WHY I WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED TO EXTEND MY BENCH SERVICE TO 75 (CONTINUED)

Given that I have unlimited time to offer my opinions here I am conscious that in order not to burden readers with what amounts to an essay or a newspaper column`s worth of diatribe I try to limit my outpourings to a reasonable length.  To that requirement the post of October 20th was an example. However there are so many other factors surrounding the magistrates courts system that I feel a further explanation is needed that justifies for me at least the title of that previous and this post.

Of  all the changes I witnessed during my tenure that which had greatest effect was the loss of all that was remaining of an "independent" magistracy.  My induction was as the end approached.  Magistrates courts committees were disbanded and in came Her Majesty`s Court Service.  That was an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) and was responsible for the administration of the civil, family and criminal courts in England and Wales. It was created by the amalgamation of the Magistrates' Courts Service and the Court Service as a result of the Unified Courts Administration Programme. It came into being on 1 April 2005, bringing together the Magistrates' Courts Service and the Courts Service into a single organisation. On 1 April 2011 it merged with the Tribunals Service to form Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service.  Over a short period magistrates found themselves bound by decisions over which they had minimal input. Speaking from direct personal knowledge as an example I was on my bench`s rota committee.  We had intimate knowledge of the personnel on our pre amalgamated bench and their various abilities to be available at very short notice. We knew their ethnicities and could endeavour to ensure when possible an appropriately composed bench. We knew those who had considered themselves available all day but had strict timetables for family duties. Our dedicated justices` assistant knew most of us by name and when and where to make contact.  No centrally controlled system was as efficient. During that period the Magistrates Association had a membership well above current levels and was able to be more pro active in our interests than the years since. Individual relationships with the Deputy Justices Clerk were first rate and combined with our District Judges taking on many aspects of our training pro bono we were a very cohesive well educated group. After five years absence of course I can`t compare the current situation but certainly it is hardly likely to be an improvement. Elected Bench Chairmen were once the conduit of bench opinion to the higher ranks of the judiciary.  Sadly that forum is no more.  Instead we have so called government toads otherwise known as leadership magistrates beholden only to the senior members of the judiciary who selected them and for whom they are supposed to "lead" JPs in the "right"  i.e. approved direction whether legally or politically. The "ship" of leadership would seem to be a submarine operating by stealth to torpedo any revisionary attitudes.  Type "leadership magistrates" in the search box for more information. The M.A. has itself been squeezed to the periphery of influence.  By its charitable status it is severely restrained from most activities except education when what is most dearly required is a protective organisation like the BMA to look after its members interests when in conflict with authority e.g. Judicial Conduct Investigations Office or  perhaps offering its members group i.e. reduced cost membership  of BUPA or the RAC.  Indeed the complaints procedure against alleged wrong doing by magistrates seems well documented with ample safeguards in a document of over twenty close typed pages of the rules and processes  to be followed. However the more rules means there are more traps for those enmeshed in a situation over which most have minimal control or a great deal of expense to ensure quality representation. I have personal experience of the machinations brought in circumstances when the status quo is questioned. For all organisations to be successful and efficient there must be trust between the governors and the governed.  Magistrates are the governed and Her Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service is the governor and in this situation treats and regards JPs as unpaid employees. It directs and supine justices clerks impose although they of course must do their master`s bidding. With my generation retired or nearing such a point the end of its influence and memory of independent thought and action  is upon us. Soon there will be nobody left to provide an alternative narrative. The ridiculous lowering of the age of appointment to 18 is an example of how those in the senior hierarchy of the Ministry of Justice kowtow to passing influencers irrespective of the logic or the political aspirations of those proposing such changes. One such influencer is the BBC. Last week I cut and pasted a tweet from it.  Below is the "non reply" reply I received when I complained about the blatant misrepresentation re "diversity".    

Dear Mr

Thank you for contacting us about a Tweet on the BBC Radio Manchester Twitter page. We are conscious of the need for Tweets to be worded carefully so as not to mislead readers or give the wrong impression about a story. This is frequently a very difficult decision for our editors, and we appreciate that not all readers will feel we get it right on every occasion. We would like to assure you that we value your feedback on the matter. All complaints are sent to BBC senior management and our online News teams every morning and we’ve included your points in our overnight reports. These reports are among the most widely read sources of feedback in the BBC and ensure that your complaint has been seen quickly, by the right people. This helps inform their decisions about current and future reporting.


Thank you once again for getting in touch.


Kind regards,

Evelyn Hamp




BBC Complaints Team

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

I hope that my observations last week and above offer just a brief insight why this former magistrate is pleased to be at his keyboard and not in a courts system with almost half a million cases behind schedule most of this delay being due to the near death imposed by a thousand cuts of the MoJ knife since 2010.

WHY I WOULD NOT HAVE WANTED TO EXTEND MY BENCH SERVICE TO 75

Those who spend several of their precious minutes reading this blog obviously have more than an average interest in the law, lawyers, magistrates` affairs and other associated practitioners within all the permutations of what is still known as our justice system.   It would then be no surprise that some or many of you will have read on social media and in myriad local print media that the Ministry of Justice is advertising for magistrates. Ten years ago when there were about 30K magistrates servicing about 300 courts that would have caused headlines in those self same media.  Today with the number of courts literally halved, the number of magistrates has reduced by 57%. In 2013 there were 149 District Judges (MC) and DDJs. Currently there are 207 i.e. about one for every magistrates court; double the ratio as in 2013. In the ads however, applications are requested thus, "If you're aged 18-70 & can offer 14 or more days a year, we want to hear from you! Full training is provided." This ridiculously misleading advertisement has been running more or less unaltered for some months when today the  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 has yet to pass through all necessary parliamentary stages to be enacted.  And even supposing it does eventually reach the statute book it is a sure bet that nobody will be appointed to the bench at the age of 70. Its purpose is to persuade existing magistrates to remain in office for an additional time to cover the self inflicted shortfall which now exists. Having myself retired somewhat prematurely five years ago some little time prior to the imposition of the Criminal Courts Charge, dreamt up by the most incompetent Lord Chancellor in living memory, because I did not want to be forced to make the appropriate pronouncement enabled by the Charge I have lately pondered whether if I were five years younger five more years, to coin a phrase, would have been welcome. At the time perhaps;  but in the current climate I would have been well satisfied with my seventeen years as a J.P. to retire at 70.  And then I ask myself why.  The answer is that there is now no certainty of every defendant receiving true justice. Identity politics and cultural attitudes fostered in the main by political big wigs and enhanced by self identifying social groupings to advance their own agendas of division and discord, have fostered a doubt in many sectors of the population that the "system" is biased in the courts as in many other aspects of our social system. Governments, especially since 2010, have without a shadow of doubt advanced that impression by their making it increasingly difficult for an average wage earner to have legal representation in a courtroom. They have used a classic military pincer movement on the one hand in depriving the legal profession especially young criminal lawyers of fees worthy of their labour and on the other simultaneously raising the financial threshold of legal aid eligibility to deprive those on low and even median incomes of the right to legal aid. The result is that many, nobody knows just how many, defendants have pleaded guilty to offences to get matters over and done with at minimum cost bearing in mind sentence reduction for early guilty plea. The onset of the single justice procedure in 2015 which my early retirement allowed me to forego is used for adult defendants accused of minor offences that cannot result in a prison sentence such as speeding, driving without insurance, TV license evasion and train fare evasion.  I would not have wanted to be part of such a process.  It is another nail in the coffin of "open" justice. It is conducted by post in a closed office not open to public scrutiny whatever the supposed safeguards the MOJ insists are in place.  And finally in my humble opinion the question of "diversity" on the bench.  For decades the minimum age of magistrates was 27 but in 2004 that was reduced to 18.  At that age it has been shown conclusively that the parts of the brain dealing with logical thinking processes are as yet not fully developed. Indeed until the mid twenties emotional responses are not fully controlled. My observations on this on Twitter were met by abuse. Thankfully as far as I am aware in my own bench the youngest appointees were mid twenties. But that age limit combined with strident but misguided and wholly  wrong cries to increase the diversity of the bench have finally exposed the concept of a political  junior judiciary: a concept we are witnessing right now in the appointment of a new Supreme Court Justice in the USA when politicians and senior judiciary are nodding to themselves that that does not and will not happen here.  How wrong and hypocritical they all are.  For the record the BAME population of the WHOLE UK not just England & Wales where magistrates operate is 13.8% and the ratio of BAME magistrates is 13%. But misinformation is a virus and like a virus it spreads.   The item below was posted on Twitter on October 4th.  The word to note is the very first; an innocuous "Just". Bearing in mind the statistics in my previous sentence the tweet is designed to have an effect known to its author ie to spread discontent amongst said communities and thus to increase disharmony.  It is nothing short of disgraceful for the Magistrates Association to be involved. 

The phrase "to reflect" is a cover for there to be a political aspect to the composition of the bench. This is not something new. When I applied for the bench in the late 90s a question on the application demanded to know for which political party I had voted in the previous general election. I left it blank only to be told shortly afterwards that if I did not answer the question my application would be immediately rejected. I complied. The removal of that question was one of de-politicising the bench which previously had offered the position to former or current mayors or trade union officials in the "buggins turn" attitude to service as a magistrate. We are now in a reversed position. There is an unsaid or unwritten new rule of "quota" for those supposedly unrepresented minorities members of which will not know if they are selected on merit or bridging a supposed deficiency in their race, gender or what have you representation on the bench.


This is just a brief summation of why I would not have extended my time on the bench were it offered now. Perhaps I might be thought of as a reactionary old dinosaur. I most certainly am not but unfortunately age and life experience are of no value to the chattering, self important, socially divisive, politically correct identity politics and practitioners of 2020.

ENFORCED CHANGE FOR JUDICIAL SYSTEM

There is no doubt that many of the great British public can`t believe that magistrates are unpaid volunteers. From their point of view who would want to spend considerable time and obligations for no reward. From Carlisle in the north to Penzance in the west and all points east and south  local print media have recently been pleased to accept paid advertising from the Ministry of Justice in its appeal for applicants to the magistracy. Whether in their desperation to recruit or through sheer incompetence appointments committees charged with recruitment of JPs seem still unable to weed out those for whom sitting on the bench is more a social kudos than one of the most responsible positions a volunteer can undertake.  By far the most common reason for magistrates to be sacked is failing to sit for the minimum number of times for which they have effectively agreed; 13 days annually plus a few days training.  In my opinion such a limited attendance even for a winger is not enough to produce a well trained and rehearsed justice until at least two full years experience has been gained.  In the case of a presiding magistrate it is most certainly inadequate.  However with the current shortage of magistrates and the aging process inevitable even if those age 70 agree to sit another five years which is not a foregone conclusion the quantity and quality of aspirants is wanting.  In 2012 6 JPs were removed from the bench for failure to sit the minimum number of times required. In 2013 and 2014 it was 7. 2017 saw 10 sacked for similar failure and in 2018 it was 9.  Since July this year 6 low sitters have been sacked. With the increased pressure from on high that contrary to the facts the magistracy is lacking in diversity there is bound to be a loosening of standards.  For the record the BAME population of the WHOLE UK not just England & Wales where magistrates operate is 13.8% and the ratio of BAME magistrates is 13%.  

So there is a major problem for the MOJ. Magistrates will never be paid and their age profile is increasing owing to younger people especially in Covid 19 times making financial security number one priority and sacrificing 13 days pay  untenable.  Screaming that the bench doesn`t reflect local diversity [whether it should or not is another question] is becoming a slogan where its inaccuracy is becoming better known as fake news. In 2013 there were 149 District Judges (MC) and DDJs. Currently there are 207 i.e. about one for every magistrates court; double the ratio as in 2013. It would seem that the only way forward with a backlog of magistrates courts cases variously estimated at over 500K  is the recruitment of ever increasing numbers of District Judges(MC) and that will hasten the reduction in court duties of magistrates. 

The current crisis is hastening change at all levels of society in myriad ways.  The judicial system is not and will not be immune to the enforced changes recently instituted, or those to come both predictable and of a more esoteric nature. The institution of the magistracy will be swept along in the same tidal wave. Whether these changes will be to the benefit of Justice and the individual citizen or to the overpowering nature of government remains to be seen.  

ARROGANCE

Perhaps one of, if not the most irritating and resented attributes bestowed upon a person or organisation is:-

ARROGANCE: an attitude of superiority manifested in an overbearing manner or in presumptuous claims or assumptions.

Institutional racism is a phrase that has become common parlance and it is still fiercely debated twenty years after its introduction to the English language. I would contend that institutional arrogance is a term which should be more widely recognised among mainly governmental or quasi governmental organisations notwithstanding that large public and private entities are not immune from the condition. At the very top of my personal list of those to which the epithet should be applied is the police and the Metropolitan Police in particular. Under FOI laws 1343 pieces of evidence have been lost or misplaced since 2013. Of those 1000 were lost last year. In May 2018 the mayor of London attempted to put a gloss over the Met`s lackadaisical approach to this most vital of operations; the securing of evidence in the pursuit of subsequent prosecutions based upon said evidence.  In an organisation with appropriate management processes and a board actively responsible for its oversight those responsible would be held to account and a course of action applied to rectify the situation: not so at Scotland Yard whose spokesperson is reported to have remarked that there was no information on any missing items because the information is not stored in an easily accessible manner. He could just as well have added the computer says no.  That is arrogance. 

In 2015 292 racism complaints were made against  Met Police officers and staff. In 2019 that number had risen to 611. In the last five years there have been 2,825 complaints by 1,659 complainers. Of 2,416 resolved ie cases closed, 2,251 resulted in no further action. In the first half of this year 20 staff at the Met and 165 members of the public made formal complaints.  97% of the latter were were dropped and 53% of the former. A Met spokesman said, " The Met takes all allegations of a racist nature extremely seriously and is clear racism has no place in the organisation."  That is arrogance.

The Met is by far the largest police force in the UK but others have not gone unaffected by a similar attitude.  In Nottingham recently a 17 year old learner driver was caught by an automatic camera as having stopped in a red light area for 14.8 seconds with no oncoming cars or pedestrians present. Of course by the book he had committed an offence but what followed was as typical as can be imagined of a police force behaving like an algorithm with no human input. The driver apparently refused to accept a ticket and took his argument to a magistrates court where he was given an absolute discharge; a legal method of wiping out the whole affair. The full report can be read here but I quote from that report the response from Nottingham Police: "Insp Simon Allen, from Nottinghamshire Police, defended the force's actions over the case, saying there is "no mitigation for learner drivers when committing a traffic offence" and it was the job of officers "to uphold the law".  "The safety of all road users is paramount, which is why the law holds learner drivers equally accountable and they must ensure that they follow the rules of the road," he said."In these cases, drivers have the choice to take a ticket or to go to court as happened here."  That is arrogance.