TV HISTORY IS MADE

This blogger has advocated for many years that the proceedings at courts should and could be shown on live TV.  Today history was made on Sky News when the sentencing remarks in the case of Ben Oliver who killed his grandfather in a frenzied savage attack were broadcast live.  Presumably these historic 20 minutes will be available on the Sky News you tube channel.   

When print and other media court reports are published they are limited by the space or time available. This was real insight into how a major part of the justice system works.  Would that the rest of the system from crime prevention to waiting times to trial were as efficient. 

EMBED APPEALS FROM MAGISTRATES COURTS

Miscarriages of justice is a subject about which the public is generally ignorant or unaware until or unless a prisoner convicted of a serious crime is released from prison with a mention in most news bulletins until the next 24 hour headline takes over.  The system of courts is rather like the system of locks on a canal. Enter the first and reach its maximum level (or depth) of water and proceed onwards until desired level is attained to continue a journey. For the courts, be found guilty at crown court level and appeal to court of appeal. Taking a step back conviction and/or sentence at the magistrates court can be appealed at crown court before a bench of a judge and two magistrates with a sentence there being able to be appealed at the court of appeal. Similar steps are in place for the civil courts. Appeals against decisions in magistrates courts are statistically quite rare since the vast majority of cases are summary only and the costs of appeal would scarcely be worth the effort for those convicted.  Statistics of appeals of this nature are now apparently unavailable with the MOJ using the excessive cost get out to avoid disclosure. The latest figures I can obtain are below.  Please use the magnifying tool for comfort.

The main thrust of  this post is that there is a perception amongst defence lawyers that clients have a better chance of acquittal in either way cases by electing trial by jury. Crown court cases are considerably more expensive than in magistrates courts. With those two factors in mind, earlier this year the MOJ extended magistrates courts` sentencing powers from six to twelve months custody.  In so doing the risks and consequences  of miscarriages of justice have increased.  In addition the MOJ with its well publicised programme of appointing an additional 4,000 magistrates by 2025 adds additional possibilities of miscarriages of justice by those newbies being likely to have inhibitions against opposing more senior colleagues` decisions. My personal choice to ensure justice was available to all was, after pronouncing verdict and sentence to offenders, to explain the crown court appeals procedure. I know that very few of my fellow presiding justice colleagues followed my example. A situation unknown to the general public is that decisions of magistrates courts are not necessarily unanimous but are always described as "the decision of the bench". I would propose that that archaic presentation of verdict is now not fit for purpose. I would further propose that any verdict delivered by majority must be immediately conveyed to the offender as being able to be appealed at crown court. It is of course up to the senior presiding judge to recommend such changes. It will take pressure from the legal profession and other bodies eg Transform Justice for those suggestions to be even heard at the highest levels never mind acted upon. Perhaps by 2050 there might be a hint of compliance. 

INFORMATION WITHHELD

There are two departments of state Health and Justice which seem to be proud to inform those who want to know of all the numbers they gather about all their activities.  Sometimes these are to enlighten us, a largely non numerical public, and sometimes it appears to overwhelm us with so much numerology that the "meat in the pie" is overwhelmed by pastry and gravy.  I would assume  that the mathematicians and statisticians are merely following orders although with a certain amount of cynicism in my genes I would not be at all surprised if at any time in any topic discreet instructions were sent out from Whitehall that a certain end result or indication would be well received by those sitting at the biggest desks. 

It is apparent to anyone remotely interested with our justice system that public announcements from the MOJ often seem more to pander to what it believes is a public desire for ever more severe punishments.  Indeed some announcements of so called changes are totally unnecessary as the Guidelines allow for extreme disposals within existing parameters. Nowhere has this approach had more far reaching effects that the changes to driving offenders dependant upon outcomes. From maximum sentences respectively of two years custody for careless driving to seven for dangerous driving and additions in 2015 to causing serious injury or death  by careless or dangerous driving  ranging from  two years on indictment to life imprisonment.  Apart from the Daily Mail headline pleasing approach by this government there is the philosophical question of why should the outcome of an unintended driving incident drive the sentence.  Many including this writer have experienced momentary lapses in concentration which have not resulted in a legal situation or perhaps could have but did not. However the law is the law is the law which brings me to the knub of this post. Minority Report starring Tom Cruise and directed by Steven Spielberg was a superb film based on the prevention of a criminal event before it happened.  Indeed much of any government`s legal thinking is on the prevention of crime.  Following logically on that premise surely it would be common sense to follow up those drivers who have been subject to disqualification but have persuaded a court by the successful pleading of exceptional hardship or special reasons the former having been posted here previously many times and available by typing those words in the search box. In order to do so a court would have to know those thousands annually who kept their driving licenses by reason of these two appeals. But MOJ does not have this statistical information although courts have it recorded as they have names and addresses recorded.  A freedom of information for this received the following reply:- 

In each of the last five years or for those for which statistics are available how many drivers who have succeeded with applications of "exceptional hardship" in avoiding a totting driving disqualification have gone on to be convicted in the crown court of an imprisonable driving offence especially causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving?

In each of the last five years or for those for which statistics are available how many drivers who have succeeded with applications of SPECIAL REASONS in avoiding a driving disqualification have gone on to be convicted in the crown court of an imprisonable driving offence especially causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous driving?

Your request has been handled under the FOIA.

I can confirm the MoJ holds all of the information you have requested. However, to provide as the request currently stands would exceed the cost limit set out in the FOIA.

Section 12(1) of the FOIA means a public authority is not obliged to comply with a request for information if it estimates the cost of complying would exceed the appropriate limit. The appropriate limit for central government is set at £600. This represents the estimated cost of one person spending 3.5 working days determining whether the department holds the information, and locating, retrieving and extracting the information.

Information collated centrally by the MoJ does not identify those who were specifically excused a driving disqualification under the mitigating circumstance of ‘exceptional hardship’

We believe that the cost of locating, retrieving and extracting the number of offenders who were excused a driving ban under the mitigating circumstances of exceptional hardship and then matching them to those who had been found guilty of such driving offences in Crown Court would exceed the appropriate limit. Consequently, we are not obliged to comply with your request.

Unfortunately, I am not able to suggest any refinement to your request which will allow it to be responded to within the cost limit. The information you have requested is also exempt from disclosure under section 32 of the FOIA because it is held only by virtue of being contained in a court record. Therefore, even if the scope of your request were reduced to the extent that it would come within the cost limit, section 32 would become engaged and the information would be withheld under that exemption.

Instead of relying upon court hearings of such serious charges and which would necessitate in most cases police witnesses which of course begs the question of all the reduced mobile patrols by police especially on main roads and motorways why does MOJ not devise a method in which the statistics of errant driving have been recorded as escaping disqualification but held as possible future evidence in a possible future case? Currently nobody, police nor MOJ knows if such drivers have a greater than average chance of future careless or dangerous driving.  Prevention is better than cure so they say but not, apparently, when much less than perfect driving is unknown at least to the statisticians. An offender`s driving record i.e. from penalty points to death by dangerous driving is always considered when such matters are serious enough to be sentenced in court but it seems for the future as for the present when the aforementioned appeals have succeeded the court will be none the wiser. 

OFFENCE AS A CRIME // MY DIARY 4/4/2010

 

I doubt many of my readers will have noticed my original diaries from 2009 have been digitalised and are now available at https://amagistratesdiaries.blogspot.com/.  I have today decided for the very first time to publish here the entry for 4th April 2010.  Free from the constraints of HMCTS I can add that the case was heard at my old court and I was the dissenting vote for acquittal. IMHO this case and perhaps others similar was an early example of what is now termed "woke" culture.  It was a miserable prediction of what is becoming increasingly prevalent in all our lives; the criminalisation of "offence".  Indeed there is current controversy reaching even the final stages of the spectacle of the "election" of a new prime minister as to the candidates` views on a bill currently passing through the House of Commons. 

04. Apr. 2010. – 12:57:57

Like millions of others I can enjoy watching John Cleese in Basil Fawlty persona almost as much as his silly walking etc at Messers M. Python.  Indeed one phrase from the sixth episode has stood the test of time and is well remembered today thirty years later, "Don`t mention the war". His goose stepping scene with a finger across his upper lip will be shown in TV clips a hundred years from now as an example of the last throw of the intellectual freedom of the late 20th century because it is extremely doubtful that the inhibited grey suits with their political correctness, who control many visual media diluting writers` and performers` talents, would today sanction such a sketch. If it is thought I am, to coin a phrase, going over the top on this..........going back to that episode of Fawlty Towers I was watching recently, it reminded me of a case two or three years ago.

The defendant of previous good character  was a veteran of World War 2.  He had been charged with using threatening abusive or insulting words or behaviour or disorderly behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress contrary to Section V[1] and [6] of the Public Order Act 1986........a "catch all offence". Those whom he had been charged with receiving his "words or behaviour" were two Police Community Support Officers.   He had been arguing with a car driver who, he asserted, had almost hit him on a zebra crossing.  The PCSOs had told the pair of them to desist; the driver drove away and our 80+  year old defendant had then performed a Basil Fawlty Hitler goosestep around the PCSOs to demonstrate in his words their bloody interference.  One member of the bench dissented with the verdict of guilty but guilty he was found.  He was sentenced to a Conditional Discharge for six months and to pay £50 of the £350 costs asked for by the prosecution.

The only conclusion I can draw from this tale and from others of a similar nature is that whilst police officers have discretion, and long might it continue, these ill educated poorly paid apologies for Chinese neighbourhood  wardens [spies], now defunct traffic wardens  or park rangers of my childhood are little better at replacing police officers than repairing a damaged Rolls Royce with filler and expecting it to be as good as new.  It might be cheaper at the time but in the long run the value of the Rolls can never be recovered. And thus the ship of state sails on its being only a matter of time before all the holes below the waterline coalesce and the deluge begins.

ANOTHER LEGAL TORY MISFIT

As if a former Lord Chancellor with a record of incompetence standing for Tory leader and prime minister is not enough another honorary QC with a record of ignorant rants and actions has thrown her virtual hat into the same gladiatorial contest where the last person standing wins all..........I am Sparticus, No! I am Sparticus or parhaps the more recent in  movie terms Maximus Decimus Meridius aka Russell Crowe. 

Elected in 2015 and Suella Braverman was appointed Attorney General by Boris Johnson in 2020 with many on her own side of the House questioning her ability to do the job. What more qualification did she need than being the chairman of the European Research Group from 19 June 2017 to 9 January 2018.  She and what deluded supporters she has mustered must realise is that she has a less than a snowball`s chance in hell of surviving a first round. What she and some other pretenders to the throne are doing is  throwing red meat to the Tory electorate all 200K of them and announcing that Brexit must remain the entry card for aspiring Tory candidates at all levels up from parish councils to number 10. She and her ilk are almost as  poisonous to the Conservative Party as the antisemitic Corbyn was to Labour. 

Here are just three references to the sound and visual nonsense of this candidate. 

THE ILLUSION OF LIZ TRUSS AND CHAMPAGNE ECONOMICS

Conservative MPs are being offered inter alia former and unlamented Lord Chancellor Liz Truss as our next prime minister.  This is extraordinary considering what could only be  described as an eleven month episode 2016/17 Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice which highlighted her shortcomings and unsuitability to hold any job in the cabinet including her current one. 

Apparently when the post for her successor was advertised (where and when...who knows?) there was a stipulation that the successful candidate would be required to guarantee tenure of four years.  We now know how seriously that was taken........Truss herself had lasted less than a year. One of the post`s requirements is to defend the judiciary; this she famously failed to do.  Indeed she seemed to veer in the opposite direction when in response to their being branded “Enemies of the people” by the Daily Mail because they ruled parliament had to be given a vote on triggering Brexit she remained silent. Lord Thomas the then Lord Chief Justice also attacked Ms Truss for a “complete misunderstanding” of reforms to cross-examination of vulnerable witnesses in rape trials.  She demonstrated her ignorance of law which she had sworn to uphold by planning to raise legal fees payable after death by up to £20,000 even after a parliamentary committee said the increases were unlawful. 

This is but a brief summary of why most legal professionals were glad to see the back of her almost exactly five years ago. Her final Wikipedia entry reads as follows:- " On 10 July 2022, Truss announced her intention to run in the Conservative Party leadership election. She pledged to cut taxes on day one, and said she would "fight the election as a Conservative and govern as a Conservative", adding she would also take "immediate action to help people deal with the cost of living."  Like others trying to be top of the greasy pole she is promising to give with one hand and take away with the other.  What other meaning other than make payments to "help people deal with the cost of living".  Either social benefits are increased by tax rises or the state`s income (taxes) used to fund benefits etc is reduced and increased economic activity is assumed to fund those benefits. The latter is the basis of increasing living standards but it takes time.  She (and others) are advocating the latter being undertaken now.  The champagne effect of trickle down economics from the spending of the very rich to fund the financially deprived as advocated by Ronald Reagan has been shown to be an illusion but like all illusions many are fooled and people fooled like to convince themselves they weren`t.  I hope Tory MPs are wiser than that but I have my doubts. 

PATRIOT OR NATIONALIST?

Outside the legal profession there has been very little discussion on what is arguably [choose adjective(s) to suit your opinion] the most divisive, intrusive, necessary, restrictive, overdue, fascistic, legislation in half a century:- The Police, Crime Sentencing and Courts Act 2022.  The very terms in the act`s title are themselves indicative of its widespread nature.  In years gone by each segment would have been a once in a decade piece of legislation.  However it is changes in our society which have given life to the changes in law which will impinge on the lives of all who live in this country. 

Freedom of assembly and expression have supposedly been hard wired into our unwritten constitution. There are arguments for another time perhaps that that is a myth exploited by successive governments so that the majority can control the vociferous revolutionary minority which exists in this country as it does elsewhere.  Apart from 1939 - 1945 it has largely succeeded. Many, perhaps most of the general public will find it incredible that until 1968 theatre censorship had existed since the sixteenth century and a 1737 Act appointed the Lord Chamberlain as official licenser of plays and regulated restrictions on drama. Little changed regarding the censorship of plays with the passing of the 1843 Theatres Act, which was still in place over 100 years later. Oh! Calcutta! is an avant-garde, risque theatrical revue created by British drama critic Kenneth Tynan. The show consisting of sketches on sex-related topics and full frontal nudity was a smash hit in the West End where I saw it in 1970.  It was a reaction to the artistic freedom offered by the abolition of restrictions and censorship.  Similar changes allowing freedom of expression artistically, politically, individually and en masse were a characteristic of the latter half of the 20th century.  And then at exactly this time came the IRA and murder wholesale, the Vietnam War, the Yom Kippur War.  The fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union followed by a prime minister lying to parliament to allow British troops to be aligned with Americans in the invasion of Iraq further eroded general confidence that what could be termed a British way of life really did exist on a different level from other western nations. Not just different but better: not just better but way better. The tumultuous political events this century have seen so far; a financial crisis followed by austerity,  Scottish nationalism rearing its ugly head,  lies upon lies persuading so many that it`s better pissing in from outside the EU tent than pissing out from inside, a trio of the most incompetent prime ministers in a century and a pandemic which has changed the lives of millions for ever. 

All the above and more have led to the above Act. Prior to its  Royal Assent I sat in an hour long stationary queue on the M25 with thousands of others owing to proto fascists calling themselves activists  attaching themselves to the tarmac obstructing traffic. Some of those have been jailed after blocking roads, disrupting court proceedings and in one case climbing on top of an aeroplane in an attempt to draw attention to the escalating emergency.  Earlier protesters blocked oil refineries.  Members of protest group Insulate Britain spent Christmas serving prison sentences for contempt of court for breaching injunctions banning their road block protests.  Ben Taylor was jailed for six months after telling judges if they freed him he would “go out and block the highway at the earliest opportunity” and would keep doing it until the government acts.  The government has  acted but perhaps not in the way Taylor and his ilk had hoped for.  Their fanaticism bordering on early tactics of  20th century fascists has led to precisely what they perhaps wanted but this country desperately cried out for; authority to ensure the minority cannot rule the majority by a complete disruption of the lives of that majority for political ends.  No doubt so called environmental groups wish to see provocation ensue by the imposition of the Act and sympathisers flocking literally to their banners and barricades. Their desire is anarchy followed by revolution.  The history books are complete with examples. This part of the Act; Part 3 Public Order at least  is required reading for all who can consider themselves a patriot....a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion  but refute the nomenclature nationalist..... a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations.  The difference might seem subtle but it might be the difference between this country being fit for our children and grandchildren or fading into the twilight of history as others have throughout time.