GONE TODAY AND GONE TOMORROW

 

NO COURT TODAY;THE JUDGE HAS GONE ASTRAY

 

IS ANY MINISTRY MORE WOKE THAN THE MOJ?

I would suggest that most readers are aware of Donald Trump`s war on woke.  I make no apology for my own opinion on such actions as not before time.  I would also suggest that historically this country tends to follow the social trends in USA albeit with a year or three`s delay.  

Of all government departments the Ministry of Justice is perhaps the most sensitive to being on the right side of those "progressive thinkers" who fight against any relaxation of Diversity Equality and Inclusion.  As surely as J K Rowling rails against the concept of trans women with penises being real women the MOJ seeks to be whiter than white [to coin a phrase] in its pursuit of the ephemeral.  As far as the magistracy is concerned the watchword is local justice for local people by local magistrates.  In real terms what does this mantra mean and what are its contradictions? 

In real world no nonsense terms perhaps an extract from a recent Freedom of Information Request which elicited the following says it all:-

"Between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023, 8 Muslims were appointed to the magistracy. Between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024, 71 Muslims were appointed to the magistracy." 

The table below is self explanatory if a magnifier virtual or actual is available.

Ethnicity of the professional judiciary is below.

Does the ratio of the ethnicity of District Judges cf magistrates affect outcomes?  I would venture to suggest it does not.  The appointment of District Judges or more senior judiciary does not for obvious reasons have being local as a requirement and nobody in his/her right mind would suggest otherwise.  

In recent months social media posts of  some MPs have elicited for those concerned some unpalatable information.  Within some supervisory bodies subsequent to serious crimes a similar tale of indiscretion or worse has been revealed to an astonished public.  From time to time magisterial indiscretions of one form or another have been posted here. Terrorist supporting registered medical personnel working in the NHS have been exposed on "X" yet magistrates`or applicants`  on line histories are not part of any vetting such  vetting as it is of candidates to the magistracy being carried out by the Disclosure and Barring Service.  Other than that the MOJ does not carry out any further checks except receiving references.  Even the Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram CBE was issued with a formal warning for misconduct for his perceived support of a terrorist organisation. To quote the JCIO "On 14 February, an article appeared in The Times stating that Judge Ikram had “liked” a post by a barrister on LinkedIn, which read:

“Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United Kingdom, the United States and of course Israel, you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide – justice will be coming for you.”

How can the public be certain others similar might effectively  be judge, juror and sentencer sitting as a lay magistrate.  The Reform Party in particular is using immigration legal and illegal and particularly the number of Islamic immigrants as an electoral hand grenade blowing apart the official sentiments and incoherence of other parties on the subject.  Aside from factual information the following is advice for applicants to the magistracy:-

"Character questions. These include providing details of any Fixed Penalty Notice, past or present convictions/cautions/motor offences/bankruptcy proceedings. Has a spouse, partner, close family member or close friend received convictions or cautions which could affect your application to become a magistrate? Is there anything else in your private or working life, past or present, which could damage your credibility as a magistrate if it became known to the public?"

The last sentence is interesting. Would a Muslim candidate eg admit to being a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood; a banned organisation in many Muslim countries but not in the UK? With five MPs elected in July apparently behaving as if they are the MPs for the Gaza constituency and consequently being publicly reprimanded or reminded who their voters are how can the MOJ be confident that there is not another political scandal brewing if or when politics interferes with the legal process in magistrates courts? 

From the MOJ some additional facts:-

13. Magistrates in Post

---

In comparison to judges, a higher proportion of magistrates are female, or from an ethnic minority background.

---

Sex

Of the 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1 April 2024, 57% were female (five percentage points higher than in 2014). There was no strong variation amongst the regions, ranging from 54% to 61% (Figure 46).

Figure 46: Proportion of female magistrates by region, 1 April 2024

Ethnicity

As at 1 April 2024, ethnic minority individuals together constituted 13% of all magistrates (a five percentage-point increase from 2014 when 8% declared themselves as from an ethnic minority). More specifically for each ethnic minority group^{[footnote 46]}:

• Asian or Asian British individuals constituted 7% of magistrates.
• Black or black British individuals constituted 4% of magistrates.
• Mixed ethnicity individuals constituted 2% of magistrates.
• Individuals from other ethnicities constituted 1% of magistrates.

These proportions showed some variation at a regional level, where London had at least double the proportion of Asian individuals compared to all but one of the regions, and at least treble the proportion of black individuals compared to all other regions (Figure 47).

Figure 47: Proportion of magistrates from each ethnic minority group by region, 1 April 2024

Intersection of Sex and Ethnicity

Table 3.7 shows that just under half (49%) of all magistrates as at 1 April 2024 were white and female. This was followed by the white male group with 38%, and then the ethnic minority female and ethnic minority male groups (8% and 5% respectively).

Age

Magistrates tended to be older than judges on average, with 81% of those in post being 50 and over.

13.1 Magistrates - leavers and new entrants

The proportion of magistrates that left during 2023/24 who were female (55%) or of an ethnic minority background (13%) were both slightly lower than the equivalent proportion of new entrants in 2023/24, at 58% and 15% respectively.

---

14. Magistrates Recruitment

On 17 January 2022, an updated magistrates’ recruitment process was launched. This update introduced a new applicant tracking system (ATS) which collects information on magistrate recruitment across England and Wales and includes more diversity data on applicants and recommendations for appointment to the magistracy.

This is the second year for which ATS magistrates’ recruitment data is being published^{[footnote 47]}. Figures are now shown on the number of appointments of magistrates, rather than recommendations, with updated figures for 2022/23 given in Table 3.8a.

Beginning with this year’s report, figures are shown for the number of applications concluded on the ATS, made up of those not shortlisted, not appointed and appointed during the year. These will be in contrast to and not comparable with the number of applications started in the year.

---

The proportions of female individuals and ethnic minority individuals appointed to the magistracy are comparable to those already in post.

---

14.1 Applications

Table 3.8b shows that during 2023-24, there were 4,025 applications made to become a magistrate^{[footnote 48]}.

Sex

More than half (55%) of all magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24 were from female individuals, comparable to the 57% of magistrates already in post. There is some variation by region where the proportion of female candidates for the South East and South West are each below 50% (Figure 48).

Figure 48: Proportion of female magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24, by region

Ethnicity

In total, ethnic minority individuals constituted about 30% of all magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24, more than twice as high as the 13% of magistrates in post^{[footnote 49]}. A wide variation in the proportion of ethnic minority applicants is seen at the regional level (Figure 49), from 9% in the South West and Wales to 51% in London. More specifically:

• Asian or Asian British individuals constituted 16% of applications.
• Black or Black British individuals constituted 9% of applications.
• Mixed ethnicity individuals constituted 4% of applications.
• Individuals from other ethnicity backgrounds constituted 2% of applications.

Figure 49: Representation of ethnic minorities among magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24, by region

Age

On average, those who applied to the magistracy in 2023-24 were younger than magistrates currently in post. 53% of magistrate applications were from candidates aged 50 or over, compared to 81% of magistrates in post.

14.2 Appointments^{[footnote 50]}

Table 3.8b shows that during 2023/24, 2,008 appointments to the magistracy were made in England and Wales^{[footnote 51]}.

Sex

Female individuals represented 58% of all magistrate appointments made in 2023-24. The female proportion of appointments by region ranged from 49% in the North West to 67% in London (Figure 50).

Figure 50: Proportion of female magistrate appointments made in 2023-24, by region

Ethnicity

In total, ethnic minority individuals constituted 16% of all magistrate appointments made in 2023-24. More specifically:

• Asian or Asian British individuals constituted 7% of recommendations.
• Black or black British individuals constituted 5% of recommendations.
• Mixed ethnicity individuals constituted 3% of recommendations.
• Individuals from other ethnicity backgrounds constituted 1% of recommendations.

By region, the proportion of those appointed who were from an ethnic minority background ranged from 8% for the South West and Wales, to 36% for London (Figure 51).

Figure 51: Representation of ethnic minorities among magistrate appointments made in 2023-24, by region

Age

Of all the magistrates appointed in 2023-24, 59% of them were aged 50 or over.

 

 

WHY?

 

DO WE?????????

Do we have confidence that the quality of appointees will be assured?  Can we be certain that an emphasis on diversity inclusion and equality will not be detrimental to that quality?

THE JCIO UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has been a topic here on more than one occasion.  It oversees all quangos and government bodies authorised and controlled by the Ministry of Justice.  Rarely are the professional judiciary the subject of disclosure within this authority although from time to time District Judges and tribunal members or coroners are called to account. Generally their failings have been on a procedural level rather than on the personal.  More senior judiciary rarely appear on this site.  Perhaps that is because they are so well trained and ensconced in their profession that personal or procedural errors are as rare as hens` teeth.  There is of course a nagging doubt that within the elevated investigative process of possible misdemeanours of senior judiciary  a behind closed doors form of retribution is involved.  Be that as it may for 14,576 Justices of the Peace the buck stops at the JCIO recent decisions of which might lead to some raised eyebrows at its scope and consistency.  

The sanctions available to the JCIO are as follows:-

• Formal advice

• Formal warning

• Reprimand

• Removal

It operates under this guidance. 

Take the case of Nargis Alsadiq.  There seems to be an unexplained delay in her being thrown out of the magistracy.  Such paucity of reporting can lead to wild speculation.  Was she being protected by those around her?  We, the general public, will never know.  How long had she been sitting in judgement on her fellow citizens? We are not privy to such knowledge. Was her earlier judicial performance trustworthy? We will never know. 

Mr Joseph Lindo ex JP had also failed to meet the minimum number of sittings required. From my own and colleagues` experiences the onerous [to some] time commitments necessary to meet a minimum level of the hurdles placed before aspiring JPs can hope for selection should have been at the forefront of the appointment committee.  He too has been dismissed.  

I find it difficult not to have some sympathy for Daniel Barker JP.  Having been in a similar situation myself with a colleague assigned [headmistress by profession] to appraise me as a winger and whose manner was overbearing and condescending I cannot but be mindful that the report is but a summary.  Were his colleagues approached by him or the investigator?  We`ll never know. 

The report on Valerie Humphrey tells us nothing of her history.  Once again the most common cause for removal is non fulfilment of minimum sittings.  

A formal warning of misconduct was the sanction employed against Jonathan Dannatt JP.  Some might consider he got off lightly. 

Formal advice for misconduct  was then result of multiple occasions of social media activity by Kirk Master JP. According to the report he "confirmed that he did not refer to his judicial status in any of the posts".  Some might query the less severe outcome for him cf MMr Dannatt above.  

Ms Justine Dyson JP lives to sit again another day.  Does her receiving a light tap on her knuckles square with others?  There are many investigators and decisions on different cases are not comparable or sometimes compatible. 

Finally today  Mr Edwin Hastings-Smith JP is able to continue offering suitable announcements and/or pronouncements from the middle chair.  It seems inconceivable but obviously wasn`t for a presiding magistrate to allow his tongue to run wild as his did.  

Generally 15-20 magistrates are removed annually from the bench.  The above is just a recent sample.  But some decisions leave this observer just a little bewildered.  Inconsistency seems inevitable.  Anonymity is the order of the day for those sitting in judgement.  Are thresholds varied according to the rank of those under investigation? For presiding magistrates it seems obvious to me at least that a missing sanction could be demotion to status as winger for a fixed period.  Similar results for misdeeds are common in other professions.  But then the Ministry of Justice thrives on the virus of secrecy which is transmitted to so many supervisory bodies in this country as we are well aware.  Secret processes, secret processors, secret decision making in so many aspects of our society are gradually being exposed to a public previously kept in the dark until an awful calamity is revealed having happened as a direct result of that secrecy. Certainly innocent people won`t be murdered, die unnecessarily, be unjustly imprisoned or be aggrieved by magistrates failing to live up to the rules they have accepted on appointment. Sometimes the greater the emphasis or wordiness on or within a judicial or quasi judicial process is inversely proportional to the common sense required for that process to be based on simple logic and/or fairness. The arguably arbitrary judgements of the JCIO are symbolic of much that could be improved in many aspects of the decisions made by those who rule over our daily lives as citizens.  

There was a popular TV programme some years ago about looking through the keyhole.  Perhaps the JCIO needs examination under a legal microscope. 

JUST ANOTHER TYPICAL DAY FOR COURTS

 

DO WE NEED LAY MAGISTRATES?

Failings of many public bodies have been filling air waves of broadcasting, pages of print and gigabytes of digital media for years. I would surmise that these failings have increased greatly this millenium although that opinion is possibly to have originated from whistleblowers and investigative journalists less likely to have been intimated by the authorities than in previous years.  Indeed just last week Sir Julian Hartley the newly appointed  chief executive of the Care Quality Commission  admitted that the public could no longer trust safety ratings when choosing a care home for elderly relatives. The point I have posited previously is whether the failure of such bodies should be blamed upon the ineptitude of those who appoint the overseers.




When it comes to the constitution of magistrates courts about 10% of criminal cases are presided over by a professional District Judge the remainder by a bench of three Justices of the Peace. At the turn of the millenium there were about 300 courts, 30,000 magistrates and about 100 District Judges [MC]. Currently there are 150 magistrates courts and 14,576 magistrates an increase of 2,907 since the start of the Magistrate Attraction and Recruitment Campaign in January 2022 which is thought to have cost up to £2 million. Of the increase in numbers, 786 were re-appointments following changes to the Mandatory Retirement Age. There are around 300 District Judges a limited number of whom can earn up to £180,00 p/a although an average is £143,000. In 2023 District Judges and their deputies sat on 17.56% of cases at magistrates courts.




Lord Justice Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts {2001} indicated that that there could be a marginal reduction in costs if magistrates were superseded by DJs such margins increasing if legal advisors were also dismissed. Similar soundings are currently being undertaken at Petty France. But for the present, in 2023 there were 1.37 million cases undertaken at magistrates courts and at 30/9/2024 there were 327,228 cases outstanding. Since 18th November last year magistrates have had the power to sentence up to 12 months custody for a single offence. With such an onerous responsibility how can we be certain that those on the bench are competent for the task? During my 17 years on that bench, the majority as a presiding magistrate, I was appraised twice; once as a winger during a sitting by a presiding magistrate colleague of my own bench and once from the well of the court by a presiding magistrate from another bench as I was active in the middle chair for a full sitting. There was another occasion when three well dressed middle aged men sitting at the back of the court over which I was presiding spent a whole sitting taking copious notes the whole time. Who they were or for what purpose I knew not then and am non the wiser now.




For the Judicial College Activities Report Summary of expenditure 2022-2023 £19 million was the total allocated for judicial training. There is not a single sentence on what was allocated to the continuous training of magistrates. Current figures are unavailable but ten years ago a Freedom of Information request provided the following:-

I would like to know: 

1) how much was spent on the training of lay magistrates by a) the Judicial College and b) HMCTS (nationally or locally) in 2014/15

2) and the annual cost of training for District Judges and Deputy District Judges (both magistrates' courts) for the same year.

 Answers

Question 1(a)

I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for and this is provided as follows:

Training Development Committee £22,700

Bench Chairmanship Course £37,540

Family Panel Chairmanship   £4,500

Magistrates Association Grant (for joint training projects) £10,000

TOTAL £74,740

Question 1(b)

The Judicial College does not hold information that you have asked for as it belongs to HMCTS. Each Magistrates’ Area Training Committee (MATC) is asked to produce an annual training plan and agree funding with its local HMCTS delivery director. 

Each MATC is required to provide a range of information on an annual basis to show what training it delivered during the year, and how much money was spent. So, I can advise you on a discretionary basis and outside the scope of the FOIA that from the reports that each MATC is required to provide, there is a collated figure of £632,201 for the period 2014/15. Unfortunately, one MATC did not advise the actual figure spent on training but has since confirmed it was within its budget of £43,921. This figure was included in the collated figure instead which means the total is not exact but very close.  

Question 2

I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for. It is not possible to fully separate the budget figures between the DJ(MC)s and their deputies as some continuation training events are attended jointly. Where it is possible to show separation it has been done. 

Deputy District Judges £28,000

District Judges & Deputies (joint) £122,000

Total £150,000

A 2019 parliamentary report of the House of Commons Justice Committee highlighted the fact that there was inadequate funding of continuing training for magistrates.  It is highly unlikely that that situation has improved.  

The question now is for how much longer can this country continue to appoint lay magistrates whose competence cannot be assured when financially professional judges sitting without the need for legal advisors are possibly cheaper.  The idea often heralded by senior judiciary and their masters in government is that local justice for local people is a time honoured tradition which works well, so why change it.  It might have worked well when towns and villages were often isolated owing to the insularity of 19th century England, the limitations of local assizes and the limited jurisdiction of itinerant judges.  Entering the second quarter of the 21st century with pounds and pence being counted even more assiduously by the necessarily most  parsimonious government since 2010 it would not take much financial persuasion if the government were to effect yet another U turn on magistrates by restricting their court powers and relegating them to back up District Judges as JP wingers do for Crown Court Judges at appeals against the lowers courts` verdicts or sentences.  

Do we need lay magistrates?

Do we want lay magistrates?

Can we afford their demise? 

FROM THE STABLES AT PETTY FRANCE

 

From the mouth of the horse at Petty France today

Sarah Sackman The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

Recruitment rates for the magistracy are published in the annual Judicial Diversity Statistics, found here. As of 01 April 2024, there were 14,576 active magistrates in England and Wales, an increase of 2,907 since the start of the Magistrate Attraction and Recruitment Campaign in January 2022. Of these, 786 were re-appointments following changes to the Mandatory Retirement Age. The next set of statistics for the period April 2024 to March 2025 will be published in July 2025.

BIG WIGS, BIGGER WIGS AND BIGGEST WIGS

Almost two years ago the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police warned all who cared to listen that there would be monthly improvements in the Met`s handling of misconduct cases.  It seems that unsurprisingly there has been kick back an example of which is the case of  Sergeant Lino Di Maria. It seems there is hardly a supervisory body in this country which has not been shown to be unable or unwilling to fulfil its prime function in ensuring that those where there is a responsibility to expose for misconduct or failure are actually punished. The media generally are interested in the mackerels and not the spratts. However it is within the "spratt" communities from architects to zoologists that the noses of misconduct sniff the possibilities of evading professional restrictions for devious purposes.



There were many arbitrary decisions made by public bodies during the pandemic that passed by most observers but this decision  re  Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council’s refusal to renew the licenses of six taxi drivers during the Covid-19 pandemic does seem to be inconsistent.  It is extremely unlikely that the matter will be taken any further owing to the high costs which would be required.  The eight year old age restriction of taxis does not appear to be founded on inspection.  And to quote the report, "But Mr Justice Linden suggested that the district judge’s ruling could logically mean that “anyone who was able to show that they could not afford a new vehicle could argue for an exception” and warned this could “risk inconsistent decision making and thereby undermine the policy of the council.”  It hardly needs pointing out but who is to say that "the policy of the council" does not need some undermining.  

Yet again a criminal behaviour order [CBO] has been reported  in local press media.  They can be obtained against anyone over the age of 10. For a CBO the threshold is that the person has engaged or is likely to engage in behaviour that is almost certain to cause harassment, alarm or distress and that the CBO will help in preventing it. They are one half of the regime introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to replace the perhaps better-known ASBOs when those orders were abolished in England and Wales. The other half of the regime is the civil injunction.  They are issued on the civil standard of proof: i.e. more likely than not as distinct from the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt or sure.  They are effectively displacement orders about which I have railed for years.  Indeed I sat on the very first case ever brought.  We rejected that application as it had not been presented according to the legal requirements. The MOJ is reticent on numbers requested or applied but figures showed that in 2016 932 CBOs were issued following conviction, an increase of 35% on the previous year.  Subsequent attempts to seek current numbers were refused under Freedom of Information Act cost restrictions. 

In an age when increasingly service of important documents by mail is unavailable and e mail is the single method employed it is refreshing to know that landlords can legally send essential tenancy documents in the post.  Whether this decision at the Appeal Court will be known by many tenants and landlords remains to be seen as will the argument of non receipt, lost in the post be acceptable cause for action or inaction.

And final snippet today is the duly and patiently awaited result of an application that the judges involved in the sad case of Sarah Sharif are to be identified.  The original decision of anonymity has been castigated here and in many places where much higher levels of  legal brain power have been applied.  There are so many aspects of our legal, quasi legal systems and organisations whose workings are held to be not suitable for public knowledge that any dictator would relish as a wonderful base on which to control this country.  With political extremes likely to be every day conversation in 2029 this is a timely reminder as in the Metropolitan Police that when in doubt let secrets out.  

IS REFORM UK A RALLYING CRY OR A WARNING?

I assume by now that my reader has watched or read at least some of the goings on yesterday in Washington DC. Today on the news I watched our prime minister in typical lawyerly tones admit that there was much amiss with the process of investigation and outcomes of the failure to predict the intent of the killer of those three children in Southport and his other crimes on that awful day.  The presentation was flat and very boring in comparison with the re-elected POTUS #47. I asked myself , "does presentation or rhetorical ability matter?" "Does it have any bearing on our voting intentions or implications for our democratic systems?"  In my humble opinion the answer must be in the affirmative.  The follow up therefore could be does such an ability signify competence for the chosen job; namely as a democratically elected person to further his/her political intentions and the answer to that must surely be in the negative. 

There are amongst those who are all too ready to believe what to most are outlandish theories covering many walks of life.  In broad terms their refusal to face fact is based on a lack of transparency from the authorities or personnel associated with the matter in question.  So it could be posited that the flames of conspiracy theories are fanned by the very people who are trying to negate those who in our tech age can spread their rivers of poison to an ocean of those whose political or psychological make up renders them susceptible to all manner of mumbo jumbo.  Nowhere is this more true than in the justice system because when there appears to have been drawn a curtain over some legal or illegal process additional crumbling of that pillar of our democracy takes place whether it is further shunning of local elections and/or political vacuum filling by rabble rousers.   The case of Mr Justice Williams and his banning of the publication of  the identity of a fellow judge and the names of those involved in the aforementioned apparent incompetence pre the Southport murders must be considered to have left a gap in the minds of some who are all too willing to fit their own theories to the known facts. A well reasoned article can be accessed here.  

Perhaps the most ridiculous belief for a diminishing coterie of the unhinged is the "flat earther" There are still those who do really believe the Earth is flat.  The reality of such unscientific nonsense is not confined to our age of instant information true or false; it was demonstrated  in January 1875 at the trial at the Essex Assizes.  A little light hearted relief might be of interest.

Belief in the outlandish is perhaps part of the human condition.  There is no doubt that Aristotle was and is a towering figure amongst the billions who have lived in the last two millennia.  But it took a practical man of science, Leonardo, to lay the foundations of inter alia engineering, anatomy and perspective in art to push aside theory for experiment to form the basis of much of our understanding of the modern world. 

Often it`s been said that what happens in America happens in Britain a short time later.  Are we on a timeline which validates such an observation?  Those who seek unjustifiably to prevent public knowledge of the many drivers and levers, controls and artifices  which determine the structure of our society are themselves the propagandists and initiators of those who would undermine them like the person in his ignorance on a tree branch trying to get down by sawing away the very item which is keeping him alive.  Is the re-election of Donald Trump a rallying cry for reform within our society or a warning of what`s ahead?