CORONA VIRUS: A WONDERLAND OF FINES & FIGURES//ROLL ON EASTER

The inconsistencies associated with lockdown will no doubt be considered by future historians as a primary reason why the fatalities in this country per 100K population are in excess of those in USA where many states have virtually abandoned any attempt to control individuals` and businesses` activities and there has been only a half hearted attempt at control at the federal level. In mid July Boris Johnson was telling us it would be over by Christmas and now of course he has stated that by Easter things should be back to normal. The literally fatal flaws in the epidemiological and political analyses of this epidemic have been followed by a similar mish mash over the issuing and amount of fines by police.  Figures show 20,223 fines were issued for breaches of coronavirus restrictions in England and Wales between March 27 and October 19. More than a half of police forces have not issued a single fine for the non wearing of face masks. Since the pandemic began only 0.01% of the population have been fined for breaking corona virus rules. Between June 15 and September 21 89 fines were issued for breaches of face covering rules on public transport or in shops or similar. Staffordshire Police  had the lowest proportion of fines handed out; 43 amounting to 0.01% of the population whereas between March 23 and September 21 the fine rate was 0.33% in Dyfed-Powys.  This is a staggering disparity in enforcement or perhaps the Welsh are more independent of Westminster regulations  than we thought.  Indeed the overall rate of fines in Wales was  0.08% compared to 0.03% in England. On Friday November 13 the National Police Chiefs` Council told forces to stop issuing super fines to organisers of large gatherings having belatedly realised the injustice of these fines being issued without any knowledge of the offenders` ability to pay. Magistrates Courts benches are unlikely to find those appearing before them facing a £10,000 fine able to pay having taken into account their means. However that advice from NPCC has now changed.  Anyone issued with a fixed penalty notice will now be fully informed of their right to a court hearing so £10,000 fines are now once more available for gross disregard of the regulations on organised crowds.  Apparently only a single fine of £10,000 out of 66 issued has actually been paid. It is widespread public knowledge that there is a backlog of over 400,000 cases at Magistrates Courts and a possible two year delay for trials. We are in a situation even the imagination of Lewis Carroll and his Wonderland could not have envisaged. Roll on Easter. 

J.P.s ON SUPPLEMENTAL LIST

From time to time I have reported here on the goings on at the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office. Generally I`ve considered that in comparison to the decisions meted out to more senior members of the judiciary for their various indiscretions magistrates appear to be less benevolently dealt with. However recently there was the unusual matter of a magistrate on the supplemental list being sanctioned. Upon retirement magistrates are automatically transferred to this list. The do`s and don`ts for those individuals are as follows:-

Magistrates on the supplemental list can use the suffix JP, under the same guidance set out for sitting magistrates.

Magistrates can sign passport applications. They  must either work in (or be retired from) a recognised profession. Justice of the Peace is a recognised profession.

Neither retired magistrates nor those on the supplemental list can sign off statutory declarations.

Magistrate in the Supplemental List may not

Sit in a magistrates’ court to adjudicate on cases

Sign summonses or warrants, including search warrants

Be a member of any committee or any other body as a magistrate

Take part in the election of chairman or deputy chairman of any bench

Attend any formal or business meeting of their former bench

Countersign an application for a shotgun or firearms licence

In addition those on the supplemental list are subject to exactly the same rules of conduct as their colleagues who are active. Nevertheless for such a person to appear before the JCIO is very unusual. One such who has transgressed is  Dr  Nigel  Molden  JP who blotted his copy book by being convicted of careless driving which cost him 6 penalty points. The report is here. Quite frankly I fail to see why any JP on the supplemental list remains so.  The risk of falling foul of the onerous regulations seems to me to be unworthy of having a couple of letters after one`s name.  Then again there are still many who seek appointment to have those very letters after their name. I`ve met a few.  Shame on them. 

HOW EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP PLEA IS ABUSED

On November 3rd I posted on exceptional hardship about which I was critical insofar as the leniency offered by many benches when offenders offer mitigation not worth tuppence in order to retain their license. Earlier this month Arsenal footballer Mezut Ozil appeared in court pleading guilty to speeding on a motorway at 97MPH. It is unknown whether he has existing points on his license.  The penalty for his offence is a fine between 25% and 75% of his relative weekly income plus 3 penalty points. However from the brief reports it appears his representative feared that his client might lose his license because he seems to have offered an exceptional hardship defence. Sentencing is due later this month and that seems odd. In my experience the plea and submission of exceptional hardship is itself adjourned to a set date and sentence is pronounced immediately afterwards.  Once again an internationally famous figure appears to have been offered treatment above that for ordinary mortals. A section of the full report I have copied below. Quite frankly if his plea is accepted it will be nothing short of disgraceful.  He can afford a team of chauffeurs for the period of any driving ban. 

"But he said the current coronavirus pandemic meant he would find it very difficult for him and his young daughter to travel on public transport. He added: ‘I travel to work on a daily basis by car and have personal commitments and a very young baby daughter, seven months old.‘In the current climate I would be very much against travelling on public transport with my baby daughter. My wife does not drive and therefore by necessity I will have to undertake the driving to any healthcare appointments for my daughter. ‘I do not suggest that this in any way excuses my driving on the day at all — I fully accept that the speed my vehicle was travelling is wholly unacceptable.”

RICHARD PAGE : THE SAGA GOES ON

No individual magistrate has figured in this blog more than Richard Page ex J.P.  Perhaps when the matter of judiciary and religion is discussed few will have heard of him  and that is shameful because his sacking as a magistrate shames us all;  believers and non believers alike.  In order to appreciate fully the current state of affairs it might be helpful for interested readers to read the posts on the following dates:- 18/3/16, 29/3/16, 13/4/16, 1/8/17, 15/2/18, 1812/18, 7/1/19, 21/6/19 and 19/7/19. For speedier but not chronological access type Richard Page in search box.  Last Tuesday his case reached the Court of Appeal. It is likely that he has expended considerable sums to date on his claim that he was discriminated against in being sacked from his position on the bench for his Christian belief and for no other reason.  He is a  father of three and has fostered five more children.  In 2015 told the BBC, "My responsibility was to do what I considered best for the child and my feeling was therefore that it would be better if it was a man and a woman who were the adopted parents". He was also suspended as a non-executive director of the Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust. The bottom line is that according to the required process he was sacked because he made his view public without telling officials.  Last December Lord Justice Underhill is quoted as saying, " the removal of a magistrate for making a public statement raises issues of public importance and sensitivity."  That is the official line.  In the last decade ever more numbers of magistrates have made public comments about personal and legal matters in all media.  So the essence of his actions i.e. his reasoning behind his decision making, according to officialdom, had absolutely nothing to do with the matter. He who believes that must also believe that there really are fairies at the bottom of their garden.   Of the dates above I would suggest for further comment the post of 13/4/16 be studied.  I cannot but believe that if it were a Muslim J.P. who was treated similarly there would be outrage from all the usual quarters but for a Christian: silence.  I must conclude as a non believer that the tail of legal wokism  is wagging the brain of the British legal bulldog.  Recent events surrounding the appointment in America of a new judge to the Supreme Court lead me to think that similar is going on beneath the horizon in this country.   The Muslim population of England and Wales is around 4.8%. It is ethnically diverse – 68% Asian (1.83 million of 2.71 million) and 32% non-Asian. 1 in 12 is of White ethnicity (8% of the Muslim population).  Judicial statistics do not require the religion of office holders to be stated; only whether an individual is of Black, Asian and minority ethnic (BAME) origin. Sooner or later this apparent concealment of religion will have to be questioned.  Notwithstanding the verdict in the Appeal Court re Mr Page the influence of religious belief on bench decisions must surely now be questioned.   

EXCEPTIONAL HARDSHIP STILL NOT EXCEPTIONAL

It is often the case that usually law abiding citizens` contacts with police and the laws they enforce is at the wheel of a vehicle. Speeding on motorways used to be among the most common offences but since the decimation of police numbers and the consequent reduction in motorway patrols that number has reached a plateau or in other words many motorway speeders are getting away with it if they can avoid the cameras. Mobile phone use whilst driving in the last decade or so has been rising with increasing penalties for those apprehended. The numbers of those caught driving without insurance has fallen from 208,384 offences in 2007 to 92,343 in 2017. These offences and others attract penalty points and 12 penalty points attract disqualification or so the story goes.  Why is it then that latest enquiries show that 9349 drivers are still legally on the road with 12 or more penalty points on their license?  And the answer is exceptional hardship. At no time during my appointment was any advice on that subject or training by any body or authority given to my bench. Indeed I compiled my own advice sheets on the topic for which very many colleagues requested copies. I don`t propose to go into  the whys whens and wherefores (sic) of this subject. It has been a topic here quite often over the years of this blog. Type those two words in the search box for historical posts.  Readers will notice that I am generally of the opinion that benches have been too easily swayed by highly paid lawyers (they have to make up lost legal aid income somehow) into the acceptance of the exceptional hardship argument which is based on the civil standard.  Indeed put these same two words in Google search and you will find many dozens of legal firms offering their services to those who find themselves one penalty point too many on their license. It is difficult for all but the most eloquent offenders to argue their own case. However all this whilst not quite coming to an end is certainly going to be made more awkward and rightly so for offenders. Every magistrate has listened with patience to exaggerated  if not downright untruthful statements on behalf of these offenders; from the £6,000 salary a month of a managing director who denied or rather whose lawyer on his behalf denied that his client could be equally well served by employing a driver to the self employed businessman for whom I personally with my bench adjourned a case to bring his tax return to court showing, he claimed, he was earning below average wages with a large family to support; lies of course. I often had to educate my junior wingers of various precedents and the requirements needed for an offender to successfully argue a case.  Indeed more than once I had to ask a sympathetic but interfering legal advisor to refrain from putting her sympathetic opinion to us unasked.  It is therefore very welcome  after what the Sunday Times a decade or more ago  described if I remember correctly as the scandal of drivers legally still at the wheel with 12 or more penalty points that this "loophole" is to be tightened.  Drivers` reasons  will no longer be taken on trust even although they will have been sworn in before giving evidence, an outdated requirement in my opinion in a country where half or more people do not believe in an almighty being. Losing employment or caring for a relative are probably the most common reasons given in applications to justify exemption from a ban. After consultation the Sentencing Council has stated that it was "for the offender to prove to the civil standard of proof" that a ban would cause exceptional hardship. The statement added that losing work should be treated as "an inevitable consequence of a ban" and that perjury could result from making a false statement that consequence being a paper tiger insofar as magistrates` courts workings are not officially recorded.  I suppose the best summing up I can make of all this is not before time but not enough.