SHOPLIFTING AND BROKEN WINDOWS

I remember this case.  Around that time like all other magistrates courts we were experiencing a noticeable rise in shoplifting cases.  Subsequent to the "banana" case and others similar shoplifting became a summary only matter. Orders came via the Deputy Justices Clerk that a "new" word was to enter our lexicon when consideration of sentences for those convicted was being discussed; propensity. Irrespective of the small value of the theft from a shop the "p" word was to figure insofar as protection of the public [shopkeepers] was concerned.  That allowed when appropriate six months immediate custody for e.g. stealing an apple from Tesco.  And then a decade ago the coalition government classified stolen items valued at less than £200 as "low value shoplifting".  From that decision a steady increase in the crime of shop theft has taken place. 

The situation now is that shoplifting is a "no lose" activity for criminals because a severely undermanned police force has not got the resources or the will to pursue those who are having a free criminal ride.  The lowest form of punishment for theft under £100 is a fixed penalty notice.  In the year to March 431 such notices were handed out. Many constabularies didn`t hand out a single FPN.  A decade ago 19,419 were issued.  Ten years ago 16,281 shoplifters were cautioned. The most recent figures show 2,077 were issued. Ten years ago when I was still active my court and others convicted 71,998 shoplifters but by the last year where statistics are available  that number had fallen to 28,955.   The latest numbers compiled by police forces indicate that in the year to March there were 443,995 shoplifting occurrences reported.  The number unreported is...........unreported. The British Retail Consortium estimated that there were over 16 million episodes of customer theft in 2023-2024.  

The Broken Windows Theory of Criminology suggests that visible signs of disorder and neglect such as broken windows or graffiti can encourage further disorder and criminal behaviour. The theory states that by stamping out small crimes (such as vandalism or being drunk and disorderly) the signal is sent that no criminal behaviour of any kind will be tolerated.  This has to be considered alongside the view that the theory oversimplifies the causes of crime by focusing primarily on visible signs of disorder insofar as it neglects underlying social and economic factors such as poverty, unemployment and lack of education which are known to be important contributors to criminal behaviour.

Undoubtedly there will be many at Petty France at this very moment trying to formulate responses to the above situation and others more serious with inadequate resources to do so. The coalition and successive Tory administrations failed miserably.  I would not want to wager a single penny that the current lot will do any better.  

ADDENDUM 6th November 2024

Today`s issue of Law Society Gazette has had some interesting editorial and comment on this topic

UNCONSCIOUS BIAS IS A FALSE TOTEM

Everyone knows what prejudice is.  Many of us will have enough self awareness to know that in some form or other there is a possibility, probability or certainty that on some every day topic or  subject of minor interest we are prejudiced or in the words of some psychologists who think they have all the answers, we have a conscious bias for or against said topics or interests.  My wife, for example, is biased towards purple.  Her house plants are dictated by the colour as is her car, her wardrobe and long ago the paint chosen to cover walls in the hallway. She is also biased against intellectual snobbery and doesn`t suffer fools gladly.  

However the spreading tentacles of human resources departments and their university psychology departments` academic sources have fostered the concept of "unconscious bias".  This concept has  infected the western world without challenge.  It has infiltrated the working and academic lives of millions.  It is within the legal profession that, in my opinion,  it has been the most devastating to freedom of thought and the corruption of what constitutes reality.  Politicians have been quick and eager to jump on this bandwagon for their own nefarious ends. Unconscious bias as defined by Edinburgh University is  The tendency of us as humans to act in ways that are prompted by a range of assumptions and biases that we are not aware of.   This can include decisions or actions that we are not consciously aware of, as well as hidden influences on decisions and actions that we believe are rational and based on objective un-biased evidence and experience.  Unconscious bias can be present in organisations and groups as well as influencing the behaviours and decisions made by individuals.  

Civilisation has developed from primates learning from their and others` actions and reactions which are beneficial to their survival and which are detrimental.  The most active benefit to the individual is the bond of the family.  The bias toward family is natural and rewards such affinity with longer life and happier offspring.  We learn continually who, what, when and where  love, safety, danger and misery lie.  These are conscious and  unconscious thoughts, feelings, actions and reactions to maximise our lives, loves and livelihoods and to diminish the dangers we had and have to face from sabre toothed lions to telephone scams.  

But now the lines are crossed.  Those who refuse to accept the mantra of Equality, Diversity and Inclusion (EDI) as a requirement to rid themselves of unconscious bias are labelled fascist, racist or similar epithet.  And those within the legal profession who have fallen for this artificial fabrication and the politicians who empower them have failed to realise that within that mindset the need for inclusiveness also must encompass acceptance of ideologies which are the very antithesis of western civilisation and are indeed a suicidal call for what has been the Judeo Christian foundation on which our society has been built.  Nothing exemplifies this attitude more than the disgraceful and disgusting verdict on the successful appeal by David Miller against his expulsion from his tenure at Bristol University. Astoundingly an employment tribunal decided that "The claimant’s anti-Zionist beliefs qualified as a philosophical belief and as a protected characteristic pursuant to section 10 Equality Act 2010 at the material times."  The full 120 pages of the judgement are available here.  Building on the incessant anti "Zionist" propaganda of the past year in which clear anti semitism has been expressed using the term Zionist as a cloak the tribunal has ratified that a belief in a Jewish homeland held by a large [60%-80%] of Jews here and worldwide is not protected in law from those who would preach in a manner directly based on activities in pre war Germany.  Indeed by substituting Zionist in their diatribes in place of Jews Miller and his ilk  can continue to spew their hatred to those who are the children to his Pied Piper.  I would argue that if unconscious bias does exist it existed in the minds of that Tribunal. It has been offered as the reason for another forum to castigate a magistrate [see below].  Unfortunately but unsurprisingly it has taken a marxist orientated publication to offer a riposte to the Tribunal`s decision to which I understand an appeal is in hand.  There are those who would defend Miller and that verdict.  The professional judiciary are government paid and pensioned civil servants. There is always a significant cohort who would put their own careers and well being above the requirement to uphold the law where the two come into conflict.  In the Miller case it might be said that the Tribunal members revealed their own unconscious bias against Jews.  Now that is  paradoxical. 

Closer to home a magistrate has recently been investigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office for making antisemitic remarks in a court setting. To quote the particular paragraphs;

 "A fellow magistrate complained that during two conversations with him, Ms Killoran made remarks which displayed an unconscious bias of an antisemitic nature. He alleged that she spoke about her work in the charity sector and a correlation between Jewish charities and fraud. {my bold}

She stated that Jewish charities are believed to make use of the ‘Jewish Accounting System’, whereby money disappears without a trace and reappears later at a much higher value. The magistrate, himself Jewish, was concerned that Ms Killoran was relaying antisemitic stereotypes."

The complete report can be accessed here. 

I would opine that there was nothing "unconscious" about the prejudice that Ms Lynn Killoran JP expressed.  It was a deliberate anti Jewish slur of which she was fully aware.  The implication of the judgement is that she was not responsible because it was unconscious bias.  Just as the fashion for the gender bending of children has been demonstrated to be against all logic and laterally illegal so it will be, concerning the concept of unconscious bias. That change in perception cannot come soon enough.  Academics and pseudo psychologists have weaved their dangerous patterns for far too long. Soon reality must resurrect itself and prevail.  Unconscious bias is a false totem. 

GORGE ORWELL HAS ADOPTED ALICE IN THE WONDERLAND THAT IS NOW THE UNITED KINGDOM

I suppose it`s not being too late with the news that once more magistrates courts` sentencing powers have again been increased to 12 months custody for a single offence. The reason given by the MOJ is that prison overcrowding will be eased.  But does this simple explanation stand up to simple scrutiny?  Forget all the statistics except this; for decades the rate of immediate custody in the lower courts has been no more than 3% - 4% of all sentences.  On an individual level I have yet to meet a magistrate who enjoyed acquiescing to such a sentence. Indeed a personal guideline which in days gone by I offered to a new magistrate was a case which has stayed in my mind for 20 years when discussing custody for assault: it went as follows: a man in his mid twenties with a previous record of violent behaviour living with a partner in the late stages of her pregnancy  pulled her down a flight of stairs by her hair at their home.  We sentenced him to the maximum six months immediate custody.  The proposed new guideline will mean that more either way offences will be tried and sentenced in magistrates courts.  Perhaps in its wisdom the MOJ will remove that choice.  In any event why would the number of custodial sentences be reduced?  There does not seem to be any logical reason.  What will happen is that the waiting time at crown courts will be reduced.  However an unintended consequence for this chopping and changing trial horses in mid gallop is that there will be a frantic increase in attempts to have more magistrates and perhaps an increase also in the number of appointed District Judges[MC].  A rushed recruitment programme for demanding jobs inevitably leads to a lowering in subsequent performance.  Police forces throughout the country having lost long serving officers by the thousand since 2010 are facing a similar situation with fewer "old hands" available to bring their knowledge and experience on the streets to their new young colleagues.  The new Secretary of State by publishing another sentencing review is just following on the pious words of so many of her predecessors.  How long she will be around to see it fail is a moot point.  

In view of the fact that Scotland has the worst drug problem in Europe there was an interesting answer to the following Freedom of Information Request:- In the last five years how many people have received the maximum sentence permitted for contraventions of the Misuse of Drugs Act, in relation to possession, possession with intent to supply or being concerned in the supply of Class A drugs in the High court?  The short answer is not one.

It seems that the push of some Muslims to associate many social issues to the situation in Gaza should be a cause for concern.  Thankfully this country has a record of church and state mainly (but not always eg House of Lords) being separated.  Whilst not like a constitutional requirement as in America our fumbling way through such matters and others similar seemed to be effective........until now.  The banking arrangements between Tesco and Barclays Bank should be a matter only for the companies concerned.  For these Islamists who can be described as political Muslims our society should be re-aligned to their long term desire for sharia.  These and other early signs of political Islam unfortunately are not being faced by the government or perhaps Keir Starmer hopes that the public is blind to such matters. With a population now of 3.4 million Muslims he might be correct but with a projected population of 13 million in 2050 the chickens will be coming home thick and fast to do their roosting. 

All too often from TV to Twitter [X] we are being informed of the remarks in the workplace or elsewhere that are taboo and worthy of legal action.  Another reference can now be added to the plethora currently classified as verboten.  Calling a man "baldie" is now to be viewed as sexual harassment. Truly this country is in wonderland, down the rabbit hole or through the looking glass. Whatever you might choose we are at a period in our history when George Orwell has adopted Alice.  

THE END OF THE ROAD FOR MAGISTRATES?

For centuries magistrates were chosen from a small select group of local worthies to adjudicate over a local population generally when the crimes committed did not require an indictment.  Defendants were tried summarily.  By the late nineteenth century the summary courts were dealing with twenty times as many cases as the jury courts. This included an increasing use of pre-trial hearings - a kind of pseudo-trial in which magistrates evaluated the evidence in cases that strictly speaking should have been forwarded to the jury courts without review.  In 1166 King Henry II issued the Assize of Clarendon which required non-King's Bench judges to travel the country to hear cases. This established the system of judges sitting in London while others traveled the country, known as the "assizes system".  It has been within the magistracy that the concept of local justice has survived and even that concept is being whittled away with  non local District Judges being now a common and necessary fixture of the magistrates courts system.  And yet the MOJ still propagates that notion of "local justice for local people".  It could be argued that as it was when I was appointed, a magistrate`s jurisdiction was limited to the area in which s/he resided.  All that changed a decade or more ago when the whole country was deemed an individual`s jurisdiction thus allowing, if and when needed, out of county JPs to fill sittings.  The professional judiciary have no such locality requirements for appointment. 

Since Covid and following on from the closure of half the country`s magistrates courts JPs` numbers have fallen from a peak of 30,000 20 years ago to around 14,000 currently.  Now as with decimated police numbers the MOJ is trying desperately to recruit more members of the lay bench.  Millions of pounds are spent on advertising and much more in investigating the dozens of facts about each applicant`s background, parenthood, religion, occupation and what they have for breakfast.  Is it any wonder that so few people are willing to put themselves through such filters for up to two years just to give of their free time 13 days annually on the bench and almost as many in training. As an example the recruiting organisation for the South East of England has published this standardised recruitment advertisement.    

Towards the end of the last century an academic study [of which sadly I can now find no trace] estimated that if District Judges sat without a legal advisor or clerk instead of  lay benches the costs would be about equal to the cost of magistrates` expenses and training.  Many criminal lawyers would welcome such a change.  Whether the public would be equally receptive is another matter.  Nobody has ever bothered to inquire.  

Last week I commented on the case of His Honour Judge (HHJ) Martin Davis who was castigated by the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.  Reading the first few statements of that office`s October`s findings I find it difficult to understand how those JPs were able to be appointed in the first place.  Whatever the findings they seem to have had underlying traits which should have been teased out much earlier in the process.  Perhaps they were appointed long before the current fine tuning which is in place although that details on who and what they have been and are now. 

It seems obvious that all the supposed brains at Petty France don`t know what to do with lay magistrates.  As I have posted here in times past, they have treated them like the Grand Old Duke of York treated his soldiers; he marched them up to the top of the hill and marched them down again except the hill involved is that of making 12 months custody for a single offence available.  "Yes it is but then no it isn`t".  My sentiments on this subject have crystalised in the last few years. The more desperate the demand for Justices of the Peace the more the likelihood of the quality of applicants reducing.  Whether they will wither on the vine as increasing numbers of DJs are appointed or become add ons to a new form of lower courts system is unknown.  But the current situation is surely that sign of a system`s eventual demise. 

THE DAUGHTERS OF THE ME TOO MOVEMENT

Like many of my generation I am subject to annual blood tests which serve to pacify any anxiety I might have on my general well being [so far so good] and allow the NHS the earliest opportunity at the cheapest cost to right that which might seem wrong.  It does this by analysing and classifying blood tests according to an "average".  I had recent cause to study some of my results over the last decade or so and noticed that the "average" figure against which my personal result was normal or abnormal was not a constant; inquiries informed me that some of those figures were a local population average. As an example in August 2023 my serum potassium reading was "normal" between 3.5- 5.1.  In April this year the "normal range" was 3.5- 5.3.  Has the error allowed in analysis been subtly  altered?  Has the population`s blood been contaminated? Has the measurement system developed inaccuracies?  In other words is our being medically out of step mathematically a cause for concern or an attempt by the state to allow greater variation to pass unquestioned? 

And so to the world of woke folk.  In 2006 a wonderful German film Lives of Others exposed the system by which the communist government of the then East Germany kept dissidence and dissidents under control by their secret police the Stasi.  That was then, this is now.  The judiciary from the lowest level magistrates to the members of the Supreme Court is arguably the most tightly controlled group of  professionals not only on the public payroll but amongst all the professions.  Their every attribute or profile is in the public domain but they are appointed in secret.  Almost their every public statement is subject to oversight.  And now a combination of so called progressive thinking and a fear of accusations of being unfair or bias in their behind the scenes activities has led to iniquities of which a Parisienne concierge of 1789 would recognise as not merely intrusive but in their own way, deadly. 

THE JUDICIAL CONDUCT INVESTIGATIONS OFFICE ostensibly is the fairest and most open of supervisory authorities which plague this nation.  It is a classic example of  an organisation seeing all the trees and unable to recognise the wood.  It follows {or has led} a pattern seen in numerous cases of maladministration in health authorities, children`s care and uncorrected injustices within the legal system to name but a few.  

The latest fly to be ensnared by the secretive soundings of the JCIO spider is His Honour Judge (HHJ) Martin Davis.  Rather than re-stating his encounter readers should read for themselves the published conclusion or verdict   on his supposed wrong doing. 

There is a single line within that apology of a report which bears thinking about above all others; "the complainant, a female member of staff who was subordinate to him, and therefore unable to object to anything said, and who did not know him." 

I find this extraordinary.  Such an apparent mouse of a woman yet apparently sensible enough to be employed by HMCTS....... 

The bottom line is that an unknown accuser has left a black mark on the career of an honourable man and this action has been justified by fellow judges.  This is the lives of others being played in real time in England in 2024.  Is misconduct a product of our times?  As with my blood tests how far does "fashion", average or wokeness play in such decisions. Is today`s street protester tomorrow`s fascist rabble rouser? Just as the virus of #antisemitism in the guise of being pro Palestinian or anti Zionist has infiltrated all corners of society it seems the daughters of the Me Too fanatics have found a new home within the English justice system. 

KNIFE CRIME WILL NEVER BE "UNDER CONTROL"

 

Posts involving offences of the use of a bladed article or knife have been amongst the most frequent to have occupied these pages in the last 11 years.  Indeed my first post on the subject was published in 2014.  The French language best sums up the repeated attempts by His Majesty`s Governments to contain this scourge; PLUS ÇA CHANGE, PLUS C'EST LA MÊME CHOSE.  

A society doesn`t disintegrate  from the top down.  Certainly those in control have a lot to answer for.  Failures in policies conceived by incompetents and carried out by those in hoc to their masters to put bread in the mouths of their starving children have been a blight on the face of civilisation for millenia.  Today`s government and society are little different from those of medieval England except the errors and miscalculations are magnified in their effects.  Indeed in his new book published this week Boris Johnson likens Richi Sunak`s betrayal as Brutus`s was to Caesar.  

When it suits the moment governments will laud the reduction in crime overall or those parts which will gain sympathetic momentum in the media.  In doing so like a driver whose speed is breaking the limit, the foot will lift from the accelerator and the car allowed to slow.  If it`s judged still to be going too fast the brake will be applied.  In a financially crippled justice system such crime reduction will be an excuse to reduce the appropriate budget.  So now we have a stop start policy on knife crime.  Stop and search effectiveness varies according to the politics of the observer; or so it seems.  Albert Einstein also had noted that an observer can change the facts in his theory of general relativity causing him to publish his theory of special relativity a decade later.  

The Sentencing Guidelines on bladed articles and knives is IMHO taking a sledge hammer to crack the nuts of the angels dancing on a pinhead.  Common sense has been left behind it seems in an effort to ensure that every associated fact or action can be incorporated in what it thinks is an appropriate sentence.  There is no doubt in my mind that within a decade these guidelines will be replaced by algorithms with the bench left to decide on what manual interventions would be justifiable to make the particular circumstances of each case fit the crime.  Meanwhile with the courts and prisons in chaos, reduced court reporting in local print media and serious knife offending being news headlines almost daily I have gathered below just a few recent cases where the hot air of politicians on and off the hustings can be seen for what it really is; bluster and deceit to fool the British public and especially the parents of teenage boys that there is active control to reduce knife crime. 

Kai Kiernan Nanpean, St Austell Age: 19

On or about July 7 at Leamingston Spa had with him, without good reason or lawful authority, in a public place Victoria Terrace an article which had a blade or was sharply pointed, namely a machete.

On August 1, at Queen's Crescent, Bodmin, had an article which had a blade or was sharply pointed, namely a kitchen knife with a blade exceeding three inches.

Suspended sentence order: two months, suspended for 12 months. Mental health treatment: 12 days. Rehabilitation activity: 20 days.

                 -----------------------------------------------

A woman was found hiding in bushes near a pre-school in Bridport with a large knife, a court has heard.

Rebecca Wilson, aged 41, pleaded guilty in Weymouth Magistrates Court to possessing a knife blade/sharp pointed article in a public place in Bridport.

This related to an incident which happened in St Andrews Road on June 21, 2024.

Christina Norgan, prosecuting, told the court that at 9.10pm, police received a 999 call from a member of the public that a woman was seen in possession of a large knife in the bushes next to St Andrew’s pre-school in Bridport.

When she was detained, Wilson told police officers “I’ve got a knife.”

A kitchen knife was subsequently retrieved from her waistband and she was taken into custody.  

Wilson was previously convicted in 2012 for wounding.

Simon Lacey, mitigating, presented a mental health form on Wilson’s behalf to the magistrates’ bench and asked for it to be taken into consideration before sentencing.

Stephen Takel, chair of the magistrates' bench told the defendant: “The reason these sorts of offences are treated in this way is because of the risk of knife crime.

“We noticed in the interview report you were confused why it was taken so seriously. The reason is that knife crime is very serious and people die. The authorities don’t know what a person’s intention is.

“If you are in possession of a knife in public, you are considered a risk to others.

“My recommendation would be to not go out of your house with a bladed article full stop to avoid future offending in this way.”

The defendant was given a 12-month community order.

Wilson, of Dorchester Road, Weymouth, must also attend 12 sessions of mental health treatment with a clinical psychologist to understand her triggers and trauma.

She must also complete 15 days of rehabilitation activity requirement days.

She was fined £120 and must pay courts cost of £85 and £114 surcharge.

                                 ----------------------------------------------------------------------

 A 43-year-old east Suffolk man has been handed a suspended sentence after being caught in the street with a knife.

Jamie Buckenham, who is of Bloomsbury Close in Lowestoft, admitted having a flick knife in Seago Street in the coastal town when he appeared at Great Yarmouth Magistrates’ Court.

He was given a three-month prison sentence that was suspended for 18 months when he was sentenced by magistrates for a single charge of possession of an offensive weapon in a public place.

The flick knife was taken by police and the defendant must complete a 40-day rehabilitation programme.

The incident happened on September 22 last year, a court listing confirmed.

As well as the suspended sentence, Buckenham was also ordered to pay £85 in costs to the Crown Prosecution Service told to pay a surcharge of £154 and complete 100 hours of unpaid work.

A collection order was made for the sums.

The defendant's guilty plea was taken into account when magistrates decided on his sentence.

                 --------------------------------------------------------

 A man begged magistrates not to send him to jail after he was caught with a banned knife, having already been convicted of numerous offences of violence. 

Several members of the public had called 999 to report that Kieran Eames, 26, was in Loughborough town centre with a folding butterfly knife.

At Leicester Magistrates' Court on Monday he admitted possessing a blade in public.

Eames, of King Street, Loughborough, had to be repeatedly asked to keep quiet after entering the courtroom. He apologised and told the magistrates: "I'm just really worried.

"I don't want to go back to prison. I'm begging you."

Prosecutor Peter Bettany told the magistrates Eames had previously been convicted of various offences of violence - including assault by beating of a police officer in May 2022 - but had never been convicted of having a knife before.

Eames's solicitor, Rachel Gaffney, told the magistrates: "He made no attempt to conceal it. He didn't brandish the weapon at anyone and he said in his police interview he didn't know it was a criminal offence to have such a weapon on his person in a public place."

Probation officer David Charlton told the court Eames had issues with drink and drugs, but had refused to speak to probation to give them more information. He added that Eames was "extremely vulnerable" and that prison would be a "dangerous place for him to be".

The chair of the bench, Elizabeth Needham, told Eames they would be giving him a suspended sentence instead of sending him to prison. She said: "You need to keep yourself out of trouble."

Eames replied: "Thank you. You won't see me again. I've been petrified for months thinking I'll be going back to jail."

Eames was given a 20-week sentence, suspended for 12 months, and was ordered to pay a £154 victim surcharge.

WHICH IS MORE BELIEVEABLE? FACT OR FICTION

One of the pleasures that I find most agreeable on a leisure based late summer holiday is abandoning the daily newspaper and most TV news programmes and taking unrushed minutes and/or hours to read books which have been lying on the table or desk just waiting for months and years to be opened.  Two such publications were hurriedly packed a couple of weeks ago; "Munich" by Robert Harris and the first offering from the "Secret Barrister" published in 2017 and 2018 respectively. Two such different forms of writing and topic that at first glance one would thought that there was nothing within their pages that could be compared. 

The novel I read in full and the outpourings of the cynical legal eagle are so far unread past pp107.  Those pages however included SB`s diatribe against magistrates and the system in which they operate.  Robert Harris is rightfully recognised as a master within his field.  His scholarly narrative is well constructed of what in his imagination lay behind the appearance and words of Neville Chamberlain on 30th September 1938 when Chamberlain's aeroplane landed at Heston Aerodrome and he spoke to the spectators there:

"The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved is, in my view, only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace. This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine [shows paper to crowd]. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains but I would just like to read it to you: " ... We regard the agreement signed last night and the Anglo-German Naval Agreement as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again".  

Harris`s acknowledgements occupy two and a half closely typed pages.  His fictional account of the momentous four days prior to that speech is masterful and credible unlike the bile that the SB vomits over 38pp in his/her vile and outrageous descriptions or depictions of what life is like for all those who use the magistrates courts i.e. witnesses and all those who fulfil their professional functions within that arena.  S/He reserves her/his  contemptuousness for lay magistrates by anonymous accounts of the ineptitude supposedly experienced in her/his presence.  I can honestly say that in my 17 years on a London bench  with c300 members when I retired nine years ago  the majority as a presiding magistrate or chairman in the old parlance,  I have never heard, seen or experienced such language, action or behaviour as s/he purports to be the norm.  Unlike Robert Harris, a world renown writer of wonderful fiction, the SB is using untested anecdote to undermine a whole justice system to vent what seems to be personal frustration and/or antagonism. There is no doubt that there are serious criticisms that can and should be attended to in the magistrates courts. Since the book`s publication these problems have intensified.  There is unquestionably an argument that magistrates courts should have a single government salaried District Judge presiding: that eg [as was my practice], all defendants found guilty at trial should be told and have literature given to them of the appeal system: that trials should be in front of DJ with two lay magistrate wingers as currently in appeals  before a crown court judge flanked by two magistrates.  Magistrate selection and training leave a lot to be desired.  But venomous castigation and atypical quotations and observations to suit her/his purpose are not the way to process a needed investigation.  Latest figures from the Ministry of Justice indicate that there is no current trend to have more courts with DJs presiding than is the case now. 

About 20 years ago there was an academic inquiry, the exact name and terms of which are now lost to me, which came to the conclusion that if District Judges forfeited their need for a legal advisor [they are of course their own legal advisor] the costs of their employment would be in touching distance of the then current costs of magistrates` expenses plus associated advisors` salaries.  Indeed it will, IMHO, be when or if such an inquiry showed conclusively that lay magistrates cost more than district judges  and only then. that there will emerge a valid argument that lay magistrates have had their day in court.  

The Secret Barrister should consider retiring from writing whilst s/he is ahead and concentrate in performing the duties for which s/he is presumably ably qualified. "Fake Law" and "The Memoir of an Unlikely Lawyer" are not on my future reading list.  However with the £millions already pocketed from sales of over 600,000 copies perhaps s/he will conclude that the law was merely a stepping stone to her/his true vocation following in the footsteps of many of her/his legal predecessors.  At least then lay magistrates could hold their heads level if not high as they continue to prop up a system decaying in front of all us all.  

PLAINTIFF`S FINANCIAL BACKERS TAINT CLAIM

We`re all travelers.  We might not be Dr Who or interstellar voyagers but we often go on business or pleasure from point A to point B and increasingly we use paid for public transport and not our owned, leased or hired cars, vans or bicycles. As travelers we have become inured to strikes and delays when traveling on roads, trains and aeroplanes.  For some of us delays cause no more than inconvenience but for others the minutes, hours and occasionally days lost to causes outwith our control can have more serious consequences.  And this is when we look to the companies involved to provide compensation for the consequences of their inability to provide the service(s) for which we, the customer, have paid.  Consumer pressure on governments has led to the labyrinthine requirements of claiming recompense from rail and airline companies to be brought under some control and authority.  Indeed some few years ago my first class ticket on an Edinburgh train to London on January 2nd was unusable owing to the service`s cancellation.  The next train was so over occupied I sat on my case for much of the journey.  However on the bright side I was pleasantly surprised to find a few days later that my fare had been refunded by Virgin Trains which leads me to an interesting case decided last week at the High Court.  In summary a case brought against British Airways for compensation was thrown out owing to the motives of those who had financially backed the claimant.  To quote the judge, "I would not allow the claim to go forward as a representative action because the dominant motive for it lies in the financial interests of its backers".

As a humble retired magistrate I find the judge`s reasoning bizarre.  Many ex wives of Russian oligarchs and other very very wealthy men have employed lawyers on a no win no fee basis.  Group actions in other matters have been undertaken on the basis of a winning legal firm taking a pre agreed share of a compensation award.  Perhaps this one will be next heard of if or when it`s taken to the Court of Appeal or even Supreme Court. 

As I`m soon away for a couple of weeks hoping to enjoy limited  solar radiation and an excessive calorific intake this site will not be updated with my meandering comments on matters quasi legal until the latter days of September unless of course I`m delayed by an airline strike or perhaps erupting volcanoes over Iceland

POLAND, LUTON AIRPORT AND LESSONS FOR UK FOR THOSE WHO LISTEN

Having just arrived home late last night from a trip to Poland for the wedding of a colleague of my wife the last thing on my mind has been to let my remaining brain cells put together a few hundred words here as I`ve been doing for eleven years.  But some difficult opinions are trying to escape.

The nuptial venue was the town of Znin situated half way between Warsaw and Berlin.  The hotel was converted from a late 19th century and laterally a Soviet era sugar beet factory where all forms of large machines have been left in situ.  Politically the town has been considered as part of Prussia, Poland and USSR.  It was destroyed exactly 85 years ago by the Nazi invasion and occupation when  hundreds of its citizens were murdered.  It seems that many workers and (Polish) guests were still existing in the Soviet era.  The facilities seemed to open and close at a whim and nobody wanted to take responsibility when any queries arose.  There were no TV programmes available in anything but Polish language, no newspapers, one only internal sign in English, not even that in German and most of the staff were monolingual.  Poznan airport seemed to have been designed with Polish citizens only in mind.  And now to my overlapping brain cells making a connection with the aforementioned to the experience on returning to Luton Airport.  

Restoring my phones`s link with the outside world  on landing there was a message that my son`s car had developed a battery problem and he would be unable to be there for pick up.  And so began the revelation that those functionaries in HI VIS jackets whose sole task for which I presume they are adequately rewarded is to answer the questions of travellers on arriving at perhaps a new destination with some degree of knowledge.  Speaking to the person at the onward travel area wrong information on costs of coach, train [and availability] taxis, Uber were offered.  At the coach stop waiting area the only four seats were occupied and, still in recovery from major surgery, the thought of standing unsupported for 40 minutes until the coach arrived was not a solution.  Further HI VIS advice was to take a coach to a train.  We were further taken on advice to the wrong train station.  There we were directed to the wrong platform for a train to Kings Cross. Just in time we were then told to change platforms as the service to Three Bridges was approaching.  Where in god`s name is Three Bridges?  Oh! that`s somewhere near Gatwick.  My point to another yellow jacketed person presumably an employee of Network Rail was why did the indicator board not specify that Kings Cross,  AKA St Pancras International, was a stop en route to somewhere miles south of the Thames.    

My opinion of Poles and Poland bearing in mind current events and the recent upheavals in that country over the last decade lead me to believe that there is a national insularity within the psyche of those responsible for the running of the state and those who are living in their own European crossroad where East and West have contested their homeland for centuries.  

And where is Britain on the spectrum of calm cool people ruled by calm cool government with workers of all sorts striving to do their best for those who pay them and for those they service?  Identity politics {Corbyn led} inspired in part by foreign machinations fanning flames of antisemitism which is of course denied by the fanners insofar as it`s "Zionists" who are the evil doers, is now beginning to establish a forum to further ruin any idea of Britishness  begun by the SNP and its Welsh counterpart.  The democratic Right of the Conservatives having apparently lost its ideological battle has flitted to what might be an embryonic fascist party in the making. Our justice system, a pillar on which our supposed democracy rests, has been demonstrated to be as fragile as the egos of those who sit in SW1.  A new Prime Minister who has pitifully demonstrated that all he learned at the Ministry of Justice is as naught when the judicial system must be an adjunct to this government`s version of its predecessor`s in its actions on public disorder ["crime"] and its deterrence.  

All the above is alive and kicking in Poland.  It is not inevitable that this country can escape the machinations and upheavals of Europe which over the centuries have led to ruin and sometimes resurrection for so many.  We were then united in being what we are; proud to be British and able to reject the stirrings of authoritarianism.  In 1656 Jews were allowed to settle in Britain, Britain was the first nation to abolish slave trading in 1807 and in 1918 the Parliament (Qualification of Women) Act 1918 was passed, allowing women to be elected to Parliament although full suffrage was delayed until a decade later.  Post 1945 and the end of empire were the forces the ripples of which are still having their effects on how we live today.  The immigration of black people from the West Indies and african former colonies has generally been a social and industrial success.  The import of those whose first consideration is their adherence to a war conqueror and his visions of the 7th century has been anything but enhancement to a united society.  

We are where we are and have naught to blame but ourselves.  The Roman and other ancient empires went out more with a whimper than a bang.  Are our ears sensitive enough as a nation to steer us in the right direction that our children and their children will have a home known as UK?    

IS JPs` PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION A HARBINGER OF AN UNPLEASANT FUTURE?

It seems an axiom of western democracy that those sitting in judgement over their fellow citizens have the respect of those fellow citizens. In America judges are elected.  In this country they are appointed. Having myself been appointed as a Justice of the Peace I don`t intend to discuss the merits of both arrangements, at least not today.  But what I do think is of interest is the very recent publication of the ethnic, social, sexual, age, education, religion and disability status of applicants both successful and unsuccessful.

Statisticians academic, political and journalistic are probably having a field day in pouring all the revealed numbers, crunching them in a soup of algorithms and making hay with the results perceived and/or implied.   

As an opening example in the South East Region 96% of applicants declared themselves as heterosexual.  That compares with the North East 92%, London 90%, North West 88% and Wales 89%.  I leave it to others if further such comparisons are wanted. 

For the year 2022-23 the religion of applicants was as follows:- Christian 2328 = 49%, Muslim 307 = 6%, Jewish 97 = 2%, Buddhist 25 = 1%, Hindu 119 = 2%, Sikh 70 = 1%, None + Other 1829 = 38% and Unknown = 341.     Of those the following were shortlisted:- Christian 960 = 50%, Muslim 61 = 3%, Jewish 41 = 2%, Buddhist 11 = 1%,  Hindu 36 = 2%, Sikh 25 = 1%, None + Other 804 = 42%, Unknown 133.   These are figures for England and Wales but the pen pushers at the MOJ have also those numbers broken down regionally. 

Applications were also broken down by age, sex, ethnicity, educational levels of applicant and parent(s),  type of school attended, disability and employment status.  All these variables are also available region by region.  The amount of personal and computing effort to achieve these statistics is almost incomprehensible. But that, for those ordering such a task,  was to fulfil a mantra [with apologies to Abraham Lincoln], to have a judicial system of the people by the people and for the people.  Such deference to a system which was once lauded as "local justice" when magistrates could sit only in their own designated court is now but a charade.  Rules were changed about two decades ago to allow magistrates in theory to be deployed at any court in England and Wales. Of course for practical reasons there is a heavy limitation on that availability. District Judges [MC] are under no such geographical restrictions.  Like their senior colleagues they are free to apply for posts wherever they consider suitable for their requirements.  They are as "local" as those on the Supreme Court.  It must be kept in mind that District Judges preside alone in magistrates courts with exactly the same powers and authority as lay magistrates although as has been the case in recent weeks certain types or classes of offenders are specifically brought in their courts and not in front of the "locals" whom the MOJ must consider are unable to follow the orders given to their highly paid government funded judicial civil servants.  The relative allocation of cases to District Judges vis a vis lay magistrates is currently unknown. 

The basis of the magistrates courts system is that a quality of justice is best achieved  by matching the make up of the citizenship with those before whom alleged offenders plead their case.  It follows that government believes that that policy is approved by the population.  As far as I am aware there has never been a reputable or any other survey to ascertain whether or not that belief has any foundation in reality.  The fundamental question is whether any quota system whatever its constitution selects the best people for the intended task.  In simple terms what began decades ago as pressure for women not to be excluded from certain jobs owing to their sex has now extended to almost every aspect of society where discrimination perceived or actual has spawned a billion £ industry of employment legislation, lawyers and tribunals.  When registered blind people are appointed to the magistracy can it truly be upheld that their disability does not prevent them functioning as their normally sighted colleagues?  A parliamentary question and answer Volume 234: debated on Monday 27 January 1930 is copied below re the then minimum height requirements of the Metropolitan Police.

Mr. DAY

Share this specific contribution

asked the Home Secretary whether the temporary modification of the height standard of the Metropolitan constabulary which was introduced during the previous 12 months is still in existence; and whether there is still difficulty in obtaining sufficient suitable recruits at the normal minimum height?

Mr. CLYNES

Share this specific contribution

The temporary reduction of the minimum height to 5 feet 8½ inches has not been removed, but in practice it is found possible at present to obtain sufficient recruits of 5 feet 9 inches or over; with very few exceptions.

Today there are no height restrictions on joining any UK police service.  

There are some who will egard my observations as emanating from the age of dinosaurs; that is their privilege.  Is this form of active identity politics conducive to a coherent society?  By showboating a population`s differences when there are but fading memories of what united that population in previous times we are creating what in the past might have been termed fiefdoms.  Rabble rousers from marxist to fascist have long known that to further their cause divisions in a society  must be exploited.  My fear is that we are in many respects experiencing government and politics from the days of Thatcher on the Right to Corbyn on the Left having made an ideal bed for extremism to grow that the magistrates courts system of local proportional representation is just a minor harbinger of an unpleasant future.