Barristers from the highest and most respected QCs to the newest pupils in their rush to denounce such proposals conveniently forget the situation in the numbers of ever increasing trials that take place in magistrates` courts before a District Judge(MC) sitting alone. Their memory lapse includes the underlying fairness in these lower courts of three Justices of the Peace sitting as a tribunal where a majority verdict is required for conviction; a jury of peers albeit limited in number but more highly qualified than any jury supposedly randomly selected where "randomly" can include those with English as a very poorly understood 2nd or even 3rd language, where reasoning ability is not tested, where prejudice can exist and who do not even need to be citizens of this country.
Lady Justice Hallet would not dare to entertain this point of view. She is likely to be amongst those who in their heart and soul might pay lip service to the magistracy but would not object to its being relegated to a peripheral role allowing a professional cadre of full time government paid District Judges to preside and adjudicate unhindered by supposedly unqualified J.P.s. But as usual there is obfuscation.
Most people could not give a damn whether or not the lay magistracy is eased out and an effective system of summary justice founded nearly 700 years ago and developed to cope with the requirements of a 21st century democracy survives. Senior judiciary are not "most people". The least they should do is make their opinions known before they retire to their country cottages on their civil service pensions safe in the knowledge that government can`t chastise them.
Is it time to say goodbye to either way offences?
by TheJusticeofthePeace
@ 21. Nov. 2009. – 14:18:34
Long before the recent financial
debacle which the citizenry of this country will be paying for twenty years
from now the government was looking for cost savings wherever it could
primarily as a political stick to beat the Tories in a Dutch auction to demonstrate
that "P?rudence" was the watchword. Of late this belt tightening has
more in common with a financial famine where the survival of this country in
the political premier league is uncertain.
The Ministry of Justice is certainly
more than a bit player in this race to the bottom. Unlike the NHS where most of
us have personal experience HMCS impinges upon a minority and a minority by its
very being that has little influence the professionals running it the
exception. It is only in England Wales.....the Scots and the Irish have more
sense.......that within a certain category of offences the alleged offender can
choose to be tried at the Magistrates` Court or the Crown Court. At the former
the bench comprises three highly trained personnel generally representative of
the community they serve who give their time for no payment except minimal
expenses. The maximum sentence that bench can impose is six months`
imprisonment which can be appealed before a judge in the Crown Court where a
life term can be the disposal. Thus generally although over 90% of cases are
completed at Magistrates` Courts and the most serious at the Crown Court there
is an intermediate level of offences; either way offences, in which the
defendant can elect to be tried at either venue. At Crown Court the trial will
be in front of a jury of twelve.
Recently the Crown prosecution Service
has launched a consultation paper on proposed changes in policy with regard to
the initiation of a prosecution amongst which is the following,"The
changes extend this test to include a requirement asking them to consider
whether a prosecution is proportionate (balancing time and cost of prosecution
with the seriousness of the offence)". What this means in simple terms is
whether prosecuting a case is worth the cost the inference being in my opinion
that the costs of a trial are not worth the low level of offending. A recent
case demonstrates this. A man was taken to court for stealing a banana worth
25p. It was an either way offence of Theft from a shop. He elected trial by
jury at the Crown Court where it took a jury about ten minutes to acquit him.
Latest figures show 59,000 people were sentenced at Crown Court for either way
offences. Depending on one`s viewpoint many of these offences could be
considered as suitable for one court or the other with perhaps the majority at
Magistrates` Court especially if the maximum sentence available there were
increased to twelve or even twenty four months imprisonment.
Recent statistics on the costs to
government of trials at Magistrates` Courts and Crown Court trials are hard to
come by but within the last ten years or so it has been guesstimated that the
latter costs ten times the costs of the former. So by eliminating either way
offences we eliminate an enormous expense and in doing so remove an anomaly
that has had its day {in court?}
by The Justice of the Peace
@ 14. Jan. 2013. – 21:358
The second post that I wrote
on this site 21/11/2009 was entitled “Is it time to say goodbye to either way offences?”
The powers that be obviously think not. Probably the
most commonly committed of such offences is that of theft. As far as I am aware
there are no figures to show how many charges of theft are heard before a judge
and jury at crown court and what percentage of the total these represent. An
argument often heard from lawyers why the status quo should remain ie theft
should not be summary only, is eg for those of good character a conviction of
theft however minor could have a devastating effect on their career and/or
reputation. IMHO this is a spurious and unmerited argument. The underlying
imputation is that a jury is more likely than a bench of J.P.s or a SINGLE
DISTRICT JUDGE to acquit their client. Whether said client committed the crime
or not is of course not a matter for consideration. If juries are seen to
acquit in demonstrably doubtful situations and in contrast to the evidence
presented, then one of two changes will eventually take place; a change in the
particular law in question or pressure from government to satisfy a restless
populous by demanding more judge only trials at crown court and dispensing with
the jury altogether.
Criminal damage is an offence tried
summarily only if the sum involved does not exceed £5,000. Above that figure or
if the charge is racially or religiously aggravated the offence becomes either
way. What logic prevents a similar cut off level for theft
as a summary only offence? What form of trial would the 40 thieves have
preferred?
No comments:
Post a Comment