JUDGE`S REMARKS SHOULD BE UNSPOKEN

One of the attributes of our court system of which the senior bigwigs are most  jealously protective is its reputation.  Indeed an accusation of bringing the law into disrepute is often a striking off offence and in the past has been  levelled against a certain category of blogger.  It is not unusual of course for a higher court to criticise a lower court for its findings; that is its raison d`etre.  The criticism is almost invariably described in terms when a patient father might temper his feelings when demonstrating his displeasure at  the behaviour of a wayward offspring. 

An assertive bench of magistrates has considerable power.  After all we still term the courts over  which they preside as “magistrates`”  courts although the day might not be all that far off when they are renamed as District Criminal Court or some such term.  Be that as it may a lay bench would fail in its duty if it did not listen carefully to any advice from its legal advisor.  That advice might indicate that a bench`s proposed action would be unlawful in which case such a bench would desist from that proposed action.  But a more likely scenario would be that a L/A would “advise” or suggest that a particular course of action would have certain consequences and perhaps should be re considered.  A bench worth its salt would take everything on board but might persist on its original course.  In such a case the L/A would note  on the court file advice given and subsequently rejected.  It appears from a brief report in the Hull Daily Mail that a crown court judge has, arguably,  spoken rather injudicially.  It is not absolutely clear what the charge was nor what were the agreed facts to which the offender pleaded guilty.  What is fact is that for its own reasons the bench (it was unlikely to have been a District Judge)   thought its maximum  powers of six months custody were insufficient.  What is another fact  is that the Sentencing  Guidelines regarding all drug related offending  are so convoluted that they appear to be  the result of a bureaucratic tick box legislative   exercise gone mad.   I would venture that much advice from legal advisors where there might be some  doubt in sentencing powers being sufficient is conservative to the point of being an arse covering exercise for themselves as much as  any other consideration.  However I am not convinced that HH Judge Jeremy Richardson QC chose his remarks with the precision  that should be expected by a person in his position.  Perhaps to use some current jargon beloved by politicians of late; they should be unspoken.