It seems that with Dominic Raab`s departure from Petty France the new government (for that is what we have in practice if not in name) felt that pressure on the courts would be relieved by the Criminal Bar Association`s acceptance of an agreed fee increase back dated to the backlog of 60K cases in crown courts. But no sooner had one head of the legal Gorgon been lopped off than others have appeared. Solicitors are also putting forward claims for increases. The Crown Prosecution Service, a direct employer within the MOJ, is under pressure from its diminished workforce of prosecutors for increased pay rates. This from a service which, like teaching, dentistry, the legal profession and others has, over the last two decades, introduced a class of prosecutors of lower qualification to prosecute initially what were simple guilty pleas in the magistrates courts. And like the aforementioned professions their scope has been widened the prime purpose of which is to reduce costs. On top of all that magistrates courts staff, legal advisors and court associates, who postponed last month’s planned strike after the death of Queen Elizabeth II, will take action from 22 to 30 October at 65 magistrates’ courts in England and Wales over the controversial Common Platform system.
And that leaves magistrates, who, for more than a decade have been considered in practice if not in theory as unpaid employees by HMCTS [His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service]. Their morale whilst not measurable is considered by some as not of the highest level. Part of the reason is one of out of pocket expenses; an important consideration considering that JPs are volunteers. The mileage rate is now 45p per mile – the standard, HMRC-approved, rate. However it was changed some time ago from a three tier system which paid a different rate according to the size of your car’s engine. Those with very small cars were made better off, those with larger engines lost out to the tune of 13p per mile. The new system might be fair but inevitably the losers are not happy. If officials want someone to sit in a court thirty, forty or fifty miles from their home, they do not take account the cost to the magistrate of that journey before allocating that sitting to him or her. In response to requests that the paid rates should be increased to cover the significant increases in the cost of fuel, insurance, maintenance etc, the MoJ simply says it would be too difficult to introduce a new, fairer, system. When magistrates courts were responsible for their own individual rotas such difficulties were sorted in house. The take over of that process was the second in a continuing series of authoritarian grabs by HMCTS the first being the abolition of magistrates courts committees a couple of decades ago. This has continued to the present when so called unelected appointed "leadership" magistrates were supposed to be a replacement for elected bench chairmen who comprised a national forum which could be described as a magistrates` senate. They most certainly are not. They are self serving people with a veneer of doing public works looking forward to a gong which the civil service often offers to its own unlike that which is earned by fine people like my late mother for doing good works within the community.
I am sure that many now on the bench must be re thinking their role in our justice system. Covid 19 has reeked havoc on the courts as it has in so many parts of our lives. There are three areas to be considered. The best place to begin is the judicial oath which every JP must swear in a public place before being recognised. “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign lord King Charles III in the office of Justice of the Peace and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will.” With the introduction of the Single Justice Procedure over five years ago can it truly be said that those undertaking this position are following their oath? The process is carried out behind closed doors where the onus in practice is for the accused to prove his/her innocence; where there is no possibility of outside comment because of course there is no reporting. But it seems there are enough magistrates willing to sell their souls so that they do not incur the wrath of HMCTS. Indeed they might be described as spineless but their dark place in our courts system is self inflicted to some extent. They have no way to resist apart from resignation. They have no organisation which represents them. Some might cry but there is the Magistrates Association. But the Magistrates Association is to magistrates what the Spanish Inquisition was to heretics: a lingering painful departure or a quick end. Its charter prohibits any form of representative protective activity. It produces a lengthy 37pp account of its activities for the Charities Commission and specifies that its annual income from membership fees is £472,728 equalled by a similar grant from government but nowhere does it tell us in all the 37pp how many active members are on its books. Generally speaking if the government whistles the MA does a jig. Unless magistrates have a truly independent protective organisation where individuals can exchange opinions and have a shoulder to cry on when faced with professional problems representation as we know it is a mirage. Indeed as a very early contributor to an independent forum constructed on the MA website early this century I have witnessed its being absorbed into the "protective arms" of the MA and then being removed altogether. The result is as a body of around 12,000 souls nationally magistrates have no way to communicate with each other except in small voluntary groups
Finally and perhaps of most importance is the fact that so many defendants now appear for summary trial without legal representation or plead guilty simply to avoid the period wasted until court time is allocated for trial and of course to seek a 33% early guilty plea sentence reduction. During the trial magistrates have from their earliest training been told to apply the principle of there being equality of arms on a level playing field and that their position is to sit as Zeus in the clouds and pass judgement on the facts presented. It is my strongly and long held opinion that whilst not approaching the position of "magistrate" as employed in France nevertheless British magistracy must be redefined. And that means that a currently forbidden on pain of death interrogative approach must be undertaken when litigants in person (LIP) are facing professional prosecutors of the CPS. During my final five or so years pre retirement when this situation even then was becoming not uncommon I upset many legal advisors and not a few colleagues by assisting those who could not quite formulate their answer in cross examination by the often incomprehensible legal verbalise of crass prosecutors owing to poor English or intellect or both and more significantly those whose ability to question witnesses was hampered by their inability to translate their thoughts into clearly understood sentences.
Justice cannot be done in 2022 by habits formed in 1922. It is urgently required that an academic researches all aspects of the magistrates courts procedures from first appearance to sentencing outcomes with particular regard to those points above. Only then will there be continuing public confidence in this part of the justice system; a part where well over 95% of justice is dispensed. And for magistrates themselves: until utilising perhaps outside influences attempts to attract individuals of the calibre of those of the last decades of the 2oth century will be blighted. But as the cynic within me keeps whispering: governments are seeking ever increasing control of the legal system to suit themselves. Sourcing JPs en masse as is happening now is not a clear indicator of a desire to improve the quality of what was once upon a time the independent bench. All too often the appearance is to reinforce the concept of a master and servant relationship which is bad news for them and worse news for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment