnesses of crime. The current rates are available to view here. But the proceeds are not ring fenced for actual victims of crime: proceeds are pooled into a general fund used to finance victim support services in general. Unlike fines the charge is not means tested.




Level playing field or equality of arms is currently just a joke akin to the Hollywood advice, “Never bring a knife to a gunfight”. A ruinous combination of legal aid lawyers` derisory fees and increasingly raised income levels before an application for legal aid is possible, loads the odds firmly with the state and against the defendant. The introduction of the Single Justice Procedure in 2015 was an anathema to those who considered that it was a step too far in favour of the state. Between 1 April 2019 and 30 September 2023, some 3,102,392 criminal cases were processed by the Single Justice Service as the S was renamed.

Statistics on SJP are hard to come by.  What can be said is that about 40,000 cases monthly are processed but the whole process is a carbuncle on the face of justice.   A Freedom of Information Request of 2021 is copied below. 

request-@whatdotheyknow.com
Disclosure Team
Ministry of Justice
102 Petty France
London
SW1H 9AJ

data.access@justice.gov.

5th July 2021

Dear 
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Request – 2xxxxxxxx
Thank you for your request received on 5th June 2021 in which you asked for the following information from the Ministry of Justice (MoJ):

Since its inception;
1. How many cases have been dealt with by the Single Justice Procedure annually?
2. Of the above how many defendants in each of the years above responded with a
plea?
3. Of the pleas from question 2. how many were guilty pleas?
4. Of those pleading not guilty in each of the above years since inception how many actually went to trial at magistrates courts?
5. Of those at trial per Q4. how many were acquitted?
6. How many cases brought under Covid 19 regulations have been pursued through the SJP in 2020?
7. Of the numbers per Q6. how many responded with a plea?
8. Of those in answer to Q7. how many were guilty pleas?
9. Of those pleading not guilty in Q7. how many elected trial at magistrates court?
10. Of those electing trial as per Q9. how many were acquitted?
11. How many magistrates are currently trained and eligible to be included in the approved list as Single Justices?
12. Please list the courts where the SJP is functioning.

Your request has been handled under the FOIA.
It has been answered by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunal Service (HMCTS) on behalf of MoJ.

I can confirm that HMCTS/MoJ holds the information that you have requested. However, to provide it as the request currently stands would exceed the cost limit set out in the FOIA. Section 12(1) of the FOIA means a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

The MoJ publishes information regarding the outcomes of criminal proceedings. However it is not possible to separately identify case outcomes for Single Justice Procedures (SJP) from the centrally collated Courts Proceedings Database. As such it is not possible to answer questions (5) and (10) within in the specified cost limits.

The information that you have requested in these questions would be held in individual case files for the last three years (In accordance with MoJ Record Retention and Disposition
Schedules), but in order to provide it HMCTS/MoJ would have to identify the files in question and then locate them, retrieve and extract the information requested. We believe that the cost of doing that would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, we are not obliged to comply with your request.

Although we cannot answer your request at the moment, we may be able to answer a refined request within the cost limit. You may wish to consider, for example, reducing the
time period covered by your request and / or specifying particular Courts to be included in scope. Please be aware that we cannot guarantee at this stage that a refined request will fall within the FOIA cost limit, or that other exemptions will not apply. In particular you should be aware of the FOIA exemptions that apply under Section 32 and which relate to information that is only held for the purpose of the Court Record.

Where Section 12 applies to one part of a request we refuse all of the request under the cost limit as advised by the Information Commissioner’s Office. I am therefore not obliged to answer the remainder of your questions. However, under Section 16 of FOIA It shall be the duty of a public authority to provide advice and assistance, so far as it would be reasonable to expect the authority to do so, to persons who propose to make, or have made, requests for information to it. Within that, I can tell you that some of the data that you have requested is held within different HMCTS / MoJ systems and we have extracted it as below. Please note that this data is taken from different sources and cannot necessarily be reconciled with other data provided.

Regarding questions (1) and (6):
Year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
The number of cases dealt with by the Single Justice Procedure annually since its inception. 12,660 357,006 687,645 738,028 786,546 529,408
The number of cases brought under Covid 19 regulations and pursued through the SJP in 2020.3,610

NOTES relating to the above data.
• The case count is based upon the case completion date falling between each reporting period (eg. 1st January 2015 to 31st December 2015) where the initiation type is equal to Single Justice Notice.
• Data are taken from a live management information system and can change over
time.
• Data are management information and are not subject to the same level of checks as official statistics.
• The data provided is the most recent available and for that reason might differ slightly from any previously published information.
• Data has not been cross referenced with case files.
• Although care is taken when processing and analysing the data, the details are subject to inaccuracies inherent in any large-scale case management system and is the best data that is available.

Regarding questions (2) to (4) and (7) to (9), it has been assumed that they all relate to numbers of defendants.

Year All defendants
Plea entered
Guilty No plea entered
plea
Not guilty plea
2015 12,031 2,779 286 8,966
2016 329,406 83,333 10,196 235,877
2017 696,935 169,585 24,121 503,229
2018 761,995 185,107 26,276 550,612
2019 784,325 199,279 23,136 561,910
2020 535,590 145,605 11,612 378,373

Of which: COVID-19 offences
2020 4,007 437 23 3,547

NOTES relating to the above data.
• SJP offences under the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, allows cases involving
adults charged with summary offences to be dealt with in a single magistrate sitting without the prosecutor or defendant being present.
• Only one offence is counted for each defendant in the case. If there is more than one offence per defendant that complete on the same day, a set of validation rules applies to select one offence only and these relate to the longest duration, seriousness and the lowest sequence number of the offence.
• Includes cases completed in the magistrates' courts during the specified time period,
where no further action is required by the magistrates' courts.
• Includes cases that are committed to the Crown Court.
• SJP cases are identified in the centrally collated data based on the ‘initiation type’ recorded against the case. It is known that a small number of cases have incorrect initiation types recorded against them, with incompatible offences under SJP included within the overall reported counts, e.g. triable either way, indictable and summary imprisonable offences categorised under 'Other offences'. It is estimated that this accounts for well under 1% of the total defendants dealt with across the series. Where errors do exist the levels are monitored and appropriate action to understand and improve data quality are taken.

• Estimates from Q3 2020 exclude a small number of cases which have transitioned to the Common Platform system in the early adopter site (Derby and Chesterfield magistrates' courts) from September 2020.
• Following a technical issue during the LIBRA Management Information System refresh, a small amount of data was not included for a single day in September. It is estimated this that has resulted in a small number (less than 1%) of case disposals being omitted from the latest quarterly totals. A refresh of the data will take place next quarter.
• Offence classification and categorisation as per the latest published 'Offence group classification' available at the following link
(https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/criminal-justice-system-statistics-quarterlydecember-2020).


• All Not Guilty pleas under SJP are regarded as going to trial.
• The defendant counts supplied are sourced from the same underlying administrative system as the case counts, however they are distinct extracts taken at different points in time and as such caution should be taken when comparing absolute
volumes across the series.
• The defendant counts form the basis of the published criminal court statistics timeliness measures released by the Ministry of Justice. The overall counts may differ from HMCTS caseloads due to the validation which is applied to this data stream, e.g. defendants removed from underlying counts where timeliness validation checks are failed such as blank dates or dates out of logical sequence.
• Published criminal court outcomes statistics released as part of the Criminal Justice Statistics bulletin series does not allow for the separate identification of Single Justice Procedure cases. As such it is not possible to produce statistics which detail the volume of acquittals for SJP cases/defendants dealt with. Also, regarding Question (11), as at May 2021 HMCTS had 12333 adult magistrates. As a matter of practice, newly appointed magistrates are not allocated until they have passed heir appraisal (threshold appraisal). This takes approximately one year and so not all of these may be finally allocated at the date of writing this letter. HMCTS management information systems do not hold data specifically regarding the number of Magistrates within their first year and the FOIA does not oblige a public authority to create information to answer a request if the requested information is not held. The duty is to only provide the recorded information held.

Regarding Question (12), I can confirm that SJP is regarded as functioning at all Magistrates Courts in England and Wales. However, the information requested is exempt from disclosure under FOIA Section 21 because it is reasonably accessible to you. The information can be accessed via the following links:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_courts_in_England_and_Wales and https://www.gov.uk/find-court-tribunal

For guidance on how to structure successful requests please refer to the ICO website on the following link: https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/official-information/
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/3244/pdfs/uksi_20043244_en.pdf 

Appeal Rights
If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to request an internal review by responding in writing to one of the addresses below within two months of the date of this
response.
data.access@justice.gov.uk

Disclosure Team, Ministry of Justice
You do have the right to ask the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) to investigate any aspect of your complaint. However, please note that the ICO is likely to expect internal
complaints procedures to have been exhausted before beginning their investigation.

Yours sincerely (on behalf of MoJ),

On the topic of equality before the law the situation is becoming very clear that that supposed fundamental is now but a historic myth. Over the last few months the attitude to public disorder by police is either confused or deliberately slanted so that some miscreants are more liable than others to be arrested many for s.5 offending. As an example "speedy justice" was applied to those found guilty after the riots following the Southport murders.  In addition they were punished in many cases at the upper end of the scale whilst offending non violent keyboard behaviour in some cases was more harshly treated than many observers considered it was warranted. 

A highly publicised case of the MP who assaulted a constituent in the early hours is interesting.  His sentence of immediate custody was appealed and subsequently suspended for two years.  Surely for a person in his position the sentence should have increased on a similar basis to that of another offender whose personal circumstances and/or status are used to seek to minimise the sentence; eg the doctor on call who succeeds with "exceptional hardship" to reduce a driving ban or the father with extensive caring responsibilities whose custodial sentence over Christmas is suspended.  A person in a highly responsible position with all the trappings of a good life should not be molly coddled.  

Immigration is a huge topic in the western world.  When our legal system seems to be operating in woke mode that perception rightly or wrongly can often speak louder than any pacifying  statements from government.  Below is a story from Today`s Times.  It wasn`t the first of its type and most certainly not the last.

The criminal justice system might be beyond repair.  With current developments demanding that circumstances unforeseen even a month ago necessitate budgetary rethinking it would take a brave [or foolhardy] observer to have much confidence in court waiting times to improve to any great extent although if some police forces continue to ignore requests for neighbourhood crimes to be investigated running to stand still might be an accurate description for the Ministration Of Justice. 

CHOICES AND POLITICS

It`s unlikely that more than perhaps  a few fanatics would argue that Christianity in England is anything other than a religion.  Of course that observation would be ridiculed if it were applied to Ireland north and the republic of, Germany where the Christian Democratic Union of Germany has become the largest party after the weekend`s general election.  I suppose  The European Christian Political Movement is a European political party exclusively working on promoting Christian values and of course evangelical Christians are a major source of support for both Democrats and Republicans in America. The 2021 United Kingdom census recorded an irreligious population of 25.3 million or 37.8% in England. But rarely a month goes by without a report of some woke tribunal, organisation or employer becoming newsworthy by virtue of its decisions on whether certain actions inspired by religious belief are lawful or not. 

The case of Kristie Higgs, a Christian school worker who was sacked for sharing posts criticising LGBT+ teaching, reached its finale earlier this month.  Anti abortion campaigners are  treading a thin line.  One such stalwart having been twice arrested for praying silently near an abortion clinic  has successfully sued police for wrongful arrest.  Although apparently inspired by their religious beliefs those cases were not political in the common sense understanding of that word:  connected with the state, government or public affairs although there is an argument that every action of a government  connects the individual to the state. 

However since October 7th 2023 many bets are off or [to use betting companies` terms] have been politically  laid off when the political affiliations of workers combined with religious fervour directly intimidate customers, fellow workers or the public in general.  The wearing of badges supporting those in Gaza and blatantly the ruling terrorist organisation which is in power and/or wearing similar such indications whether in the workplace or on the streets during supposed political demonstrations has crystallised  the legal nomansland  where religious freedom and real manifestations of hate crime collide; not the hotch potch of police defined "non hate crime".  The Guardian which is probably the most woke mass media publication in the country has a long report on such a case here. 

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offense to cause harassment, alarm, or distress by using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior. It can also include displaying threatening, abusive, or insulting writing or signs. 

Penalties 

The maximum penalty for summary conviction is six months in prison, an unlimited fine, or both

Racially or religiously aggravated Section 5 is a non-imprisonable offense with a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine

Defenses 

A defense may be available if the accused can show that they had no reason to believe that someone would be harassed, alarmed, or distressed 

Reform 

In 2013, the government agreed to reform Section 5 to protect free speech. The Christian Institute led a campaign to remove the word "insulting" from the act

Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard

8 Aug 2022 — The maximum penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both. 

Last month in a little reported case at the High Court  an appeal by a Christian preacher against his conviction  under that very  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for causing “harassment, alarm and distress" was refused.

I can remember when most law abiding folk would find few matters supported by Liberty {founded in 1934} to be against their own consciences or a natural view of what is right and what is wrong.  All that has changed. The first protests against Israel soon after October 7th [New York] and London October 8th have shown what thin line the authorities are on when religion opposes politics and vice versa. The Met Police have revealed that the first request for a national demonstration against Israel came on October 7 2023 at 12:50pm – just hours after the Hamas attack began and before any retaliation by IDF.  There is a strong body of opinion that there has developed in this country "two tier" policing brought about by a perceived difference between dealing with Muslim suspected criminality and the rest the former being treated with kid gloves for fear of religious sensitivity and historical revelations of child abuse tolerated or ignored when Muslims are involved. As a result Muslim organisations, many based on the ethos of the Muslim Brotherhood [banned in Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim countries], are lobbying for a blasphemy law to prevent not just criticism of Islamic practices but of Muslims per se.  This has met with some sympathy in Whitehall.  

Government and its servants could be described as trying  to ride two horses at once. Dr Doolittle perhaps had it more accurately in the description of the pushmepullme.  Indeed currently the Ministry of Justice has recently endorsed the increase of magistrates` courts powers from six months immediate custody to twelve whilst simultaneously a government commissioned independent review concluded that short custodial sentences be abolished.  

Government is about choices and politics is about how best to make those choices.  In so many ways our current masters are swimming in a sea of treacle trying to make headway eyes closed guided by the loudest voices trying to assist them.   

    

GONE TODAY AND GONE TOMORROW