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 If any comment seems submitted just to advertise a website it will not be published.
Wednesday, 18 July 2018
Convicted sex offenders must re register with police annually and give notice of address change within three days. This offender failed to do so and was summonsed to appear at Kirklees Magistrates Court. He turned up drunk and was refused admission to the building. As a result he was bailed to appear to appear at a subsequent time. Much valued court time was wasted, the case is still unanswered and the registration etc has still not been completed. Surely it would have been sensible to admit him with security escort, place him in the cells for contempt of court if he had not sobered up for the bench and keep him either in the cells or at a police station for appearance the following day. Perhaps my cynicism of current practice is showing........it`s only three years since I retired.........but truly there has been something lost in the justice system if a drunk sex offender can be allowed to continue to go on his way in these circumstances?
Tuesday, 17 July 2018
On March 3rd 2018 The Times published the following:-
Reforms to the justice system, including court closures and a move to virtual hearings, will have a damaging impact on access to justice, MPs have warned. In a letter to Lucy Frazer, the junior justice minister, they say the elderly, mothers of young children and those without internet access will be disadvantaged by Ministry of Justice plans. The justice select committee says that proposals flout the principle that 90 per cent of people should be able to reach courts by public transport in one hour. The plans have no “convincing policy justification” and “appear to favour value for money over the principle of access to justice”. They also criticise the “increasing reliance on virtual and online justice”, pursued in the absence of evaluation of pilot projects. A ministry spokesman said: “This government is investing over £1 billion to reform and modernise the justice system, making it more convenient and providing better value for the taxpayer.”
In 2015 the House of Common Justice Select Committee published its findings after questioning many witnesses when investigating the magistracy including those which related to travel times to courts The situation today has worsened. Even in 2016 the MOJ denied it had set maximum travel times to court on public transport. But the truth will out. The situation in Cambridge this year has become a topic of further debate about the terminological inexatitude of the weasels in Petty France. Similar noises of the real state of affairs in rural areas with court closures can be heard in Suffolk.
Like so much else emanating from this government there has come about a total non belief in the veracity of senior ministers when describing policy and its ramifications, the statements from the very pinnacle of power re Brexit being just the most obvious but the odious tendency to lie when a cover up is failing will have the most serious consequences for a population beguiled into believing that simplistic populist measures are in its best interests. That way lies anarchy and that is the way we seem to be heading.
Friday, 13 July 2018
Wednesday, 11 July 2018
Monday, 9 July 2018
I don`t often agree with much that is written in the Guardian but this piece from Saturday`s edition is a must for those seeking greater understanding of what is happening to justice and individual liberty under our very noses which seem unable to smell the poison emanating from the MOJ and a supine parliament which is in intellectual decline as never before allowing another slice of our freedom to be taken from us.
Thursday, 5 July 2018
House of Lords 3rd July 2018
Baroness Corston Labour
Tuesday, 3 July 2018
These thoughts passed briefly through the space between my ears a couple of months later when we were considering a case of possession of a bladed article. Unless a person has a specific good reason for having the item in his possession he is guilty. In addition that reason must also apply to the moment of possession. So a carpenter eg who uses a particular knife for his job but is found in possession on a Saturday night out is guilty but if he were in possession one morning driving his van between jobs the defence could apply. Our defendant, an illiterate Kurdish man in his sixties, had been found with a small fruit knife at the bottom of a shopping bag when stopped at a department store on suspicion of committing theft. His defence was that since he had severe untreated dental problems the knife was needed to cut fruit the mainstay of his diet. We were told that he made some money doing odd jobs here and there and he confirmed that he ate a lot of fruit at home and when he was out working because it was relatively cheap and nutritious but that he needed the knife as his teeth were so bad biting was almost impossible. At this point he demonstrated to all that his few remaining canine and incisors were very loose. The prosecutor herself was on shaky ground and this wizened old man held fast to his version of events. The total sum of the CPS evidence was the finding of the knife which was of course admitted.
Some legal advisers take a more pro active approach to their role than others. It was my practice to tell the adviser that either we would ring for him/her when required or to allow a certain time before joining our discussions. Certainly, unless the situation was very unusual, I did not invite the adviser to join us at the beginning of our deliberations; any legal advice being given in open court.
In the above case we decided that there was a valid reason for possession and asked our L/A to join us as we began to write our reasons. He asked us to confirm that we had followed a structured approach to our decision and that we truly were aware of the legal interpretation of possession at that moment. We explained that we considered the “moment” was an ongoing event owing to the defendant`s continuing inability to eat fruit in the normal way and cutting small pieces was reasonable activity with the small kitchen knife. However instead of accepting our decision he continued in an attempt to change our minds. He did not succeed. Our decision making was based on a correct application of the judicial structure in which we all received very high quality training and reviews.
The L/A referred to above in the property case that went to the Divisional Court accepted our decision when assured it had been correctly derived although she admitted her conclusion might have differed. She became a Crown Court judge. There is a moral there somewhere.