WILL MAGISTRATES WANT TO SIT UNTIL AGE 75?

Perhaps next year magistrates will actually have the opportunity if they so wish to sit until the age of 75.  How many would wish to do so is a moot point.  The parliamentary process that initiated this long considered process is copied below.

 Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

2.52 pm
Edward Timpson (Eddisbury) (Con)

Share

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 13 of the Courts Act 2003 to change the retirement age for magistrates from 70 to 75; and for connected purposes.

Magistrates, or justices of the peace, are ordinary people hearing cases in court in their community, and have been a fundamental feature of our judicial system since 1361. They continue to be chosen from people of good character, commitment, social awareness and reliability—those who can communicate effectively and are capable of making sound choices when sitting in judgment on their peers.

I had the pleasure of appearing in front of many magistrates while practising on the then Chester and north Wales circuit as a criminal and family barrister in the late ’90s and the noughties. My rose-tinted spectacles remind me that, more often than not, my clients got the rub of the legal green, but I also had to accept that I and the bench did not always have a meeting of minds—in other words, I lost.

The one constant, however, was the selfless and enduring dedication on display by so many of our fellow citizens to the fair and equitable dispensing of justice. I want to take this opportunity to thank all of them, particularly those who have contacted me about this Bill and shared with me their experiences, for their public service. I should add that their overall number includes at least 10 fellow current Members of Parliament.

However, the constant reliable recruitment and retention of our magistracy across England and Wales is under serious strain. The number of magistrates has decreased dramatically over the last decade or so, from about 30,000 to less than 13,000, with the number actually sitting thought to be substantially lower. That has had a profound impact on the case backlog, which is now up to nearly half a million in the magistrates courts; on delays, and even on the way justice is delivered. For example, during 2017-18 there were benches of just two magistrates, including for some trials, in nearly 40,000 court sessions—15% of the total. Inevitably, the covid-19 pandemic has both exacerbated the problem and catalysed the urgency of action, with recruitment and training on hold.

To illustrate this at a more local level, Paul Brearley JP, chairman of the Greater Manchester branch of the Magistrates Association, provided me with details of how the current chronic shortage of magistrates is affecting what is the largest single bench in England and Wales. At its creation in 2014, the bench size was approximately 1,100. As of 24 June this year, the number stood at 792.

From this figure should be deducted 188 justices who are currently on covid-19-related leave of absence and 47 justices appointed but not yet sworn in, leaving just over 550, or about half of the original number, in active service. During the pandemic, no more justices have been appointed, despite the fact that the retirements have continued—15 since lockdown.​

Sadly, it is the same story across the country, as other examples I have received from the chairs of the West Yorkshire, north-west Wales and Herefordshire benches bear testament, with the latter seeing a fall from 127 magistrates in 2008 to only 47 in 2020, nine of whom are due to retire in the next 18 months. As we emerge from lockdown, the pressure on our court system has never been greater, and with more police officers on our streets and additional resources for the Crown Prosecution Service, we can expect even more cases, requiring even more capacity.

The measures introduced by the Ministry of Justice to tackle the considerable and escalating delays are welcome, including extending court hours and widening the use of technology where appropriate. Yet much of this will still rely on the human resources— otherwise known as people—working in our courts to meet ever-growing demand. That is irrefutable proof that we desperately need more magistrates as quickly as possible. Any judicial restoration also needs to ensure that it delivers as great a diversity as possible, especially regarding age, ethnicity and social status. As the former chair of the Magistrates Association, Malcolm Richardson, has said:

“The magistracy must reflect the community it serves if courts are to be perceived to be procedurally fair, command public confidence and help civic engagement.”

To that end, I was pleased to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk), who is sitting on the Front Bench, tell the House only last week that the magistrates recruitment and attraction steering group held its first meeting in February, with a particular focus on increasing diversity, regardless of age.

Despite such laudable and important efforts, recruitment will not, of itself, fix the problem, because the fact remains that nearly 7,500 magistrates—more than half of all current magistrates—will reach the age of 70 in the next decade, and, under current legislation, will be forced to retire. Losing these magistrates at 70 is a triple whammy. First, they are often the most experienced. Secondly, they represent a high proportion of presiding justices—those in the court chairs—in this group. Thirdly, they are likely to be retired from work and so more able to accept extra sittings, including at short notice. Paulette Huntington JP, chair of the West Yorkshire branch, tells me that her magistrates who have retired at age 70 generally tend to be high sitters as they have more time to give, with many clocking up between 50 and 100 sittings per year, and some even more than that due to the volume of work—well over the minimum 26 required. In contrast, it is proving difficult to entice those with work and family commitments to the bench, with fewer employers seemingly content or in a position to sanction regular absences.​

While every effort should continue to be made to boost recruitment, simply replacing retiring magistrates would be a significant challenge, and given current shortages would not, in itself, be sufficient. Indeed, this year the number of magistrates recruited is expected to be less than the number who retire, partly due to the need for rigorous selection, mentoring and support of newly appointed magistrates. It is worth noting, too, that these difficulties apply to all jurisdictions—adult, youth, and family. The senior judiciary, including the Lord Chief Justice, the senior presiding judge and the president of the family division, are all aware of the seriousness of the situation, as are, I know, the Minister and the Lord Chancellor.

It need not be this way. Jurors are now selected up to the age of 75, doubtless to enable justice to be delivered by people with wide experience of life. You may also have noticed, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the head of the Supreme Court is aged 75 and the almost 73-year-old Roy Hodgson seems to be doing a reasonable job at Crystal Palace. So why should magistrates be deemed incompetent simply because they have hit an arbitrary age?

There are other sound, compelling reasons to apply such logic. First, people live longer. The current retirement age of 70 was set in 1968, when life expectancy was just 72, and it is now nearly 81. Secondly, people work longer. Thirdly, people retire later. As they say, 70 is the new 50. To ensure ongoing competency beyond 70, the recognised and recently updated system for appraisal of all magistrates and retained magistrates would need to be extended, but this should not be a block to progress. As John Bache JP, chairman of the Magistrates Association, told me:

“We are rapidly heading for the perfect storm in the magistrates court. The backlog is increasing while the number of magistrates continues to fall, yet we are discarding those magistrates most able and willing to address this crisis”.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, on behalf of the Government, is very sympathetic to these arguments and is keen to make progress sooner rather than later, so I urge the Secretary of State, the Lord Chancellor, for whom I have the utmost respect, to grasp this nettle now and give the magistracy the opportunity through this Bill, especially at this vital time of greatest need, to do what it has done for over 650 years, and deliver timely, fair justice for the communities it serves.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Edward Timpson, Tracey Crouch, Jeremy Wright, Greg Clarke, Graham Stringer, Andy Carter, David Simmonds, Richard Graham, Karen Bradley, Andrew Jones, Mr Shailesh Vara and Ben Everitt present the Bill.

Edward Timpson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 11 September and to be printed (Bill 156).
Column 868
Column 869Click to show
Column 870Click to show

LATEST SENTENCING GUIDELINE OFF ITS TRACKS

The vast majority of the population is not in any way connected with the justice process from the police officer who used to be on the streets  to the judges of the supreme court and all functionaries in between. That is why successive Tory governments over the last decade have allowed our so called justice system to, using a vintners` term now in common usage, wither on the vine. That phrase defined as; "something being destroyed very gradually, usually because no one does anything to help or support it" perhaps describes our justice system more accurately than in its original meaning. Add to it a systemic reduction in resources available and the culpability of government becomes increasingly apparent. The last decade has also seen our sentencing system codified to such an extent it would have made Napoleon proud.  Having been retired from the bench for over five years my own opinions on the above have almost imperceptibly morphed from a sentencer within the legal orbit to a knowledgeable asteroidal outsider on a possible collision course.  Rightly or wrongly I have always been slightly apprehensive about putting the victim at the centre of the process as has increasingly been happening. It personalises everything when my inner core believes that the singling out of individuals leads to possible inconsistency. But that perception of inconsistency led the Ministry of Justice and senior judiciary to impose upon all sentencers Sentencing Guidelines which paradoxically is having the opposite effect. The situation is like two heavy lorries facing opposite directions and connected by a chain trying to drive away despite the equal and opposite resistance from each other. The Sentencing Guidelines try to eliminate individual perceived prejudices and are becoming more akin to algorithms used by computer programmers and software developers. Indeed I can foresee a time when the human input is removed totally but that is for the future and Hollywood. 

But what has prompted this rant is the latest Guideline  - Effective from 1 October 2020 Sentencing offenders with mental disorders, developmental disorders, or neurological impairments - Effective from 1 October 2020. It can be accessed in full by following the link in the summary  It is a very long document at over 10K words and presumably will be on the desk and on line for courts.  I am in general disturbed by the content. First of all at the length: there is absolutely no way that during discussions on sentencing that the full content will be in the minds of those involved.  I would assume that all would have read it through a number of times before 1st October but its application will be more hit and miss. It makes many generalisations based on "diversity" meaning effects on the mental competences of black and south Asian people. This is a dangerous precedent.  Certainly there is scientific basis for knowing that certain groups are eg susceptible to becoming diabetic.  The current Convid 19 epidemic has demonstrated that some ethnic groups have died in relatively high numbers which are statistically significant but there are also many unanswered questions revolving around predisposition. What will actually happen in a magistrates  court bedevilled by over long adjournments will be that some minorities will in effect be given literally a get out of jail free card and the refusal of such court for that to be accessible will be grounds for an appeal at crown court. Considering the logistics of both Probation and court inspired general medical services, pre sentence reports will be few and far between.  

Why as a society have we come to this situation?  The pre occupation with all that is separate, different or seeking such diversity is the driving force. The homogenous nature of our population culturally and educationally is being stretched to its limit.  This is not a statement to encourage the racists in our midst whose increasing noise has arisen with the failed and miserable existence of Jeremy Corbyn as Labour leader. This self proclaimed so called anti racist initiated the worst excesses of anti Jewish racism seen in this country since pre 1939.  

To achieve a non racist society one does not encourage separation; one encourages unification.  This latest guideline fails on that account as it fails on understanding the practicalities of its proposals on mental health.  

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE SPEECHWRITERS ARE PROTECTING EMERGENCY WORKERS

When I retired over five years ago those found guilty of common assault in theory  faced a maximum sentence of six months.  Most such offenders were sentenced to less than that and served only half the given sentence in prison being released on license  having done half their time.  Those who indeed were the subject of that six month maximum were usually found to be in the highest category of harm and culpability according to the Sentencing Guidelines. Often it was considered that if the victim were a public servant simply doing his/her job whilst being subjected to the assault that aggravating feature fed into the sentencing mix. However a year or so ago I learnt from a former colleague that public servants becoming assault victims in the course of their duties would, according to the government, be given the gratification of knowing that their assailant would be subject to a maximum incarceration of twelve months with the usual caveats of early guilty plea and early release. That of course was dependant of the miscreant being detained in the first place and progressing through the justice system. The thinking of those who have increased the available sentence in the circumstances outlined had to have been that the threat would serve to deter the incipient offender but of course that person would first of all have to be arrested, charged, brought to court and convicted with no certainty that the new maximum sentence was lawful and appropriate and last but not least overturned by appeal. There is of course a consideration that just perhaps the increase was a sop to the weasels in the press department of the Ministry of Justice so that the minister could address parliament and the public that measures were in hand to protect that very same public, notwithstanding the considerable reductions  over the last decade in police on duty, and to begin the first stage i.e.to arrest the offender. It is unlikely that the statisticians will be able to inform us or their masters of any public protection benefit for the increased sentencing powers of the courts. But much of that so called initiative has now been superseded by the announcement earlier this month that those who attack police or other emergency workers will be liable to two years maximum custody; double the existing sentence as above. The Secretary of State for Justice Robert Buckland said, 

"We will continue to do everything in our power to protect police, prison officers, firefighters and paramedics and ensure those who seek to harm them feel the force of the law". 

Since last November about 9,300 offenders have been convicted of assault and 17% were subject to immediate custodial sentences of which only 6% received more than six months.  10% of those convicted received suspended sentences while 69% were subjected to a community punishment, fine or discharge. 

It is becoming ever more apparent to those outside the courts and legal fraternity that it is a political driver rather than an informed, apolitical, supra departmental, multi dimensional  umbrella of knowledge and statistics which is in control of what has been imposed on the Sentencing Council and which in turn determines the outcomes for offences and offenders. In a world where common sense ruled, attention and finance would be thrown at offences committed by those addicted to alcohol and/or drugs who are responsible it is estimated for 70% of violent or acquisitive crime including assaults on emergency workers.  According to a Home Office report in 2017 each year in the UK drugs cost society £10.7 billion in policing, healthcare and crime with drug-fuelled theft alone costing £6 billion a year. Research shows that for every £1 spent on treatment an estimated £2.50 is saved. But it is obvious that the only weapon that this government feels able to weald is deterrence.  Whilst it, for myriad reasons not least of which is the fear of bad publicity, resolutely sets its sights against even the consideration to decriminalise illicit drug use the dealers will continue to prosper and the users will continue to suffer on their downward slope to social, financial and in many cases human oblivion.  Meanwhile emergency workers and the rest of us will be happy in the knowledge that MOJ speechwriters are doing all they can to protect us. 

BLM/ANTISEMITISM AND STOP & SEARCH

The following post comprises government and parliamentary information, public information from the Metropolitan Police and reporting in the Manchester Evening news. 

The last census informed us that in England and Wales 86% were White, 8% were Asian/Asian British and 3% were Black/African/Caribbean/Black British. In London that figure for White falls to 69.7%.  Since 2009, the conviction ratio (the percentage of defendants convicted out of all those prosecuted) for indictable-only or 'either way' offences has increased for all ethnic groups. In 2017, the conviction ratios for Black and Mixed ethnic groups were lowest at 78.7% and 79%. In 2017, the conviction ratio was highest for defendants in the White ethnic group at 85.3%. In 2017 93% of White defendants prosecuted for drug offences were convicted compared with 86.6% of defendants from the Mixed ethnic group. In 2016/17 compared with the White ethnic group stops and searches proportionate to population size were more likely to be carried out on the Black (eight times as likely), Mixed (between two and three times as likely), Asian (just over two times as likely) and Chinese or Other (one and a half as likely) ethnic groups.  Relative to the population, the rates of prosecution for indictable offences for Black and Mixed ethnic groups were four and two times higher than for the White ethnic group. For every 1,000 population members 16 Black and 9 Mixed defendants were prosecuted compared to 4 White defendants. The Relative Rate Index indicates there is a statistically significant disparity in the rates at which defendants from non-White ethnic groups are convicted when compared to White defendants.

According to the Manchester Evening News:- "Figures on the ethnicity of the suspect are not given on a local level, but national figures show that of the white people killed between 2009/10 and 2017/18, 92 percent were thought to have been killed by another white person and just 2 percent by a black person.In comparison, of the black people killed during that time, just over half - at 55 per cent - were killed by another black person, and 33 percent by a white person.This reveals that white-on-white violent crime is much more prevalent than black-on-black violent crime, despite rarely being talked about in the same way. Between 2009/10 and 2017/18, an estimated 373 homicides, including both murder and manslaughter, were committed in Greater Manchester. Of these, 288 victims were white, and 30 were black. When these figures are compared to the population, it means black people were nearly three times as likely as white people to be the victim of homicide.The number of deaths works out as a rate of 35 homicides for every 100,000 black people in Greater Manchester, and 13 for every 100,000 white people."

In May there were 43K instances of stop and search in London. In 2017 that number was about 12K monthly. Between December last year and June the arrest rate was 11% but the Met`s target was 20%.  In May 80% of young black males stopped and searched did not require further action. 

There is no doubt that the unhappy events in America have triggered public anxiety throughout the population but it has also released widespread condemnation of Black Lives Matter UK which recently announced " As Israel moves forward with the annexation of the West Bank, and mainstream British politics is gagged of the right to critique Zionism, and Israel’s settler colonial pursuits, we loudly and clearly stand behind our Palestinian comrades. FREE PALESTINE’.

The submerging of woke marxist antisemitic views within what is supposedly a representative organ to overcome what is described by its supporters as black oppression in the nation which was the first to outlaw the slave trade in 1807 devalues its ethos in the eyes of many who would wish to be supportive. This is a problem which shows no end time. 

NO LONGER JUSTICE FOR THE PAUPER; ONLY THE PRINCE

The Crown Prosecution Service is perhaps the arm of the MOJ which is more exposed to criticism than any other.  In simple terms and by any interpretation it is failing.  There are many arguments to indicate this. Whilst I was active CPS began the use of non lawyers in place of legally qualified personnel. The quality or rather lack of quality of submissions was immediately apparent.  But of course the daily routines in the magistrates courts are rarely of interest to a wider public especially as the number of such courts has halved in a decade and the media are much less inclined to have court reporters in the remaining courts.  All manner of other issues, some mere candy floss from the Home Office which considers upping a sentence will cure the disease, including consideration for "victims"  when they are complainants, false statistics on rape by Left leaning women`s organisation and undoubted grievances of lawyers who are given little consideration and even less remuneration than their position demands. Reductions in those eligible for legal aid have been disastrous for many defendants.  Inefficiencies of the police owing to their numbers being decimated over this same decade have not assisted in pre trial organisation. Indeed some estimates are of a four year waiting time for crown court trials caused by the aggravating delays owing to Covid 19. Latest statistics from the CPS show that in the year 2018/19 convictions after trial were  only  6,468 or 9.3% of a total of 69,713 prosecutions. Whilst I would hope that nobody would wish the numbers in China to be emulated where 99% of all trial defendants are found guilty 9.3% does appear to be rather low. 

This country could once have been proud to wear the mantle of having the finest judicial system in the world where the prince and the pauper could equally achieve justice. Unfortunately now it appears that it is only the prince or the film star or the Russian oligarch who has that attainment and then it is in the civil court not the criminal court.  

JPs SOON ABLE TO RETIRE AT 75

It is now virtually certain that magistrates will shortly be allowed to sit until they retire at 75.  Perhaps some bright spark at MOJ immune from "diversity and ageist" viruses will look again at the youngest age at which they can be appointed and consider that at 18 most human beings have not developed the final brain connections which will see them attain adulthood. And it`s adults that are required to sit in judgement on their fellow citizens. 

18 IS TOO YOUNG TO BE A MAGISTRATE

Amongst many unexpected effects of the Convid 19 crisis the composition of juries in the crown court has come under scrutiny owing to the enormous backlog in trials which some experts are predicting could take four years or more to clear. This has caused some angst at the Ministry of Justice which has been suffering more than many other government departments from the austerity imposed from 2011 resulting in the closure of half the nation`s courts. 

The  jury system in England can be traced back to Henry II in the 12th Century becoming formalised under Magna Carta a century later when it can be said that the magistracy also came into being.  It wasn`t until 1919/1920 in the aftermath to the Great War that women became eligible both for the magistracy and for juries. From 1825 to 1962 a juror was required to own property.  In 1972 the age requirement for jury service was lowered from 21 to 18.   In 1988 the maximum age of jurors was raised from 65 to 70 and in 2016 to 75. In 1995/96 an inquiry undertaken by the Home Affairs Committee, suggested that of 875 new magistrates only 22 per cent were under the age of 40. In 2004 the age requirement for appointment to the magistracy  was reduced from 27 to 18.  In that year there were 22 magistrates under the age of 30.  In 2015 Alex Hyne, aged 18, became the youngest magistrate.  The following year a 19-year-old law student Lucy Tate was appointed. Latest statistics indicate that currently there are 123 magistrates under the age of 30 out of a total of 14,348 in England and Wales.  It`s a widely held view that the number of young magistrates must be increased but there are no statistics on the numbers of each age in this group.  It has been argued over recent years by many scientists including Peter Jones of Cambridge University, that the human brain does not fully mature until the early to mid twenties or even later. The most important brain area to become fully “wired up” in adulthood is the prefrontal cortex — the front portion of the frontal lobe. This area handles many of our higher level cognitive abilities including  planning,  problem solving and decision making. It is also important for cognitive control — the ability to suppress impulses in favour of more appropriate actions.  It is arguable perhaps that the 1972 decision to lower the minimum age for jury duty and the 2004 decision to appoint magistrates from the age of 18 was in ignorance of the cognitive  maturity of those teenagers.

When oblique reference was made in a recent tweet alluding to this argument I was castigated for the mere suggestion that  the lower age level  was too young. Some commenters  insulted my integrity and position as a retired JP. It is a very sad day when Twitter users ranging from QCs to students to new young JPs cannot debate this topic without resorting to insult.   Crowd opinion seeks to block reasoned alternatives and their proponents. Blocking or censoring unwanted opinions is taking our society to a cliff edge most cannot envisage: where democratic freedoms, not least of which free speech, are defined by those with the loudest voice.  J.K. Rowling, creator of Harry Potter, and a philanthropist to many causes was recently subject to hostile abuse because her opinions on trans people “offended” many who considered that their opinion brooked no dissent. Recently, “Father Ted” creator Graham Linehan and right wing provocateur Katie Hopkins were both permanently blocked from Twitter for expressing their views.  

The Referendum opened breaches not only in society but expanded the license of reasoned debate to include harassment, verbal and physical, loudest voice wins and levels of anti-Semitism perhaps not seen since the 1940s.  With the current backlog of crown court trials proposals to have the backlog reduced by enabling a single judge to sit with two magistrates for matters at the lower end of seriousness the issue of age of the latter becomes a topic of some concern. Not many of us would assume a similar level of expertise from an 18 year old vis a vis a 27 year old in any other discipline.  Why do we accept that for the sake of “diversity” an 18 year old is adequately to fulfil  the judicial function of sitting in judgement on his or her fellow citizens having the wisdom so to do?   Perhaps we can learn from the Chinese where the philosophies of Confucius and Mencius prevailed for thousands of years and aging indicates an increase in wisdom.