During my active life as a Justice of the Peace I spent over a decade in the middle chair. Apart from the preceding years as a winger and having satisfied HMCTS as to my suitability to conduct the court`s business as specified there were many occasions where spontaneity and initiative were essential to ensure that justice was not just done but seen to be done. For that reason alone it is my opinion that successful box ticking for applicants seeking that role will fail to highlight those who are just not suited or capable. Indeed with HMCTS desperately seeking not "Susan" but new magistrates it is inevitable that the quality of presiding magistrates will fall insofar as they will be reliant increasingly on "rules" and "advice" from their legal advisors. As a winger I rarely if ever heard the bench chairman explain to defendants found guilty that they had a right of appeal to the crown court at their own expense on verdict or sentence. If I remember correctly that pronouncement was never in the list of pronouncements supplied to every magistrate in hard copy as was the only method of supply in those days. Giving that information was ever most important after trial of litigants in person [LIP] whose numbers are now increasing annually owing to the reduction in Legal Aid rates and the consequent dearth of duty solicitors. In the current situation exacerbated by Covid-19 and especially with hundreds of thousands of cases being heard in secret under the Single Justice procedure [SJP] (my post July 6th) where we have Great British Justice being rubber stamped as if we were in Republic of China information on appeal is not just essential it is imperative. I therefore find it astonishing that in all the rhubarb emanating from the Ministry of Justice recently [as is their wont] there is an unheralded statement that time limits on appeal are changing. Below is the appropriate extract recently published...{my bold}
Time limit for appeal from a magistrates’ court to the Crown Court Under section 108 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 1980a defendant may appeal to the Crown Court against conviction or sentence in a magistrates’ court. On an appeal against conviction the Crown Court tries the defendant again and may acquit or convict. On an appeal against sentence the Crown Court passes a fresh sentence, which may be less or more severe. At present the time limit for an appeal against conviction is 15 business days from the date of sentence or from the date on which sentence is deferred (if it is) under sections 4 and 5 of the Sentencing Act2020,whichever is earlier. Under sections 14 to 17 of the Sentencing Act 2020a magistrates’ court can commit a convicted defendant to the Crown Court for sentencing instead of passing or deferring sentence itself.Under rule 34.2of the Criminal Procedure Rules if a defendant is convicted by a magistrates’ court and committed for sentence to the Crown Court then at present the time limit for appeal against the conviction does not start until the defendant has been sentenced in the Crown Court. That may postpone the appeal unnecessarily.It may result in what turns out to be an unnecessary sentencing in the Crown Court(because the defendant then is acquitted on appeal). In some circumstances it may affect the sentencing powers of the Crown Court on the appeal if the appeal fails.In practice, the Crown Court usually can avoid these potential difficulties by postponing its decision on the committal for sentence until after the appeal against conviction,but only if the defendant decides not to wait until after the sentencing before starting the appeal. The Rule Committee heard from Crown Court judges that it would be more efficient, and fairer both to defendants and witnesses, if the time limit for appeal against conviction were to run from the date of committal for sentence to the Crown Court, where that happens. The Committee agreed and has changed the time limit in the rule.
I will not be surprised if the current three calendar weeks time limit on appeals direct from magistrates to crown court is reduced by a third. The whole underlying philosophy of the MOJ over the last decade is to salami slice an individual`s ability to be able to oppose the state`s decisions and requirements from magistrates courts to the Supreme Court; i.e. from those who interpret the law to those who make the law. With regard to the second proposed change above I do not think that all criminal defence lawyers will be happy and for LIPs it will be just another area where they will be floundering in a sea of uncertainty. The full GUIDE TO THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT NO. 2) RULES 2021 is available here.
Rarely if ever do authoritarian governments appear like a bolt of lightening from above; they appear with stealth and cunning almost like an invisible cloud with only occasional flashes of intent in obscure areas of our society to predict their approach. I fear we are enveloped within that invisible cloud.
No comments:
Post a Comment