Not too long ago
I was in conversation with an elderly gentleman who actually began his
retelling to me of an old story, “When I were a lad……..” If nothing else it
made me realise my grey hairs were of little significance. But I`ve been doing this job as J.P. for long
enough to note that an undercurrent of changes over the last couple of decades has
swept many along in its wake without their even noticing. I am not referring to the changes in
legislation which have salami sliced defendants` rights of innocence until
proved guilty, increased the risks to individual liberty, procedural changes
which some might think have emasculated sentencers` options and placing victims as the be all and
end all around which all else must orbit but to those attitudes and thinking
processes which drive us all unseen and unheard until……………
We had had enough
down time to consume a three course dinner never mind another cup of coffee
when we were asked to hear a late application for special measures. As is often the case in such scenarios the
CPS agent began to relate the facts until she was told by yours truly to first
make an application for the matter to be heard out of time. For a moment her composure slipped as if such
a detail were almost a foregone conclusion.
After we had noted that the case
management form dated in September (this was a December sitting) had not been marked for special measures she told
us that the complainant in this non DV assault had informed the officer in the
case in October that she wanted screens. The delay in application was for the simple reason that the CPS had overlooked the case. We allowed the application by a majority
decision and heard the substantive arguments including defence`s objections and
our L/A`s remarks to consider if witness
evidence would be enhanced by screens etc etc after which I consulted my wingers
one of whom was awaiting his first appraised sitting as a chairman. To my
surprise he turned to me and said we should ask our L/A her opinion on what we
should conclude. My reply not
surprisingly was that we were the people put here to make that decision; not
the clerk. Unfortunately that was not
enough and he persisted to such a degree that I retired the bench from the
courtroom. In the corridor I made it very clear that I was disturbed
that having been a magistrate for over five years he was still unsure of where
his responsibilities lay. Subsequently special measures were granted.
I have firm
memories of my own first five or six years on the bench. Generally the middle chair`s occupant was a
confident, articulate and when necessary
a dominant personality. My contemporaries of the period and I were always aware when we
were occasionally listed with chairmen
who were bereft of these qualities. Perhaps
modern selection is fundamentally of a different (poorer) structure because I
remember in court when I were a lad…………………
It does no one any good to hear sniping. The other magistrate is not here to defend their position, and all you are doing is bringing the whole into disrepute.
ReplyDeleteThank you anonymous. IMHO your comment would have more validity with a signature.
ReplyDeleteWhy? If I use Anonymous, or any other username it makes no different to my comment. I could make up any name. Would it be better if I called myself Judge Dread, or Judge Judge, Dicky Bristow, Bob Monkhouse, or one of the Herrington twins?
DeleteYour comment`s insightfulness signed off as a J.P. would differ from that of an "outsider".
DeleteThis comment is now closed.
Hopefully your appraisal form reflected what had happened. In my experience, even 'experienced' magistrates have sometimes sought the view of the LA (other than on a legal point) ad of course that is unacceptable. We cannot say on appraisal forms whether someone is suitable or not, merely to suggest that further training may be in order. What DOES bring the system into disrepute is the difficulty of removing justices who just aren't up to it!
ReplyDelete