It seems an axiom of western democracy that those sitting in judgement over their fellow citizens have the respect of those fellow citizens. In America judges are elected. In this country they are appointed. Having myself been appointed as a Justice of the Peace I don`t intend to discuss the merits of both arrangements, at least not today. But what I do think is of interest is the very recent publication of the ethnic, social, sexual, age, education, religion and disability status of applicants both successful and unsuccessful.
Statisticians academic, political and journalistic are probably having a field day in pouring all the revealed numbers, crunching them in a soup of algorithms and making hay with the results perceived and/or implied.
As an opening example in the South East Region 96% of applicants declared themselves as heterosexual. That compares with the North East 92%, London 90%, North West 88% and Wales 89%. I leave it to others if further such comparisons are wanted.
For the year 2022-23 the religion of applicants was as follows:- Christian 2328 = 49%, Muslim 307 = 6%, Jewish 97 = 2%, Buddhist 25 = 1%, Hindu 119 = 2%, Sikh 70 = 1%, None + Other 1829 = 38% and Unknown = 341. Of those the following were shortlisted:- Christian 960 = 50%, Muslim 61 = 3%, Jewish 41 = 2%, Buddhist 11 = 1%, Hindu 36 = 2%, Sikh 25 = 1%, None + Other 804 = 42%, Unknown 133. These are figures for England and Wales but the pen pushers at the MOJ have also those numbers broken down regionally.
Applications were also broken down by age, sex, ethnicity, educational levels of applicant and parent(s), type of school attended, disability and employment status. All these variables are also available region by region. The amount of personal and computing effort to achieve these statistics is almost incomprehensible. But that, for those ordering such a task, was to fulfil a mantra [with apologies to Abraham Lincoln], to have a judicial system of the people by the people and for the people. Such deference to a system which was once lauded as "local justice" when magistrates could sit only in their own designated court is now but a charade. Rules were changed about two decades ago to allow magistrates in theory to be deployed at any court in England and Wales. Of course for practical reasons there is a heavy limitation on that availability. District Judges [MC] are under no such geographical restrictions. Like their senior colleagues they are free to apply for posts wherever they consider suitable for their requirements. They are as "local" as those on the Supreme Court. It must be kept in mind that District Judges preside alone in magistrates courts with exactly the same powers and authority as lay magistrates although as has been the case in recent weeks certain types or classes of offenders are specifically brought in their courts and not in front of the "locals" whom the MOJ must consider are unable to follow the orders given to their highly paid government funded judicial civil servants. The relative allocation of cases to District Judges vis a vis lay magistrates is currently unknown.
The basis of the magistrates courts system is that a quality of justice is best achieved by matching the make up of the citizenship with those before whom alleged offenders plead their case. It follows that government believes that that policy is approved by the population. As far as I am aware there has never been a reputable or any other survey to ascertain whether or not that belief has any foundation in reality. The fundamental question is whether any quota system whatever its constitution selects the best people for the intended task. In simple terms what began decades ago as pressure for women not to be excluded from certain jobs owing to their sex has now extended to almost every aspect of society where discrimination perceived or actual has spawned a billion £ industry of employment legislation, lawyers and tribunals. When registered blind people are appointed to the magistracy can it truly be upheld that their disability does not prevent them functioning as their normally sighted colleagues? A parliamentary question and answer Volume 234: debated on Monday 27 January 1930 is copied below re the then minimum height requirements of the Metropolitan Police.
Mr. DAY
Share this specific contribution
asked the Home Secretary whether the temporary modification of the height standard of the Metropolitan constabulary which was introduced during the previous 12 months is still in existence; and whether there is still difficulty in obtaining sufficient suitable recruits at the normal minimum height?
Mr. CLYNES
Share this specific contribution
The temporary reduction of the minimum height to 5 feet 8½ inches has not been removed, but in practice it is found possible at present to obtain sufficient recruits of 5 feet 9 inches or over; with very few exceptions.
Today there are no height restrictions on joining any UK police service.
There are some who will egard my observations as emanating from the age of dinosaurs; that is their privilege. Is this form of active identity politics conducive to a coherent society? By showboating a population`s differences when there are but fading memories of what united that population in previous times we are creating what in the past might have been termed fiefdoms. Rabble rousers from marxist to fascist have long known that to further their cause divisions in a society must be exploited. My fear is that we are in many respects experiencing government and politics from the days of Thatcher on the Right to Corbyn on the Left having made an ideal bed for extremism to grow that the magistrates courts system of local proportional representation is just a minor harbinger of an unpleasant future.
No comments:
Post a Comment