Now that I am retired having been many years a magistrate with a long awareness of the declining freedoms enjoyed by the ordinary citizen and a corresponding fear of the big brother state`s ever increasing encroachment on civil liberties I hope that my personal observations within these general parameters will be of interest to those with an open mind. Having been blogging with this title for many years against the rules of the Ministry of Justice my new found freedom should allow me to be less inhibited in these observations.

Comments are usually moderated. However, I do not accept any legal responsibility for the content of any comment. If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.

Tuesday, 17 February 2015


A suspended sentence is supposed to act as a deterrent against future offending within the period of suspension.  The protocol is that upon conviction of a further offence the sentence should be activated in whole or part failing which the court must state its reasons for not so doing. I commented on this topic in some detail exactly one year ago.  What has interested me was a report  from Northern Ireland where a District Judge presumably operating on devolved legislation decided not to activate a very recently imposed suspended sentence order because the current offence was of a different kind from the previous.  This reasoning has never previously crossed my horizon.  Perhaps somebody can explain the law behind the DJ`s decision?  After all walking the plank was not much of a deterrent without the ocean below.

1 comment:

  1. I do not know what his suspended sentence was given for but you would surely not think it was right to activate a suspended sentence given for shoplifting if the defendant was subsequently caught speeding.