MOJ`s CONTEMPT FOR MAGISTRATES

There is no doubt that the MOJ pays only lip service to magistrates, their opinions, their well being, their future.  A clear example is today`s  publication of the latest press release from the weasels in Petty France on the subject of new technology in courts. It includes remarks from a crown court judge, a senior police officer and the chair of the Bar Council. But one would seek in vain a comment from somebody representative of magistrates or indeed a single magistrate him or herself. Such is another indication that the days of the magistrate and his/her current position in our courts system are clearly numbered. 

CIVITAS OPINION ON HUMAN RIGHTS LAW

Today CIVITAS has published its monthly review for April. The section copied below from the review is IMHO essential reading for all those involved in our legal system.  Certainly the views expressed will not be acceptable to many (some) but the issue is one of importance to us all however much we agree or disagree with the conclusion. 

Rebalancing the British Constitution: The future for human rights law
The Human Rights Act 1998 is claimed by its advocates to contain fundamental rights that everyone in the UK is entitled to, by incorporating the rights set out in the European Convention on Human Rights into domestic British law. But as Jim McConalogue writes, its 22-year history now testifies to a lawyer’s charter which disregards the fundamental rights of many people in society and has enabled judicial supremacy to unsettle the UK constitution.

The Act is publicly justified as ‘an integral part’ of the British constitution and yet in practice, it emboldens a judicial supremacy of rights, far removed and insulated from the electorate. Innumerable court cases continue to permit Convention rights of often dangerous individuals – including detained terror offenders – to supersede the rights of all others in society in safeguarding their public safety and national security. The capacity to govern and protect the nation state operates in the face of serious ambiguity because of the Act.

The further continued glaring contradiction between a policy of withdrawing from an EU legal architecture while seeking to enhance a complementing European Convention rights-based system is now inconsistent and for the future, will become unmanageable. The repeal of the Human Rights Act is now well overdue, given its detrimental impact on the UK constitution.

A post-Brexit politics which requires a stronger democratic process in which applicable rights and laws derive from a strongly contested domestic public sphere means ‘rights questions’ can no longer be simply administered by a foreign court, or remain unchallengeable by the public or be left practically unamendable by parliament.

The opportunity to rebalance the constitution, to take back parliamentary democracy and to reverse the judicial supremacy and overreach of the Strasbourg court is viable and achievable. That decision will provide for a rekindling of the power of the executive to govern and protect, while demonstrating a respect for sovereignty and the restoration of a genuine British human rights moral code. The foundation for future rights must lay with society reclaiming democracy and deliberation as the basis for deciding those rights.

WHAT IS THE "SENIOR MAGISTRACY"?

Yesterday the Lord Chancellor made the following statement in reply to a question in the House of Lords,

"I thank the hon. Lady for that question. She will be glad to know that daily work is going on between my officials and Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service, the senior judiciary and the senior magistracy (my bold)  to make sure that we can progress more cases through both the magistrates and the Crown courts. Of immediate importance are magistrates court hearings: I want to see more of them come forward. We can do a lot of them virtually, and I know that the work being done by my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime and Policing, together with my Department, will help improve the speed of the delivery of these important cases."

My simple point is what is the senior magistracy?  My suspicions are that I know what it is not likely to be and that is the various chairman of the various benches known as the bench chairmen`s forum.  Not likely because these people are elected by their colleagues and the last thing government wants to hear are the opinions of the 15,000 people who are currently appearing in court when requested and able.  It appears that a representative of the Magistrates Association was involved. In all probability this so called discussion with senior magistracy consists in addition with the six magistrates appointed within the last two years by the senior presiding judge himself appointed by the Lord Chancellor. One might comment that if the LC can appoint judges` representatives as being "senior" why not these "leadership" magistrates. The difference is that magistrates are volunteers and not paid civil servants beholden to government for their incomes, career progression and pensions. These leadership toads represent nobody but themselves. We all know in all professions there are those who seek prominence and adulation and stand in line for their gongs at some future time. Such people are not representatives of the rank and file of my former colleagues. It is just another small step in the planned elimination of magistrates from presiding as they do over the vast majority of court sittings in the lower court. Nobody seems to notice and nobody seems to care.  For further posts on "leadership magistrates" type those words into the search box.  

THE MYTH OF OPEN JUSTICE

During the riots of 2011 instructions to me and my colleagues from the Deputy Justices Clerk were that where defendants were facing either way charges they must be sent to the crown court for trial.  I did not observe that order and on at least one occasion my  bench accepted jurisdiction.  With the corona virus trashing so many of our legal, business and social activities the Ministry of Justice after a somewhat inauspicious  beginning is organising the early release of some carefully chosen prisoners.  However it occurred to me as I presume it has occurred to others outside the judiciary that it is not unlikely that similar "advice" as that detailed above to me in 2011 has been whispered to sentencers in the lower court that every attempt should be made to avoid immediate imprisonment of offenders even although only around 3% of offenders suffer immediate custody in that court. These examples from Sheffield seem to be such an indication. Now that some magistrates courts are closed to the public and reporters also experiencing difficulties in accessing proceedings digitally  one thing can be said for certain and that is nobody remotely connected with the MOJ will ever admit to such advice having been given. That is an indication that when it suits government the myth of "open" justice is just that: a myth.

"QUIZ" AND THE SECRET BARRISTER

Owing to current circumstances there is a dearth of interesting cases or controversial events upon which it is worth my commenting or you, dear reader, reading. But what is worth a few minutes, is that for those old enough to have watched the original shows of Who Wants to be a Millionaire 20 years ago and to have watched the ITV three parter "Quiz" based upon the notorious case of the coughing major who was convicted of cheating his way to a £1,000,000, is the comment by the "Secret Barrister" on the court and other legal scenes.   

I must admit to having missed one or two of the points she has made.  I would hope that practising criminal lawyers missed none.

THE IDENTITY POLITICS OF THE MAGISTRATES ASSOCIATION

IDENTITY POLITICS: 

"a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics".

"sometimes referred to as identitarianism, is a political approach and analysis based on people prioritising the concerns most relevant to their particular racial, religious, ethnic, sexual, social, cultural or other identity, and forming exclusive political alliances with others of this group".

I doubt many will argue with the above definitions.  The term has been in use in various forms since the 1960s or 1970s, but has been applied with, at times, radically different meanings by different populations.  It is likely that as with so many now popular labels this one originated in America and primarily as a vehicle for black Americans to vocalise the rights as citizens they felt had been undermined by the white majority. In such a diverse society it quickly became a useful tool for Hispano Americans, native Americans and others.  At the heart of the disconnect felt by those groups was the realisation that the prejudices of white America were withholding the equality owing to them by the Constitution and that previous methods of securing their rights whether in education or one man one vote had been less than successful. It didn`t take long for the argument for such representative activities to  become a totem for the Left.  Initially black Britons aped their American examples in language, dress, culture and politics. Rarely were there any black groupings on the Right of the political spectrum.  With the immigration of over a million mainly poorly educated Muslims in the 1970s onwards they too saw the radical Left as their natural political home. And what a paradox that was and is: a large minority group holding often beliefs more suited to the middle ages in close alliance with agnostic or atheist gay supporting abortion on demand so called "progressives".  That this retrograde division of society has pervaded so many of its institutions is a cause for concern.  The Equality and Human Rights Commission is a statutory non-departmental public body established by the Equality Act 2006. Paradoxically this respected organisation set up by a Labour government is currently investigating that very same Labour Party for alleged antisemitism. There are however myriad groups steeped in the philosophy that must argue their separate cause whether it is the National Black Police Association or Muslim Women Network. 

The image at the top of the page was published earlier this week by the Magistrates Association, an organisation which is proving itself increasingly ineffectual in its contacts with this and previous  governments which had and have their own agenda with regard to the running and organisation of the lower court system.  

PEERS

"a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status".

There is no doubt that in today`s context  the above current definition is not strictly applicable. The jury system of "judgement by one`s peers" does not follow the above.  Jurors are not appointed or selected by the above criteria; they are or are supposedly a random selection of people whose names appear on the local electoral register.  Magistrates no longer belong to a "local" bench as they did during my time on the bench. Now there is a national bench which allows any magistrate to sit anywhere in England or Wales.  Thus the whole ethos as written at the top of the page by Paul Brearley JP Chairman of MA LGBT + special interest group is a chimera, a phantom, a non existent entity dreamed up by a failing body seeking to cause division in its ranks. 

The appointment of so called "leadership magistrates" by the MOJ has not exactly helped the MA in its attempts to have a leading role in directing the future of its members.  Indeed it has followed the aforestated examples of sub dividing its reducing membership into those groupings as copied below from its website. 

The MA LGBT+ Group was launched in February of 2020. 

We are in the process of launching groups for BAME magistrates and magistrates with disabilities. 

For more information on the Young Magistrates Special Interest Group (YMSIG), please email ymsig@magistrates-association.org.uk .

For more information on the MA LGBT+ Group, please email LGBT@magistrates-association.org.uk

For more information on any of the other groups, please email info@magistrates-association.org.uk 

So now if a member is a transvestite, bisexual or any sexual derivative imaginable the MA has a place especially tailored for the individual. I suppose any magistrate can double his/her/its involvement if his/her/its construction serves within several boundaries. It follows that there could be established eg a group for disabled BAME magistrates or LGBT disabled BAME magistrates. Or heaven forbid there could be a right wing group of aet. 40+ white male magistrates. The list goes on and serves to demonstrate the ridiculous morass into which the Magistrates Association is sinking. Indeed a vector diagram would be useful for them. Such divisions are destructive especially in an organisation which is bound by a common oath and which has a single objective:-  "I... swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the Second, in the office of Justice of the Peace and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God."

It is not unlikely that many will disagree with my opinion.  To those I will say only that the history of "diversity" is relatively short and that time will tell if the divisions caused by its excessive propaganda and propagation have helped or hindered a the construction of a cohesive society such a society being essential to all our well being. 

COURTROOM TELEVISION IS A STEP NEARER

The MOJ, HMCTS and others are making full use of the dozens of public relations weasels frantically typing away on their keyboards in the bowels of Petty France. A section of their latest missive on behalf of HMCTS is copied below. 

Media and interested parties continue to be able to attend physical hearings in the ‘open’ courts to uphold the principles of open justice. Where this is not possible, judicial consideration is being given to enable new ways for journalists to join a hearing remotely, or a receive a transcript afterwards. We are continuing to work to develop ways in which we can continue to support media and public access to the work or courts and tribunals.

There have been many unconfirmed reports that despite the thousands of words from MOJ on how information on the workings of the courts, including of course magistrates courts which are not courts of record, can be brought to the public via accredited court reporters and other journalists there is a lack of information to the extent that many hearings are going unreported even in the circumstances when only about half the courts are functioning and there is a limitation on the matters being brought. 

For as long as these posts have been published I have stated my unswerving opinion that not only is televising of courts including magistrates courts necessary for justice to be seen to be done it would be a fund raising operation for HMCTS with media groups seeking to broaden their appeal on a localised basis. 

The tragedy we are witnessing and the consequent economic catastrophe for individuals and businesses large and small will lead to their necessarily aggressive manoeuvres  to maximise income over the next five years or longer. Courtroom television live in the living room is another step nearer.  

COVID-19 PROSECUTION// THE FINAL CHAPTER

Last Friday April 3rd I told the story of Marie Dinou who found unwanted fame as the first person found guilty of contravening the new regulations about movement in this era of virus contagion. Having admitted that she was convicted under "wrong legislation" her conviction was quashed.  British Transport Police has apologised but added that she refused to speak to its officers when she was stopped "loitering between platforms". The CPS has been silent. Apparently Ms Dinou did not speak to anyone at the police station, failed to confirm her identity at court, failed to enter a plea and did not speak to a solicitor assigned to represent her. The District Judge was a certain Sarah-Jane Griffiths who was called to the Bar (L) in 1998 and admitted as a Solicitor in 2010. She was appointed as a Fee-paid Judge of the First-tier Tribunal, Social Entitlement Chamber (Social Security and Child Support) in 2013. Judge Griffiths  concluded that the defendant was being "obstructive".It seems that the judge`s inquiries into Ms Dinou`s silence were hardly exhaustive. She made no effort or instruction for Ms Dinou`s health, mental and physical, to be ascertained. She was kept in the cells despite no charges being put to her and that no papers had been served. She was ordered to pay a fine of £660 without her income having been made available to the court. 

She was charged under Schedule 21 of the Coronavirus Act even although the prosecution knew that she was unlikely to be infected. Perhaps Judge Griffiths needs "advice" from the Lord Chief Justice?

A DARK ROAD AHEAD

Restrictions on movement
6.—(1) During the emergency period, no person may leave the place where they are living
without reasonable excuse.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a reasonable excuse includes the need—
(a) to obtain basic necessities, including food and medical supplies for those in the same
household (including any pets or animals in the household) or for vulnerable persons and
supplies for the essential upkeep, maintenance and functioning of the household, or the
household of a vulnerable person, or to obtain money, including from any business listed
in Part 3 of Schedule 2;
(b) to take exercise either alone or with other members of their household;
(c) to seek medical assistance, including to access any of the services referred to in paragraph
37 or 38 of Schedule 2;
(d) to provide care or assistance, including relevant personal care within the meaning of
paragraph 7(3B) of Schedule 4 to the Safeguarding of Vulnerable Groups Act 2006(a), to
a vulnerable person, or to provide emergency assistance;
(e) to donate blood;
(f) to travel for the purposes of work or to provide voluntary or charitable services, where it
is not reasonably possible for that person to work, or to provide those services, from the
place where they are living;
(g) to attend a funeral of—
(i) a member of the person’s household,
(ii) a close family member, or
(iii) if no-one within sub-paragraphs (i) or (ii) are attending, a friend;
(h) to fulfil a legal obligation, including attending court or satisfying bail conditions, or to
participate in legal proceedings;
(i) to access critical public services, including—
(a) 2006 c. 47. Sub-paragraph (3B) was substituted, with sub-paragraphs (1), (3) and (3A) to (3E) for sub-paragraphs (1) to (3)
by s. 66(2) of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (c. 9).
5
(i) childcare or educational facilities (where these are still available to a child in relation
to whom that person is the parent, or has parental responsibility for, or care of the
child);
(ii) social services;
(iii) services provided by the Department of Work and Pensions;
(iv) services provided to victims (such as victims of crime);
(j) in relation to children who do not live in the same household as their parents, or one of
their parents, to continue existing arrangements for access to, and contact between,
parents and children, and for the purposes of this paragraph, “parent” includes a person
who is not a parent of the child, but who has parental responsibility for, or who has care
of, the child;
(k) in the case of a minister of religion or worship leader, to go to their place of worship;
(l) to move house where reasonably necessary;
(m) to avoid injury or illness or to escape a risk of harm.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), the place where a person is living includes the premises
where they live together with any garden, yard, passage, stair, garage, outhouse or other
appurtenance of such premises.
(4) Paragraph (1) does not apply to any person who is homeless.

The above is the recently drafted section on "movement" from the The Health Protection (Coronavirus Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020. These are made under the Public Health (Control of Disease) Act 1984 Part 2A.  Some of its terms are very loosely defined if at all.  An enterprising reporter a couple of days ago brought to light the first case of somebody appearing in court allegedly in breach of the regulations. A factual report is available here.  Some inferences can be made from that report.  The level of fine indicates that it is unlikely the defendant actually appeared in court.  Considering the very short time between the legislation being in effect and the alleged offence having taken place it is almost certain a summons was not served.  From various sources it is fair to assume that the court was presided over by a District Judge(MC) and not a bench of lay magistrates. Certain very disturbing questions arise from this matter. In order for a case to proceed to court the Crown Prosecution Service must in essence believe there is more than a 50% chance that the prosecution will be successful, i.e. that a guilty verdict will result and secondly that bringing it to court is in the public interest.  In actual fact that means that this new legislation under which the police charged the defendant  was read carefully by a senior prosecutor and that the two requirements as above were fulfilled.  The CPS is supposed to be independent of government.  If we are to believe that there was no pressure or "advice" from on high the CPS are to be castigated for initiating a prosecution where there is no actual law being broken. If the CPS, however, succumbed to pressure from lackeys at 10 Downing Street we are in very dangerous territory.  Once the matter was before the judge it would appear that s/he had either been  ignorant of the legislation or had been "persuaded" by the Deputy Justices Clerk or even perhaps the Justices Clerk him or herself to convict. Either way the whole process has the whiff of the latrine about it. 

This legislation went through parliament on the nod.   Lord Chancellor of the United Kingdom, Lord Hailsham, in a Richard Dimbleby Lecture at the BBC in 1976 coined the phrase "elective dictatorship" by which he meant the power of an executive branch of government which could not be constrained by normal parliamentary means.  It would seem,  that judging by recent events which have left this nation without an opposition party worthy of the name owing to its having been taken over by a coven of antisemites and Marxists, the political upheavals since 23rd June 2016 are leading us down a very dark road the end of which is too bleak to view without a certain foreboding.