Sentencing of newsworthy serious criminals on live TV is no longer in itself a newsworthy event. Pioneered in Scotland such opportunities to show the law in action are an indication of how the MOJ wants the public to perceive the state of justice perhaps to disguise the failure of the last 14 years during which from police to prisons and all posts in between only a rabid optimist would opine that the public is well served against criminality. When multiple murderers are sentenced in effect to die in jail the tool makers in Petty France can almost be seen as clap happy with their mutual back slapping as national media take up the stories. However it`s at the local level whether on line or in print that tens of millions of people have their glimpses of the law in action. One would have thought that the recent furore initiated belatedly by the Magistrates Association in respect of the Single Justice Procedure would have invited criticism as to why it has taken nine years to reach the eyes and ears of the general public. It has not.
Local print media, the vehicles which in times past by their reporting of local magistrates courts when indeed such were actually "local", were once the "name `em and shame `em" engines of a type of neighbourhood watch all but absent now in our collective rush to the keyboard. At one time the option for local newspaper proprietors would have been to try and increase circulation by offering content that social on line media and mass media print by their very structures could not. However nowadays it seems the business plan for local press is to restrict their on line availability to subscription only. By playing chicken with their readership as to who will give way first; those prepared to buy the hard copy, those who would pay subs or those who refuse either option, it`s increasingly unlikely that truly local news will be reported. It is likely news agencies` synchronised stories will become the mainstay for many. And so the "news" of the Magistrates Association`s self critical and snivelling statement posted here last week has been widely repeated almost word for word up and down the country. My point is why has it taken so long for this overdue criticism to reach the public. A large cadre of defence lawyers must have been the first to be aware of the iniquities involved. Their representatives within the Law Society would surely have been in the loop to lobby MOJ. But most of all individual magistrates not worthy of their appointment have been complicit since 2015 in presiding over a court system that they must have been aware was acting contrary to their oath: " I... swear that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lord King Charles the third, in the office of Justice of the Peace and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Realm without fear or favour, affection or ill will."
I have yet to see, hear or read of the contrition of any single or group of magistrates for their actions. In my time on the bench we had an annual general bench meeting where any subject deemed suitable by the bench chairman and his/her committee could be discussed and voted on. I understand that such process has been discontinued. This is unsurprising since the take over by HMCS, the abolition of magistrates courts committees and subsequently the establishment of HMCTS, was to that end; the magistrates courts must be taken under complete government control. So much for the joke concept of "local" when ascribed to justice.
It`s apparent that unless magistrates form a new body to actually represent themselves as a professional association the operation of the lower courts system will increasingly be weighted to the needs of a government and less to the application of the law for local communities. I always thought that magistrates being the only members of a branch of the judiciary not being financially beholden to government could and would use that independence for the public good. On a personal level I resigned before my designated retirement date because I did not want to implement impending legislation. I wonder how many sitting as Single Justices have had any doubt about their position? They are as jugglers trying to keep five concepts airborne when they`ve trained for three. There is the inevitability of public failure which should be accompanied by humiliation but rarely is.
I do not expect this site will be flooded with comments.
No comments:
Post a Comment