One of the most testing times for a chairman of a bench of magistrates IMHO is
in the control of the court during a personal appearance of an angry citizen during a “Council Tax”
court. Recent changes brought about by Ian
Duncan Smith and his cohorts have led to tens of thousands of low income
individuals having to pay a proportion of Council Tax for the very first
time. Although the amounts might appear
to be small in the grand scheme of things their very imposition for some is a
bitter blow to their already fragile financial existence. Readers here will be well aware that our
powers are severely limited when dealing with the granting of liability orders
where there is little or no payment in
prospect from householders. Locally I
find that the borough prosecutors make every effort to resolve matters even
outside the courtroom where a handful of aggrieved people present at every
hearing to put their case. Only in very
few cases have I found any reason to justify the rejection of an application
but there have been a few over the years.
The problem for the chairman is being able to reason with people
struggling to get by on a pittance when they are sometimes unable or unwilling
to understand that as a bench our powers are severely circumscribed in these
matters. Some are extremely articulate
and bring with them masses of paperwork in a vain attempt to halt the council`s bureaucratic tsunami
onslaught. On occasion it can take a mixture of
understanding, tact, confidence and resolution from
the bench to prevent matters deteriorating to a shouting match where the
defendant is going to be the loser.
Currently whether winger or chairman, old hand or relative newbie a half
day sitting every fortnight is the minimum sitting requirement to fulfil the
MOJ guidelines. However competent a J.P.
might be I would opine that in specialised courts where sittings are more irregular
these minimum guidelines are inadequate.
Whether pilot, joiner, plumber,
lawyer, surgeon I would not like to knowingly fly with a pilot whose flying hours
were minimal; I would employ a joiner only after
being sure his previous work was of a high standard, a lawyer who had to look
up the books at every opportunity would not get my business, any plumbing
problems I`ve had were solved by someone with experience and when in the past I have required surgery I
have questioned the surgeon`s previous expertise. Perhaps I write from a position of privilege
but that does not invalidate my opinion that there is no substitute for
experience.
No comments:
Post a Comment