MAGISTRATES COURTS ARE DROWNING

 

Financial impositions and amounts paid by imposition type

In Q3 2023 the total value of impositions increased compared to the previous quarter (up 7%). The latest imposition figure is 32% above that seen in the previous year, with increases seen across all imposition types – most notably a more than doubling in the amount imposed for victim surcharge, up from £12.8m in Q3 2022 to £27.4m in Q3 2023.

Outstanding financial impositions

In Q3 2023, the total value of financial impositions outstanding in England and Wales was £1.56 billion, up 3% on the previous quarter and 12% on the previous year. [my bold].

The amount of outstanding financial impositions is now nearly 3 times the amount in Q1 2015 (£571m). A change in policy regarding the collection of financial impositions is partially behind this cumulative increase – unpaid accounts are no longer routinely closed and therefore, more outstanding impositions are carried over from previous periods.

The above is copied from government published criminal courts statistics. In 2023, 80% of all offenders were sentenced to a fine. In round figures that translates as 830,000 defendants in criminal courts being sentenced to a fine.  Summary motoring offences accounted for 73% of all fines: so much for some basic statistics.  Means courts were part of everyday life as a magistrate when I was active.  I have no knowledge whether such courts now operate under the Single Justice Procedure.  What I do know is that they allowed the bench the unusual and difficult for some colleagues` task of being an inquisitorial magistrate in the continental style to ascertain as far as possible wholly accurate and complete answers to questions on offenders` incomes whether at a personal or company level.  In practice this meant demanding audited accounts previously submitted to HMRC or perhaps e.g. wage slips over a specified period.  It was standard practice to tell those with unpaid fines that such fines were the first liability in any legal financial liability claims pending.  Whatever governments in power might say now or previously the inefficient pursuit of outstanding fines makes a mockery of the system.  

The ladder of punishments available when summary justice has been duly carried out has for decades been fine, community service and prison.  The disaster within the prison system is public knowledge and  the probation service is on its knees.  This now leaves some creative thinking of how magistrates courts should impose financial penalties and how their payment must be ensured. 

A Bassetlaw fly tipper was recently sentenced to a community penalty.  His case appeared typical of such law breaking.  It was to perform an illegal activity {not a householder disposing of his/her own unwanted ephemera} for financial gain.  Surely a financial penalty high enough to hurt in the pocket would have been a more suitable outcome.  However that would have required further hearings which, with the enormous court backlogs, Deputy Justices Clerks would have frowned upon.  

With rising vehicle insurance premiums it is likely that future statistics will show an increasing number of drivers guilty of "no insurance".  Fines for such an offence must be raised beyond current limits:- Fine Band A  i.e. 50% of relevant weekly income within the range  25 – 75% of relevant weekly income.  Out of the box thinking, a difficulty for those inculcated in the ethos of "do not disturb", must be applied to the whole structure of the magistrates courts.  The system is beyond needing sticking plaster.  It needs life saving treatment to avoid drowning.  

DIVERSITY? IT`S ALL A RUSSIAN DOLL

A simple question: in what aspects of life is it required, beneficial or necessary that those offering, receiving or supplying services be representative of the population as a whole?  The corollary is that in what areas of our society is such representation unnecessary, unwanted or unattainable?  Apart from the Chinese armed forces the NHS is the largest employer in the world. As of June 2023 81.3% of NHS staff in England are British. 8.6% report an Asian nationality and 5.2% are EU nationals. This varies in different parts of the country. In London 30% of staff report a non-British nationality. Around 265,000 out of 1.5 million staff country wide reported a non-British nationality in June 2023 up from 220,000 a year earlier. This amounts to nearly one in five of NHS staff with a known nationality.  An analysis shows more than two fifths (42%) of doctors, dentists and consultants and almost a third (29.2%) of our nurses, midwives and health visitors are from black and minority ethnic backgrounds.  In March this year one quarter of care workers and home carers was born outside of the UK according to the Office for National Statistics.  Such statistics can be obtained for many if not most occupations such is the determination of government and pressure groups to ensure that there is no racial  discrimination within the workforce.  But the watchword now is "diversity".  Indeed several UK universities offer degrees in diversity or on a similar basis e.g. cultural heritage; Manchester, Lincoln and the University of Wales.  The "D" word has become an industry.  It has also become a totem as sacred to human resources departments as it was and is to native Americans where the term originated. 

Nowhere has the supposed need for diversity become more of an objective in itself  than in the  judiciary and particularly within the magistary. Recently published statistics on applications and applicants reveal everything about those aspiring to sit on the bench except perhaps graphs of self declared ego, social status, height and weight, IQ and income.    There were 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1 April 2024, up 9% compared to the previous year and the second consecutive annual increase.  Of the 5,131 applications to join the magistracy which concluded in 2023-24, 2,008 were for appointments as recorded on the new magistrates recruitment process introduced in January 2022.  For example we now know that in the year 2022-23 in London 288 ethnic minority candidates representing 53% of such applications did not make a shortlist as did 257 white applicants who also failed.  However the total number i.e. percentage of all white applicants in London who failed is not published. From the current 2023-24 figures we learn that 2% of applications to the magistary were self declaring Jewish and 6% Muslim.  Last census showed the Jewish population of England and Wales as 0.5% and 6.7% as Muslims.  13% of applications were from those who attended independent schools; approximately twice the percentage of children currently and historically  attending such schools.  Of those recommended  for appointment in the current batch 2% were Jewish and 4% were Muslim.  18% were over 60 years of age, 84% were white, 15% were Asian, black or of mixed race and 52% attended a university.  1,091 or 57% of those recommended for appointment declared themselves to be "professional".  Manual, service, technical and craft workers comprised 8% of successful applicants.  Female successes were 58% in all.  There is much in all the numbers for demographers, sociologists, trade union bosses, politicians and many others to feed from for many months. But my point is whether all this is really necessary.  The latest publication from the MOJ is available here.

The CEO of the Magistrates Association has stated that "Recruitment has failed to produce a magistracy that reflects society".  Should the lower court be reflected on this subject in this way?  District Judges (MC) also sit in magistrates courts.  Their proportion of sittings cf their lay colleagues is a secret known only to His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals  Service.  We do know that about 90% of them are white. Of 37 lords justices of appeal 33 are men and four are women. On the supreme court, 11 justices are men and one a woman and all white.  If we are undergoing surgery do we need to know the diversity statistics of eg anaesthetists?  Of course we don`t.  We have confidence [or should have] in those supervising the appointment of such experts. I might just remind the reader of my previous two posts on the current failings of those who appoint these supervisory bodies but for the present I must assume that in principle good order applies. It can be argued that having magistrates as representative of those over whom they are in judgement might give confidence to a population but is it not as important that their abilities to perform their task are obvious to all?  Over the last two hundred years prejudices in many aspects of our societies have dissipated.  The Emancipation Act of 1829 admitted Irish and English Roman Catholics to Parliament and to all but a handful of public offices.  Jews who had been previously excluded from being MPs were granted full civil rights in 1858.  The Race Relations Act 1965 was the first piece of legislation in the UK to address the prohibition of racial discrimination and followed previously unsuccessful bills. The watchword for the magistracy should be competence.  Is it simplistic to consider that  being a magistrate is to exercise mental abilities and that those who have shown such capacity are more suited to appointment than those whose skills lie in other directions?  Would a consultant cardiologist perhaps be a more capable candidate that her cardiac surgeon colleague?  Perhaps appointments committees are approaching their task as a physicist involved in quantum physics:  the study of matter and energy at the most fundamental level aiming to uncover the properties and behaviours of the very building blocks of nature whereas an astrophysicist focuses on celestial bodies and the cosmic phenomena that shape the universe.  In common terms current fashion is a micro view rather than a macro view.  And what of the lawyers who sometimes show their distaste at being under the direction of a non lawyer however capable?  Within the legal profession anecdotally their opinion of magistrates varies from "muppets" to comments that they are "out of their depth".  To my knowledge no survey has ever been undertaken to discern the real thoughts of criminal lawyers who regularly attend magistrates courts.  

It appears that diversity is the tail that wags the dog of magistrates` appointments.  There has always been an argument that all courts i.e. magistrates courts, should be presided over by full time professional legally qualified judges of whom around 400 are currently in office.  Two decades ago an academic study calculated that if District Judges operated without a legal advisor the costs would be comparable to the then 30,000 magistrates` expenses.   14,576 magistrates are currently listed.  The reality is that generally magistrates get it right when it comes to trial verdicts and sentencing.  My post of  28th May 2024 offers detailed analysis.  If ouvert prejudices in professions and workplaces were always taken seriously and the current obsession with "minor offensive aggressions" were consigned to the dustbins of sociology departments perhaps there would be no need to put diversity at the pinnacle of human resources executives` required "successes".  

Once more I place responsibilities on those who appoint the advisory committees who appoint magistrates.  If they are, as might be the case, as blinkered as a Derby thoroughbred their failings will be hidden from us.  Diversity can be seen as as camouflage for their inefficiencies.  It`s all a Russian doll.   

GROUPTHINK

I have long been critical of appointments committees, advisory committees or any other term for supervisory bodies.  Recent headlines, at least in some recent cases, have reinforced my opinions.  First used in the 1940s the term “woke” has resurfaced in recent years as a concept that symbolises perceived awareness of social issues and movement against injustice, inequality, and prejudice.  Over the last decade the word has morphed into being aware of supposed inequitable judicial outcomes in the courts.  For those caught in its etymological net  it can be an assessment of how much their thinking processes are of a type approved by those who call themselves "progressives".  For those including this blogger who oppose almost all opinions in line with the "w" word straight talking has become more of a risk than ever it was. What was once good humoured and/or honest workplace banter is something that now might lead to an employment tribunal declaring as prejudicial to one party or another.  

Such was the case of social worker Rachel Meade who was suspended for her gender beliefs.  She was awarded £58,000 in damages in April from Westminster city council.  This was another case where a regulating authority, Social Work England, suspended her over her belief that a person cannot change his/her sex.  She didn`t get the headlines as some more active in this controversial subject have received but serves as an example of how far into "correct" thinking those who are appointed to supervise the supervisors have sunk into a morass which to them is as rigid as in any authoritarian jurisdiction.   There is more information here. 

Rioting students indoctrinated by media misinformation have been causing havoc at universities here and elsewhere justifying their actions that it is an offense to humanity that a nation under repeated attacks with more promised in the future cannot use the necessary means to defend its people.  Using tactics seen in 1930s Germany can be excused by some as young people searching for a cause but public libraries fulfilling their duties especially to young people to offer a vast range of material to inspire, enjoy and improve their imaginations and intellectual boundaries are a different matter. Assuming the books on offer are within the legal limits of what might be offered there surely should be a natural revulsion that they should censor what might be available according to age groups, authors and subjects.  Would that that were the case.  It seems that the watchword itself a woke term is "offensive".  Librarians appear to be acting on public requests to remove books from the shelves at a rate never before experienced. Banning books is not as direct a pointer to impending totalitarianism as burning books but it is a signal that many people are exhibiting signs that consciously or otherwise they have little confidence in being part of a democratic society. A Freedom of Information request, after analysis, showed that of 204 councils 163 responded. 17 did not have information of how many titles had been removed.  11 councils revealed that 16 books were removed after a single objection from a customer, parent or librarian on the grounds of being racist, divisive, inappropriate, violent or outdated.  A full account is available from Free Speech Union.     

Those librarians were presumably interviewed by council officials or their sub contractors.  If their censorious attitudes were clear at that time why were they employed.  If they were hidden on application and from interviewer it demonstrates the incompetence of those interviewing panels in failing their required duties and those who employed them.  

It`s a couple of decades since I was part of the national workforce but I do remember when I first was being paid for my presumed expertise remarking more than once to an older male colleague in the lightest possible manner with a smile on my face, "Back in your day".  Woe betide a worker now committing that abominable spoken aggression.  An employment tribunal judge a few months ago ruled that such a statement could be unlawful.  Workplace fear seems to be commonplace for employers and employees.  Fear is the basis of all authoritarian regimes. It destroys societies but fear doesn`t begin at the point of a gun; it ends at the point of a gun.   

From my own experiences I know that many magistrates use their position to secure part time appointments to just the kind of supervisory bodies I have been fulminating against over the last few weeks. Some might be on that next step up the "great and the good" ladder insofar as they are the supervising and/or appointing authority for the supervisors.  It matters little.  Magistrates used to be individuals with minds of their own: now they are considered as unpaid employees of His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service.  They might still take the judicial oath but another requirement is now required to be worthy of their place on the bench; that is groupthink. 

GUILTY OR GUILTY?

This copied blow is the relatively new hurdle for magistrates to consider if or when they appear to have stepped out of line.  It is directly copied from the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office website.

The expedited process in the Judicial Conduct Magistrates Rules 2023 enables the JCIO to advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice that a magistrate should be issued with formal advice or a formal warning where—

(a) there is no dispute as to the facts set out in the complaint;

(b) the alleged facts relate to conduct which the JCIO considers that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice would be very likely to decide amounted to misconduct; and

(c) the JCIO considers that the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Chief Justice would be very likely to decide that formal advice or a formal warning was the appropriate disciplinary sanction.

THE IGNORED LESSON OF ARGENTINA

It seems that only after a general election gives us a new government that the MOJ has come under the spotlight of those who report our news.  It`s not as if those heading our news media didn`t know of the perilous state of our inadequate, undisciplined, undermanned police force, our failing courts system and our Victorian age crumbling prisons; of course they knew but excepting where there was an atrocious event e.g. conviction of yet another police rapist, the live sentencing of yet another multiple murderer or a sex tape of a female prison officer offering her "services" to a convict other stories had priority. 

The Tory Party used to be known as the party to be relied upon for law `n order or the party of the hangers `n floggers: not any more, indeed not for the last 14 years.  Even in the last few years before my retirement under the "leadership" of that worthy David Cameron, magistrates were "advised" to follow  many legal twists and turns to avoid sending offenders to immediate custody despite the fact that at most 4% of those convicted were sentenced in that manner. Now it is almost universally known that given no heavenly intervention England`s  prisons within the next few weeks will not be just bursting at the seams; they will have collapsed as did the walls of Jericho.  In 2021 magistrates courts` sentencing powers were increased to 12 months custody.  Last year it was announced that the custodial limit will be reduced to the previous 6 months.  This is very strange and without explanation.  The Commons Justice Committee has questioned the motivation behind this action which is reminiscent of that grand old Duke of York.  On 17th October 2023 I posted a fuller account of the push me pull me activities of the MOJ regarding the principle of magistrates courts` custodial sentencing powers.  The current save the system antidote is to release convicted prisoners way ahead of any release date they could previously have hoped for. MOJ estimates are that 40,000 inmates would benefit leaving more rat infested cells for newcomers. These measures were requested in May but our previous prime minister vetoed that initiative for what we can all now see as pre planned removal of a likely electoral millstone around his neck.  As almost a last resort it`s believed there are plans in place to cancel the outstanding custodial time remaining in theory of convicts released early on license with the result  that individuals would be unable to be recalled if they breached licensing conditions. 

If sentencing laws remain as they are now it`s estimated that there will be a need to accommodate 100,000 prisoners in 2025.  The likelihood is that once again the argument to remove all custodial sentences at magistrates courts will become irrefutable.  And once again the tail of past incompetence  and expediency will wag the dog of  a dispirited chaotic justice system.

14 years of this nation being governed by short sighted incompetent chickens is coming home to roost.  Whilst so many of us apparently who are happy to spend hard earned ££££ on cars, holidays and the  trappings of a good life refuse to contemplate paying a small fraction of their health care costs: whilst there seems to be a very contagious virus affecting the nation`s mental health individually and collectively: whilst the state continues to fund those who choose a life of  indolence and pressures mount for the new government to make it harder for incompetents in a workforce to be sacked, this once thriving country will sink deeper  into an economic and political abyss.  The lesson of the decline and decline of Argentina should be a lesson for all.  In 1913 Argentina was among the world's ten wealthiest states per capita. Beginning in the 1930s the Argentine economy deteriorated notably. 100 years later that country is still in turmoil. Its history should be a lesson to all of us but it won`t be on the Cabinet`s reading list.  If the new PM does little else he must convince us that the euphemism of tightening our belts is a reality.  I fear that like all those who reach Number 10 he will shilly shally and attempt to waltz around the root problems which are leading us from riches to rags; to penury and worse. 

THE IGNOMINY OF CHARLES PECK [JP]

When magistrates reach retirement they are usually automatically transferred to the supplemental list.  This allows the individual to continue using the suffix after his/her name.  Personally I had no need for that personal aggrandisement even when active.The retired magistrates who continue to use those letters are, in my opinion, similar to those retired army, navy or airforce middle ranking officers who continue to use their rank. There are virtually no "benefits" or actions available for those retired JPs when they continue to use the suffix.  However there are some such people who continue to huff and puff and consider their opinions especially in the public sphere enhanced by continuing to use "JP".  On the downside they fail to note or are ignorant of the fact that the rules on misuse or publicity applying to active members of the junior judiciary, magistrates, still apply to those on that supplemental list.   

To his embarrassment  Mr Charles Peck JP, retired magistrate, has found to his cost that his desire to use his retained title in a public forum has cost him his good name amongst the few who will be aware of his misdemeanour. 

Other former colleagues should consider weighing up the benefit of telling the world they once were an active magistrate to the ignominy of being publicly castigated. 

TIME TO SCRAP APPOINTMENTS COMMITTEES?

Primus inter pares: a first among equals. For many that phrase was introduced to their lexicon by author Jeffrey Archer. It is commonly used as a description of the prime minister. In reality it is an oxymoron coddled in a euphemism as we all shall have an opportunity to see in the days ahead.  It`s not impossible to adapt the functionality of the phrase to our [and other nation`s] courts system. Once we go above the crown court is there really so much difference in the intellectual capacity of high court judges, appeal court judges and those at the top of the judicial tree on the supreme court?  I put the spotlight on the upper two courts; appeal and supreme. We, the great British public, have no way of knowing how the occupants of these positions were chosen.  For centuries governments of all shades have jealously guarded so many facets of public life that it`s been a British trademark just as cricket is supposed to have epitomised the fairness and fair play of "The British" per se.  Such illusions have long since lost their glimmer of truth.  What is to separate the intellectual capacity, suitability and capability of an appeal court judge and one of the supreme court? Does the identity of an appeal court judge who fails in her/his application to the top job remain hidden beyond the grave, the 30 year rule or some arbitrary future date. Should it remain known only to a few insiders?  Should it prevent the applicant from repeating the process?  Surgeons` performances e.g. can be audited especially nowadays with algorithms designed to include degrees of difficulty and countless variables so that hospitals can know the expertise of those they seek to  employ if the employment panel does its job effectively.  But only a select few know the identities of these panels not just in hospitals but in many various professions.  When such professionals transgress or appear to fall foul of professional or legal guidelines other panels are available to supervise the integrity of the disciplinary processes involved.  Those panels are appointed usually by members of what are commonly termed "the great and the good".  Nepotism and mutual back scratching cannot be ignored.  They are often senior civil servants or senior members of unconnected professions.  It must now be apparent that such a system has reached the end of its long and winding road.  There have been so many failures this century alone that consideration must be given to alternative ways of selection of all supervisory bodies. 

The major cover ups by supervisory bodies, committees which are supposed to investigate malfeasance in all manner of public offices and professional, trade or business organisations have reached what could be termed epidemic proportions. 

There cannot be anyone who doesn`t know of the Hillsborough disaster of 15th April 1989 nor of the successive cover ups by police and government that followed.  After numerous inquiries and legal actions it wasn`t until 6 December 2023 when the government issued its response and signed the Hillsborough Charter giving a commitment to transparency following a public tragedy.  Leader of the House of Commons Jacob Rees-Mogg called the lack of accountability over Hillsborough "the greatest scandal of British policing of our lifetimes". 

The Chinook helicopter disaster on June 2 1994 killed 29 people – 10 RUC, nine army, five MI5, one civil servant and four crew. What happened, its circumstances and effects have been much debated. In 1995 an RAF board of inquiry ruled that it was impossible to establish the exact cause of the accident. This ruling was subsequently overturned by two senior reviewing officers who stated that the pilots were guilty of gross negligence for flying too fast and too low in thick fog. This finding proved to be controversial especially in light of irregularities and technical issues surrounding the then new Chinook HC.2 variant which were uncovered and in light of technical problems with the specific airframe involved in the weeks leading up to the crash.  A new inquiry took place in the House of Lords from September to November 2001. The findings were published on 31 January 2002 and found that the verdicts of gross negligence on the two pilots were unjustified.  In 2011 it was disclosed that at the highest level the RAF knew that the helicopter should have been grounded and official authorising forms contained false information re its airworthiness for the proposed mission.   In December 2012 the Minister for the Armed Forces Andrew Robathan confirmed such a false declaration did not constitute "wrongdoing", despite its leading directly to deaths of servicemen.  A Guardian article from May 2000 tells of the disgrace of the two officers directly involved in the cover up who presumably retired on very substantial pensions hoping that their disgusting and prolonged lying would be camouflaged by government.   

The contaminated blood scandal reaches back 50 years. Products were imported from the US and distributed to patients by the National Health Service throughout the 1970s and 1980s. Most recipients had haemophilia or had received a blood transfusion following childbirth or surgery.  As is the common factor in Great British Scandals, atrocious errors were made by those assigned to protect us; a failure of competence, but the true scandal was the cover up by those involved in supervising those who made such tragic decisions and protecting the organisation`s "good name".  The government report is available here. 

Numerous tragedies have befallen NHS patients from newborn children to centenarians owing directly to incompetence of professional employees.  However overlooking the loss of lives and personal family tragedies, once again cover ups to protect those in front of and apparently also behind the firing line were and are commonplace.  There are thousands of individuals salaried by government or proxies whose job is supposed to provide a legal, professional and moral umbrella for those at the receiving end of a trade or service.  

There cannot be any in these isles for whom the word Grenfell doesn`t conjure up a scene from hell; of terror so profound that it is primeval.  14th June 2017: a day that will live in infamy in the minds of anyone who lives in a high rise flat [with apologies to Franklin Roosevelt and 7th December 1941]. Four years later a public inquiry found that government received an estimate in the 1990s that the cost of fixing dangerous cladding was £500 million, that reports were marked for ‘limited circulation’ preventing people from learning the truth and that key information was removed or ‘entirely neutered’.  In addition the government suppressed information about the combustibility of cladding used on Lakanal House and promises to act on the Lakanal recommendations were not kept.  In an understatement on the day of the Grenfell fire, emails from a civil servant said, ‘Some of the stuff about disproportionate burdens feels uncomfortable today’.  Government inadequacy in dealing with this avoidable tragedy follows a similar pattern to every other mentioned in this post.  A full account before and after is available here .

There cannot be many who are unaware of the current inquiry into the Post Office scandal; perhaps vying for the iniquitous top place with the previously mentioned blood scandal above in its depravity.  Each witness is providing a cocktail of lies, half truths,  innuendo and forgetfulness to justify his/her statements, behaviour, actions or inactions.  

Whilst there will be myriad subjects for the incoming government`s attention there must be a place or a ministry or a department to consider why such as all the above and many others seem to be a part of the British way of doing things.  Is it not about time that the "appointments" system by "appointment or advisory committees" be scrutinised?  Surely if 12 ordinary people from the voters rolls can sit in judgement in the crown court that source of citizens could be the basis of panels to at least oversee the selection of those aforementioned supervisory bodies.  Indeed why should there be any selection at all.  Is it not time to consider that at some if not all levels British citizens vote for membership of these committees or organisations  and be trusted to apply their knowledge and common sense?

ADDENDUM 9th July 2024

A new report is highly critical of the functioning of  Nursery and Midwifery Council  (NMC).  I doubt there will ever be information about how the members of NMC are chosen and who chooses them i.e. those constituting the appointments committee.  IMHO that is every bit as significant as the incompetence and worse of the council itself.