MUSINGS ON WEDNESDAY 2

I offer just a few points of reference for today.

Prosecutions for road traffic offences have fallen by two thirds since 2010.  I doubt that driving standards have improved so much in that time.  The only possible explanation is that with fewer police on patrol fewer miscreants have been apprehended. The numbers are here. 

The government is totally to blame for the current shortage of magistrates. The number of two person benches is on the rise precisely because of the shortage. But in the true tradition of government obfuscation we are told no statistics are kept on these events.  This is ridiculous. It would take but an instant to note these numbers given that every case is associated with the names of those JPs who sat on the occasion(s) in question. 

For examples of how the nasally inclined public school accented women in charge of the magistracy are allowed to rant and divert attention from actual problems readers could do worse than spending an hour or so watching the recent meeting of the House of Commons Justice Committee where those three ladies did their best to waffle with members of the committee generally not prepared to push hard. 

And finally as someone who was born just a few weeks before the end of World War 2 and whose close family members were active in the fight against the nazis, to discover that the  Judicial College has had to prepare and distribute for the judiciary advice on the disturbing rise in antisemitism is of great concern. Comment can be found here.  That this virus seems to becoming commonplace amongst the far left in particular is a direct result of the leader of Her Majesty`s Opposition giving tacit support by his silence to those concerned in addition to lying about his own support for those who would welcome and assist in the destruction of Israel and by implication the Jewish population.   

ADDENDUM

A  House of Lords answer published five minutes ago is illuminating as being another example of government not collecting simple statistics in case the numbers are detrimental to its probity.   

TV IN OUR COURTS IS INEVITABLE

Last week the Guardian published a lengthy article on the demise of court reporting.  It is a fact based information piece that offers no solutions to the perceived deficit. However these facts do not tell the whole story.  As I have posted here from time to time there are regular all day as it happens magistrates courts reports countrywide.  Insert court reporting in the search box. 

There is no doubt in my mind that it is a matter of "when" and not "if" live TV webcasts of all our courts  are common place.  These of course would have to be funded by commercial means.  The argument most often promulgated against such broadcasting is that the medium would become more significant that the legal process.  We are told that witnesses and more importantly barristers would perform for the cameras. Similar arguments were made by opponents to the televising of the House of Commons. With the Supreme Court`s proceedings a regular legal fixture I look forward to the day when I can choose to view the daily happenings at my local courts or indeed any court in England and Wales.  The Scots are already part way there. I wouldn`t bet against their more pragmatic legal attitudes leading to trials north of the border to be regularly on our screens within a decade. 

THE SUN SETS ON LAY MAGISTRATES

The government departments which have the greatest influence over the manner of the work that Justices of the Peace undertake are, surprise surprise, the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice. In May 2006 a previous Home Secretary John Reid admitted that when he was the incumbent the department was "not fit for purpose".  His honesty then has been borne out many times since.  The current prime minister oversaw so many failings when she was Reid`s successor it should have been a red light to her colleagues when she was placed in Downing Street purely as the least objectionable of a rum lot. But the lemmings in the Tory Party allowed themselves to be led towards the inevitable cliff where her and their incompetence are likely to bring at the best,  years of political and economic problems and street violence and a Marxist government at worst. 

Faced with the problem of the Isis teenager from East London telling the media she has no regrets over her actions and expecting public sympathy the current Home Secretary touted by some as a future prime  minister with all the resources of his department behind him made public his opinion that he would seek to prevent her from returning to these shores.  Presumably he was basing that statement having consulted his permanent secretary and read his own rules as below.

The essence of his opinion did not take into account that a British citizen cannot be made stateless.  There is no ambiguity in that fact. And the fact that the teenager in question did not have duel citizenship with rights of another country`s passport should have been apparent to him and his advisors. He now has had to backtrack and accept that if she reaches the UK border she cannot be excluded.

The list above of the Secretaries of State for Justice makes for sorry reading for any sense of continuity or joined up thinking in the department which runs the lives of magistrates. One hour ago the current Secretary issued a statement included in which was a very strong hint that the days of magistrates courts having the power to impose immediate custodial sentences are numbered. This is not surprising to those of us who follow such events. The dumbing down of magistrates themselves will surely follow. If they are allowed to remain on the bench it will be mainly as wingers to District Judges who will be the presiding officials. To those who will say that no government will countenance the costs involved it has been shown that if DJs sit without a qualified legal clerk or with merely a low level clerk such costs will be approximately similar to the sums paid to Justices of the Peace as expenses. 

So all those inspired by the advertisements appearing countrywide encouraging applications for the lay bench enjoy the sun whilst it`s shining.  It will be dimming before long.  

DECRIMINALISE DRUG USE

I have long been in favour of the decriminalisation of drugs which are currently prohibited; heroin, cocaine and marijuana and the derivatives manufactured to get round current regulations which are sometimes more lethal than the originals on which they are based.  In the case of marijuana many jurisdictions have already legalised the drug in particular form.  The swinging sixties so called was an era of "weed" or "joint" or "squiff" the active ingredient of which is  tetrahydrocannabinol. However, already more than 70 different cannabinoids have been identified so far. These compounds have a chemical structure that is much related to THC, but their biological effects are quite different.  The current popular derivative among users is commonly called "skunk" which is a vastly different product and has more serious side effects than its ancestor of half a century ago.  Users of this and other prohibited substances have no knowledge of what they are taking and almost every day news media contain tragic stories of the effects of these products. Drug trafficking to the UK costs an estimated £10.7 billion per year and The Home Office has estimated the illegal drugs market to be worth £5.3 billion. Recent figures show that there were approaching 3000 deaths from misuse of prohibited drugs. Surely taxing such products and selling them at licensed premises with regulated content would be more sensible than the present situation. Dealing would be more heavily punished.  There is a downside insofar as some people might be tempted to try out these drugs especially marijuana who otherwise would not have done so. However I believe that it is a matter of when and not if for the time to come for change. Neither society nor individuals such as this  are helped by using the court process. 

ASLEEP ON THE BENCH

It seems a judge, not just a HH but a High Court judge  has been caught sleeping on the job. Unlike JPs who fail similarly she was allowed to remain in post. For an entertaining recent history of such failings read my post of 14th August 2015.

SOMETIMES DETERRENCE REALLY DOES WORK

It is perhaps not widely known that when a defendant is fined at court after conviction the fine is payable immediately and sometimes, just sometimes, it is paid immediately. There are those, however, who appear to treat the whole court and legal process as an interruption to their feckless relentless life of contempt for any kind of authority. Reading regularly in various publications of the amount of unpaid fines, £500 million, a £billion or even more........who knows the exact figure at any time.........reminded me of an experience shortly before my retirement. 

Joe faced fine and various court costs of £190.00 and when told the sum was due on the spot protested he had no money. When he was asked that knowing he was coming to court to plead guilty had he not realised he would be fined he moved his head inconsequentially. After another ineffectual exchange he was told to turn his pockets out. He refused. The jailers were told to take him to the cells and have his pockets emptied. Shouting obscenities he was led away. The next defendant who was sitting at the back awaiting his being called eventually had a similar question put to him about paying immediately. He told the court with alarming frankness, "I was going to tell you I had nothing but I don`t want to go to the cells like that bloke." He took £10 in £ coins and small change from his pocket as a down payment and was directed to the fines office. We later took £25.00 from Joe!

So the motto of this little tale is occasionally the principle of deterrence really does work.