PRESS DEPT. COSTS AT MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

It seems almost daily that somebody or some group within the "legal umbrella" ranging from the Lord Chancellor to the retired criminal lawyer or barrister is explaining, discussing, excusing, justifying, castigating someone or some factor within that very same umbrella. The common basis for such verbal opinions is the simply dreadful state of what can be termed our criminal justice system. From prisons to police to probation and all stations en route there are practitioners complaining about the dearth of financial resources to do their job properly and a spokesperson of the Ministry of Justice, even the Lord Chancellor of the day him/herself, extolling the benefits even the beneficence of future policies sometimes in conjunction with the Home Office. Of late it has become almost a mantra that for some crime or other, usually initiated by a highly publicised heinous wrong doing, sentence will be increased.  It is not uncommon for the judiciary to be blamed in the first place as if it were responsible for the law breaking in not applying the appropriate sanctions in court on previous occasions. Lawyers are blamed for exercising current legal rights for illegal immigrants when the government has not placed before parliament bills to re write such legislation. Currently Covid 19 is the excuse of excuses for the delays in crown court trials of over 60,000  an increase of 45% since last year. What is not mentioned has been a policy of enforced reduced sitting days for judges nor the lack of lawyers available to work for the miserly rate at which legal aid is paid for. Indeed the MOJ budget over the last decade is a sorrowful sight.

These raw figures are unadjusted for inflation which over the last decade has been 28%. But according to the press office at Petty France one would never have thought that the system was anything but smelling of roses. From a total current budget of £8.4 billion, an increase of £0.3 billion over last year`s, no less than £2.6 million is spent on its press office, an increase of £100K since the previous year. 27 employees, IT, contracts, travel and training account for this expenditure. I have no idea if this level of largess is compatible with that of industrial firms with equivalent turnover. However as a layman my gut reaction is that at £96,296 per employee the amount spent just to put out the supposed good works emanating from the MOJ is somewhat excessive. Considering the total staff costs at Petty France alone are £24,648,744.38 just over 10% is spent on public relations. Perhaps that percentage of wage costs spent on image projection is not uncommon in industry but promoting a rosy picture of a failing system with that amount of public money seems to me to be a luxury, we the public, cannot afford.  

 

STATISTICS AND A SOCIETY UNDER STRESS

The Ministry of Justice has much for which criticism is appropriate but one area where that criticism is rightly muted is in the collection of statistics. Apart from information on the numbers and outcomes of appeals at crown court against decisions at magistrates courts which have in the past been made available through Freedom of Information, almost everything that results from a court appearance is available by way of charts and numbers to satisfy the most fastidious statistician amateur or professional.  Being neither of those it is still possible as a mere observer  to find some interest. The year ended June 2021 is the latest in such releases. The section chart below is quite interesting.

In my experience many if not most lawyers advise clients facing an either way charge to elect trial at the crown court.  Of course not every defendant can afford the fees involved and many others just want to get the process over and done with as quickly as possible but nevertheless it is instructive to compare the conviction rates in these matters. In magistrates courts that rate was 97.4% in 2011 and remained virtually unchanged at 97.9% in 2021. By contrast the comparable rates at crown court over that period were 81.1% and 84.7%. Even as a non statistician I can note that from the defendants` point of view the motto must be "elect trial by jury". The unasked question of course is why does this discrepancy exist.  Some observers assert that magistrates become case hardened; others that magistrates are more likely to be able to detect liars.  It could be that a bench follows a structured decision making process to come to its conclusion but a jury of peers can involve a whole gamut of human emotions in coming to its decision.  However with around 300 District Judges (MC) and Deputies sitting over an unknown number of such trials the picture becomes somewhat clouded. 

For summary motoring offences the statistics indicate that in all probability and with few exceptions defendants would be advised to plead guilty and make use of the reduced sentencing such early pleas offer.  In 2011 the conviction rate was 98.5% and in the year ended June 2021 98.8%.  In other words whether the CPS evidence is from camera or police officer it`s unlikely to be successfully contested. It would also appear that the Single Justice Procedure introduced in 2015 has not influenced the conviction rate. 

A disturbing fact is that indictable offences of violence against the person proceeded against at magistrates courts have increased from 42,530 to 52,925 (+24.44%)between 2020 and 2021 a period in which there was social lockdown. Perhaps future social historians will have something to say about our society under stress. 

JUSTICE EVAPORATES WITH 8 JUSTICE SECRETARIES SINCE 2010

To put it mildly, the justice system is in a mess. As will increasingly become apparent much of this mess as with so many other policies is being put down by government to Covid 19. Perhaps there other reasons one of which is that we are now on Secretary of State/ Lord Chancellor number eight since 2010. With only one of this number still clinging on to the greasy political pole and the current incumbent there as a demotion is it any wonder that justice, a pillar of any successful democracy, is crumbling before our very eyes. 

With Kenneth Clarke on his first appearance before the Justice Select Committee 25/7/2010 we saw what was below that "I`m a fair chap" image; " He was not fussed about competitive tendering (“we have enough lawyers” and there is “no lack of people wanting to come in”). “I haven’t made that many policy decisions yet”, he concluded." Further comment is available here. He was proud to tell the media that in that first austerity budget of the Coalition he had made cuts of 23.8% in the MOJ budget and that he was the first secretary of state to have submitted that intention to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. His period at Petty France was just the beginning of the cracks which are now threatening to collapse the pillar of justice. 

From the sublime Kenneth Clarke to the ridiculous Chris Grayling who was his anointed successor. It was his bright idea to decide that having courts and personnel to offer a system of justice to all as the right of every citizen as had been the ethos (more or less) for centuries was untenable and wasteful of precious funds. He decided to impose a tax on every offender for the privilege of appearing in a court of law. This tax was to be over and above any fines, compensation or social or custodial sentence imposed. It was not means tested. Perhaps his landmark achievement was to forbid visitors bringing books for prisoners to read in jail; such a stupid decision it was reversed by his successor. However he will forever be  remembered for his actions in his next job as Transport Secretary in signing a shipping contract with a company which had no ships.But no problem; he was a staunch supporter of our prime  minister and a fanatic Brexiteer. 

Next came Michael Gove to who, to many supporters, is the brains of the party. Speaking outside his portfolio before the Referendum he was not immune to endorsing the lies of the Leavers; Just prior on being questioned on Sky it is quoted, " Like Mr Cameron, Mr Gove faced intense scrutiny of his campaign tactics, in particular the claim that the UK sends £350m to the EU every week. Sky’s political editor Faisal Islam said Mr Gove knew that figure was wrong, and accused him of importing the “post-truth” politics of Donald Trump to the UK. The UK Statistics Authority has said the figure “is misleading and undermines trust in official statistics”, because it is a gross sum and does not account for Britain’s rebate and funding received from the EU. In response to Mr Islam, Mr Gove agreed to have the figure independently audited."  The full text is available here. To quote from Politico, "As justice secretary and lord chancellor, Gove got “a lot of the judges and legal Twitter on-side” with warm words on rehabilitation and the justice system, according to one former civil servant who was working in government at the time.But the ex-official believes Gove “did little in the way of actual reform, simply applying his strong rhetorical skills to tell a story about justice.” That was mainly due to his short tenure. He was in post for just over a year before the EU referendum brought the Cameron government to an abrupt halt". It is arguable that had he been in post longer our justice system would have benefited greatly from his intellectual prowess, a facility sadly lacking in some of his contemporaries.  Under his short stewardship at Petty France the MOJ produced its annual report 2016/2017 as bland and meaningless as ever. 

We have four strategic objectives to deliver our vision. 

1. A prison and probation service that reforms offenders. We will:
 Maintain the highest level of public protection;
 Keep prisons safe and secure;
 Reform offenders; and
 Reduce reoffending.
2. A modern courts and justice system. We will:
 Upgrade the best justice system in the world using
technology and modern ways of working;
 Put the citizen at the centre of the justice system;
 Protect vulnerable victims, witnesses and children; and
 Support the independent judiciary and their ability to attract the best and widest range of talent.
3. A Global Britain that promotes the rule of law. We will:
 Make the most of opportunities presented by exiting the
EU to expand the reach of our world leading legal services;
 Promote our world class legal sector and judiciary; and
 Protect our common law traditions and strengthen ourhuman rights framework.
4. A transformed department. We will:
 Deliver excellent services to the public through a diverse,
engaged and capable workforce;
 Be a unified and responsive department, collaborating withpartners across the justice system and government;
 Put data, information, technology and innovation at the
heart of our work to improve our services; and
 Deliver value and drive efficiency in all we do.

Liz Truss, another non lawyer, the next incumbent, lasted less than one year bossing the MOJ.  Her short reign was rather less than successful.  She initially failed to defend the judiciary in November 2016 after they were branded “ Enemies of the people” by the Daily Mail because they ruled parliament had to be given a vote on triggering Brexit. Ms Truss later issued a statement supporting the judges but this was seen as too little, too late. Her actions drew unprecedented criticism from Lord Thomas, the Lord Chief Justice, who told a committee of MPs in March that he felt Ms Truss had been “completely and absolutely wrong”. It was the duty of Ms Truss to defend judges, Lord Thomas told the committee, adding he was “very disappointed” that she initially failed to defend them describing it as “constitutionally absolutely wrong”. The Lord Chief Justice also attacked Ms Truss for a “complete misunderstanding” of reforms to cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses in rape trials.

And so we have another Lord Chancellor who is not a lawyer; David Lidington. He had  consistently voted in favour of restricting the scope of legal aid and for allowing national security-sensitive evidence to be put before courts in secret sessions. He had a history of squeezing as much from the parliamentary purse as possible. In May 2009, it was revealed he had claimed £1,300 on expenses for dry cleaning. He also claimed for toothpaste, shower gel, body spray and vitamin supplements on his second home allowance. He repaid the claims for the toiletries, saying: ’I accept that many people would see them as over-generous.’  He could claim the honour of being the shortest in tenure at Petty France having lasted a whole six months. 

In January 2018  David Gauke transferred from Work and Pensions. At least he was a lawyer.  Indeed he was the first solicitor to be appointed Lord Chancellor. A month into his job he outlined his hopes in a speech available here; as bland as ersatz coffee and egg powder available to war time Britons between 1939 and 1945. His leaving office was as notable as his arrival. 

Robert Buckland, a solicitor, was anointed in 2019.  His keynote speech on judicial review is available here. I copy below an extract.  (my black)
The second part of my principles is the Rule of Law. What I mean is that as a society we are governed by clear rules set in advance and not by the arbitrary choices of those in power. That is a fundamental principle of our Constitution and I would not want any reform to endanger it.
The third is the Sovereignty of Parliament. In order for life in common to be possible, the laws that govern us must be orientated towards the common good. But what the common good means is, of course, open to interpretation. As Winston Churchill said, the least bad way of settling those disagreements is through democracy. It is our Constitution that gives the final say to the elected Parliament, not to the unelected branches of the state. I think that is a very sensible settlement which has served us all very well.

It is arguable to say the least that above we have the irresistible force meeting the immovable object and of course as a buddy of Boris Johnson when push came to shove he was a government lackey in the Brexit controversies over parliamentary rights. 

And so we come to Dominic Raab, demoted this year to Petty France but given the office? (title) of Deputy Prime Minister. That alone indicates the status of Justice Secretary in the eyes of this Tory government  where its newest holder needs his ego polished. 

Is it any wonder that Justice in this country is now an accoutrement  to our society`s well being in addition to saving the face of on overblown egotistical political irrelevance. The concept of Justice as a right for all citizens has long gone and with it the basis of our democratic traditions and freedoms because without Justice they evaporate just as surely as the morning mist in autumn.  

STOP AND SEARCH; THE FACTS

"Stop and search" has become a phrase which is familiar to most people over the age of ten.  It is, perhaps, the most divisive of actions which the ordinary cop on the beat can take.  It is subject to very stringent rules about which most people especially those liable to be the object of such action have only partial knowledge.  It is also a topic about which individuals from Opposition shadow ministers to rabble rousing members of ethnic minorities make a great deal of heat but often very little enlightenment.  There can be very few of those who listen to, watch or google the news from any number of sources who are unaware that there seems to be an inordinate number  of young black boys or youths  killed by other young black boys or youths.  Indeed in some parts of London it might not be an exaggeration to call this an epidemic.  

What I have done for this post is to source some irrefutable government statistics on this thorny subject.  For those who have the interest and the time I hope it will be a worthwhile effort.  First of all perhaps the most important fact on stop and search is an awareness of the actual powers the police have to operate it within the law.  The information can be accessed here. When black spokespeople bemoan the indignation and embarrassment of young black men being subjected to stop and search they might be losing sight that it is precisely males of black ethnicity  who are most likely to be victims of violence.  It is often the mothers of young black men killed by their peers who publicly denounce this fact. A much longer more detailed treatise on this was published earlier this year.  If you, dear reader, have read this far, a further ten minutes of learned observation might complete your understanding of this for ever controversial subject.  

MAGISTRATES` MAJORITY GUILTY VERDICT

Magistrates courts might arguably claim to be the first courts in England where the common person and the king`s law came into conflict. Depending on the circumstances such courts were sometimes held outside in public where the full power of the king through his judges could be demonstrated as a deterrent to those who would consider breaking his law. Paradoxically today  it could be argued that the magistrates courts system at the base of the courts pyramid far from being public is the most secretive of all.  I have in previous posts offered my opinion on the latest such example of secrecy embodied in the Single Justice Procedure.  There is, however, another facet of the system that has been commonplace for generations; the verdict after trial. Most cases at magistrates courts end in a guilty verdict (84%).  Of course that includes the many who plead guilty.  In 2004 there were approaching 200,000 trials; in 2019 that had reduced to 109,396 and owing to Covid in  2020 there were 57,388. Statisticians, criminologists and lawyers will argue over this apparently perhaps disturbing trend. When a crown court verdict is announced it is publicly known whether or not it is a verdict of all 12 jurors or whether the judge has accepted a majority of 10:2. At the Appeal Court or Supreme Court where there is a dissenting opinion that opinion is placed in the public record. What is certain is that nobody knows whether the trial verdict at the magistrates court is reached by all three magistrates or by a majority of 2:1.  Of course when a single District Judge (MC) is presiding the question is unnecessary. I have long considered this an anomaly in what is supposed to be an open and fair justice system. When the verdict is acquittal the matter ends but when guilt is established why should it not be announced that it is a majority verdict and the appeal process compulsorily made public to the offender and the public?  As far as I know this question has never been asked; never mind being answered. From my own position as a presiding magistrate or "chairman" as we used to describe ourselves before woke thought and action infiltrated every aspect of the justice system as it has so many aspects of society, whenever I had to pronounce a guilty verdict with a retiring room colleague having made a plausible not proven argument I would ensure that the appeal process and particularly the time limit and financial cost of the exercise were explained.  Thankfully such occasions were relatively few in number the exceptions usually involving a relatively inexperienced colleague who had deviated from having a structured approach to his/her conclusion.  Such colleagues usually were open to their being assisted in coming to a logical conclusion based upon the evidence presented.  If they finally came to a contrary conclusion but based upon ascending that structural ladder I would make clear that no criticism whatsoever would be taken by the majority couple. More often or not at our next meeting in the retiring room words to the effect of "I enjoyed sitting with you last time.  Thank you for your support" would be exchanged.  With identity politics even invading the bench and especially the Magistrates Association I doubt I would last a month in a system now becoming even more dominated by HMCTS, an organisation which would throw this post on a bonfire if it could.