THAT WAS THE YEAR THAT WAS

Another year is about to end and another to begin.  And so the cycle continues. Magistrates are now but a pawn on this government`s chessboard.  It would appear that the principle of local justice for local people by local people is merely camouflage netting for providing ways and means of processing as many defendants as quickly as possible.  The Single Justice Procedure exposed in all its ignominy a few months ago is now but a forgotten pimple on the face of a rotten and rotting justice system.  

At the other end of the judicial hierarchy judicial incompetence, inefficiency, bias, prejudice or add a suitable noun from many, is kept under wraps as much as possible.  Of course there is the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office available to supposedly expose the misdemeanours of judicial office holders but in reality it`s usually only the erring spratts that are seen in daylight; the bewigged mackerels are spoken to behind closed doors.  Towards this year`s end Mr Justice Williams in the High Court ruled that the judges involved in the family court proceedings concerning murdered child Sara Sharif should remain anonymous as should all those professionally involved in safeguarding the child from her birth when she was assessed even then as being vulnerable.  His argument that public exposure would put the safety of all those involved at risk is moot and is being appealed. The machinations of secret disciplinary processes for senior judges should be of concern to all open minded people who are fearful that our individual freedoms are on the salami slicer. 

When Ireland, its people and its government appear to be in the vanguard of castigating Israel = Zionists = Jews it is not a little disturbing to read allegations that Mr Justice Robert Lowry a former chief justice of Northern Ireland "dislikes Jews as much as he dislikes Catholics". Perhaps now that Catholics and Protestants can live in some semblance of peaceful c0-existance the few Jews remaining in the province can continue to escape the hate against them propagated by so many supposed "progressive" western societies.




Hardly a week goes by without a police officer somewhere in England being given the boot. As far as the Metropolitan Police Commissionaire; he forecast earlier this year that there would not be a week without one of his officers being disciplined. He was optimistic. Latest statistics on disciplinary activity against police can be described as: take your pick of appalling, revealing, understated, expected, disturbing, surprising or add your own. The College of Policing provides an insight into how our supposedly wonderful police service is failed by some of those at the top.

Is the glass bringing in 2025 half empty or half full?

HOPE OVER DESPAIR

Justice to many people is reading or hearing of the apparent ever lengthening sentences handed down to rapists, terrorists and child murderers.  As of 18 January 2021 Kit Malthouse said that there were 13 million person records, 58.5 million driver records and 62.6 million vehicle records stored on the Police National Computer [PNC]. The PNC is currently directly managed by the Home Office.  According to a Ministry of Justice extract of PNC data there were 9.4 million offenders of working age (16-64) with a nominal record as opposed to the population of 42.4m.  I suppose it can be assumed that around 40%- 50% of the adult population can be considered as having at some time been classified within the system as offenders the majority of whom will have been registered as guilty at a magistrates court hearing.  

There are around 14,000 magistrates, 140 District Judges{MC} and a similar number of Deputy District Judges {MC}. With the backlog in summary matters reaching chaotic proportions the MOJ is once more scratching its bewigged head in how to expedite the situation before its total collapse.  Legal eagles of all denominations will be crying "here we go again".  This time Sir Brian Leveson, he the author  of the controversial "Leveson Review" of 2012   has been handed the poisoned chalice.  Disregarding the closure of half the country`s magistrates courts and apart from such minor changes as increasing magistrates courts sentencing powers from 6 to 12 months custody and then reversing that decision a short time later, the integration of  the courts into His Majesty`s Courts and Tribunals Service, the introduction of digital technology has probably been the main updating of the whole system.  

At the turn of the millenium Lord Justice Auld was similarly charged.  At that time there was relatively little pressure on the system as we now understand it.  The review was more an intellectual exercise in improving what we had by examining existing resources.  As far as magistrates were concerned the general political argument by the then respected Magistrates Association was the more power to jail offenders the better.  From Auld`s point of view the structure of the courts, the utilisation of manpower  and the costs were his paramount concerns.  There is speculation that the impending review might recommend an intermediate level of jurisdiction where a District Judge would preside assisted by two magistrate wingers as is the composition  at crown court appeals where the judge is of the crown court or a recorder.  I can confidently predict that the M.A. would resist that and be prepared "to die on that hill."  Indeed Auld himself rejected that innovation. 

"I recommend that in the exercise of their summary

jurisdiction:

• District Judges and magistrates should not routinely

sit as mixed tribunals to deal with the general range or

any particular type of case or form of proceeding,

though there may be training and local ‘cultural’

advantages in their doing so from time to time"

But that was then and this is now.  There is little doubt that district judges sitting alone without the need for a legally qualified clerk would cost not much different from lay magistrates` expenses plus the salaries of legal advisors. They would also get through more work without the need to retire as often or confer. There is also the question of whether the intellectual quality of the magistracy is as it was a generation ago now that there is high pressure for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI).  

Lord Justice Auld`s Review was masterful in his analysis of the magistrates courts.  The impending exercise will have a political blueprint as much as an economic or judicial point of view.  It has been ordered from current weaknesses; its predecessor`s was from a neutral position.   My experience tells me that a majority of criminal lawyers would welcome the limiting of the lay magistracy to non custodial matters.  Indeed they would probably welcome the Scottish form of a Justice of the Peace who hears cases limited to theft, minor assault, antisocial behaviour and road traffic offences where their powers are limited to fines of up to £2,500, prison for up to 2 months, disqualifications and unpaid work in the community.

Although at this time of year hope should overcome despair, for most of the public all this will appear to be a new government`s further attempt to move on from the previous ineptitude of the last 13/14  years.  With the history of the failures at Petty France in full view who can say that that opinion has no validity? 

Finally I thank those who give me some of their valuable minutes to read my opinions.  Whatever one`s religious or non religious affiliations please respect and enjoy the peace and goodwill associated with Christmas and New Year.

BREAD AND CIRCUSES FOR MODERN TIMES

One of the simplest analogies used to describe the benefits of our economy is to compare it to a rising tide where all the vessels sitting in the harbour will rise, the larger cruisers rising more than the rowing boats. Enlarge that rising tide ranging from the start of the industrial revolution to the beginning of this millenium and most economists would agree with Harold Macmillan, prime minister from 1957-1963, who was quoted on 20th July 1957 when he made an optimistic speech telling fellow Conservatives that "most of our people have never had it so good". From his patrician point of view it could be said he was speaking down to a majority of this country`s people. But on the other hand the NHS was providing fine healthcare for all but a small minority who chose and could afford private healthcare.




In 1959 there were 71,692 warranted police officers in England and Wales roughly half the current number. As of March 31 2024 the UK had 170,500 police officers which is 244 officers per 100,000 people. In 1961 there were 807 people for every police officer in England and Wales whereas the most recent figures in a House of Commons briefing paper show that there are now 462 people for every officer. It would be a brave statistician who would argue that that the 1960s was a more lawless era than that since 2000.




Despite the reform of the higher courts during the 1870s, the system of local assizes and quarter sessions had remained largely unchanged though it had become prone to excessive delay. This was chiefly because the courts only sat at certain times during the year. There appears to be no published information of trial court delays or backlogs as we now are all too familiar. It could be said that until the 1970s our courts and their processes would have been familiar to legal practitioners of the 19th century.




Legal aid was originally established by the Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949. In 2009 legal aid in England and Wales cost the taxpayer £2bn a year – a higher per capita spend than anywhere else in the world – and was available to around 29% of adults. In 2022/23 the criminal legal aid budget in England and Wales was £873 million. All the latest legal aid information is here. What can be said is that it is far more difficult for the defendant on the Clapham omnibus to get legal aid now than it was half a century ago.




In a nation where a two-week holiday for a UK family of four can cost around £4,792 the idea of having charges for some medical treatment is akin to crying "fire" in a crowded theatre. According to ABTA 58% of young families and 57% of older families went on a foreign holiday in the last 12 months. Today on a morning TV show an articulate married woman with two young children and expecting another explained her reliance on food banks. I wonder if the sympathetic interviewer would have lost her job if she had hinted at her position with regard to having another mouth to feed when she couldn`t manage to heat her home and also clothe and feed her current family. She would have lost all chance of ever working again in the TV media.




Margaret Thatcher famously said in 1987, "There is no such thing as society". There are many criticisms to be made of the Iron Lady but also some forgotten truths. This country`s infrastructure is fading fast. Recent motorway trips will reveal mile upon mile of expensive equipment lying unused whilst speed restriction beacons flash for long removed obstructions. NHS delays are literally the cause of tens of thousands of annual deaths. Trial delays make the Indian justice system efficient by comparison. Add to that list armies that have no bullets, aircraft carriers that have no planes and an RAF lacking pilots, aircraft and personnel. But this government like its predecessors continues on its merry way with the sweet political treacle coming from the lips of every minister. Avoidance of panic and head in the clouds, whichever metaphor takes the fancy, is the order of the day. That is why here and in much of western society populist politicians are on the rise. Perhaps it`s in the nature of any society, not just that of ancient Rome, that bread and circuses precede collapse. From Assad to Zimbabwe societal discontent can take many forms. Each collapse is as individual as a fingerprint but like fingerprints they all have a commonality. An existing order must replace the failed regime. How that change in political direction takes place and its effects on a population are unpredictable. All that I would opine is that the course is set.

CRASS COMMENTS AND A FUTURE MAGISTRACY

There can`t be many people who are unaware of the circumstances around the following statement videoed to the great British public a couple of days ago; “middle-class women of a certain age”. That that crass statement by a man who has been made a household name and extremely wealthy by the BBC was offered by him in riposte to allegations of misogyny and worse indicates a certain arrogance or worse. Even at a distance it demonstrates an inability as Robbie Burns observed “o wad some pow'r the giftie gie us to see oursels as ithers see us!”

In our woke infected world it is almost beyond belief that there are still those whom one would have imagined to have their woke antennae at the ever ready sensitivity position. Nowhere is that awareness more active than those working for, with or employed by the Ministry of Justice. Magistrates being hybrids in the system but as over regulated as the rest of the judiciary or perhaps more regulated are subject to being overseen as closely as any character from "1984". Considering the extent that supposedly top functioning appointments committees are responsible for the selection of JPs they certainly allow some crass individuals to fall between the cracks in the system when one reads the results of some investigations of the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office.

"The expedited process in the Judicial Conduct Magistrates Rules 2023 enables the JCIO to advise the Lord Chancellor and the Lady 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 Lady Chief Justice would be very likely to decide amounted to misconduct; and

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

The declaration and undertaking signed by all magistrates on their appointment states that they will agree to be circumspect in their conduct and maintain the good reputation of the magistracy at all times, in their private, working, and public lives. They should avoid situations which might reasonably reduce the respect for judicial office or which might cast doubt upon their judicial impartiality. This includes avoiding use of the ‘JP’ status in ways that could be perceived as trying to gain influence."

Take the case of Mr Timothy Nathan JP quoting the report of 1st August this year.

"Following a hearing in March 2024, two magistrates who had sat with Mr Nathan on the bench, complained to the London Conduct Advisory Committee that Mr Nathan had been using his iPhone and iPad during the proceedings to read and respond to personal messages and emails. One of the magistrates reported that they had seen Mr Nathan using his iPad on a separate occasion to send personal messages to his partner, a fellow magistrate, who was sitting at the back of the court, having finished sitting for the day.

Timothy Nathan JP’s representations

Mr Nathan accepted that he had used his personal devices to send and receive messages, in relation to his self-employment as a professional pilot, during the long pauses in the hearing. He denied that there was any effect on his performance at the hearing or on the dignity of the court. The only people affected were the two magistrates who were sitting with him, as no other court users were aware of what he was doing. Whilst he did not recall, the other incident mentioned in the complaint, he confirmed that it was possible that he was having a text conversation on that occasion with his partner regarding travelling home arrangements."

The result for him was being issued with "formal advice".  

On 1st October this year the decision on Mr Michael Woodhouse JP was published.

"A legal adviser complained about the manner in which Mr Woodhouse had spoken to her at the end of a court day. She said that she had informed him that he could not invite a member of the public who was considering applying to the magistracy into the retiring room for a conversation. He asserted that he had invited prospective applicants into the retiring room for years and would not be told what to do in ‘his’ court. He demanded in a raised voice that the complainant call her senior legal manager and line manager to verify the information. He then repeated these sentiments in a conversation with the member of the public, which the complainant heard.


Mr Woodhouse’s representations


Mr Woodhouse accepted the allegations. He agreed that his behaviour was unacceptable and excessive and that the discussion should not have taken place in open court. He offered two further written apologies for his behaviour. He said he had been surprised at what the complainant had told him as it was contrary to advice he had received for several years. His frustration was not aimed at her but at court communications. He had apologised to the complainant and prosecutor on the day. He had also immediately called the senior legal manager and complainant’s line manager to apologise, and promptly reported his behaviour to his bench chair. In mitigation, he detailed several personal difficulties he was experiencing which he believed had affected his behaviour."

His transgression according to the investigating judge amounted to misconduct and resulted in a sanction of formal advice.

On the same day as the above, Mrs Jean Banford JP heard of her fate. 

"A complaint was made to the North West Conduct Advisory Committee that Mrs Banford referred to her status as a magistrate during a heated dispute with a neighbour about the neighbour’s dog. Mrs Banford was said to have repeatedly emphasised her knowledge of the law given her position as a magistrate, when telling the neighbour that their dog could be destroyed.

Mrs Banford’s representations

In her representations, Mrs Banford accepted that in hindsight her comment could be deemed as inappropriate, but explained that the neighbour’s refusal to accept that the dog was putting people in fear and could be destroyed as a result, caused her to emphasise her knowledge of the law."

For her inflated ego she was issued with a formal warning.

On 11th October Ms Lynn Killoran JP was issued with formal advice for misconduct.  Her misfortune was as follows:-

"A fellow magistrate complained that during two conversations with him, Ms Killoran made remarks which displayed an unconscious bias of an antisemitic nature. He alleged that she spoke about her work in the charity sector and a correlation between Jewish charities and fraud.

She stated that Jewish charities are believed to make use of the ‘Jewish Accounting System’, whereby money disappears without a trace and reappears later at a much higher value. The magistrate, himself Jewish, was concerned that Ms Killoran was relaying antisemitic stereotypes.

Ms Killoran’s representations

In detailed representations, Ms Killoran denied making the majority of the comments alleged in the complaint and asserted that what she did say had been taken out of context. She denied that her comments were antisemitic."

The 16th October saw the publication of the misdeeds of Miss Tessa Smith JP;  resulting in her being given "formal advice".

"The North West Conduct Advisory Committee (NWCAC) received a referral about a reference relied on by a defendant in a criminal case, which was given by Miss Tessa Smith JP. In the reference, Miss Smith described her own judicial role and used the JP suffix.

Tessa Smith JP’s representations

Miss Smith took full responsibility of her actions and apologised. Miss Smith explained that she had been a magistrate for less than a year. She accepted that she should not have used the JP suffix and should have given the reference in a personal capacity."

On 24th October 2024 Mr Jeremy Betts JP found out what his ill considered remarks cost him.

"Mr Betts and his colleagues were sentencing a youth following the recent imposition of a 24-month Detention & Training Order (DTO) at the Crown Court. The defence advocate made representations to the bench regarding the recent sentence and the sentencing remarks of the judge who, in the knowledge of the upcoming case at the Youth Court, said they had sentenced the youth with the intention that no additional sentence would be added.

It was alleged that, following these representations, Mr Betts said, “I’m not having some judge tell me what to do”.

Mr Betts’ representations

In his representations Mr Betts denied that he had made the comment in open court but admitted that he had made the comment, or a variation of it, in the retiring room."

His copybook is now blotted with "formal advice".

The 25th November saw the results published of the indiscreet comments by Mr Thomas Rock JP.

"A complaint was made to the North West Region Advisory Committee about a comment which Mr Rock had made during a panel discussion with fellow magistrates in the retiring room. The panel was due to hear a case of possession of the controlled drug, Khat in the afternoon session. During the discussion, it was mentioned that Khat was commonly used in Pakistan. In response, Mr Rock made the remark that they had to keep people in Pakistan subdued or they’d be off joining the Taliban.

Mr Rock’s representations

Mr Rock expressed his concern that the complaint had been made and explained that he was previously unfamiliar with the term ‘Khat’ and had been trying to enlighten himself by discussing it with a colleague.

He explained his belief that high levels of poverty in Pakistan, where it borders with Afghanistan and where there is a Taliban presence, feeds into the recruitment into rival gangs/factions operating in the use and production of drugs."

His misconduct resulted in a formal warning.  

Elizabeth Slamer JP`s  comeuppance arrived last week on 26th November.  

"A complaint was made to the Midlands Region Conduct Advisory Committee after a letter entitled ‘Single parenthood’ was published in The Times on 26 July 2024. The letter, written by Ms Slamer, included her status as a family court JP. Ms Slamer’s letter, sent in response to a letter from a different author about the failure of the Child Support Agency, remarked on the “relentless rise in the acceptability of” absent fathers than of “single mothers”.

Elizabeth Slamer’s representations

Ms Slamer accepted full responsibility for her actions and admitted that she had included her judicial status in the letter to add weight to her argument and highlight her experience. She stated that she had reacted in the moment to a perceived unfairness in the original author’s comments, who she considered had unfairly identified single mothers as the sole reason for the problem of demands on benefits and housing. Ms Slamer accepted that she had failed to consider the lack of impartiality that this could indicate."

That lack of impartiality resulted in "formal advice" for Ms Slamer. 

For Mr David Payne JP the day of reckoning was 27th November.  

"Mr Payne was referred to the Midlands Conduct Advisory Committee regarding his use of social media.

Mr Payne had identified himself as ‘Presiding Justice’ on his Facebook page and checked in at Wolverhampton Magistrates Court when he was sitting there. He had also shared posts on politically sensitive topics such as refugees and the government’s winter fuel policy.

Mr Payne’s representations

In representations, Mr Payne stated that he had a limited understanding of how Facebook worked and that a family member had set the account up for him and it was they who had identified him as ‘Presiding Justice’. He explained that he had used the check in feature as a means of keeping in touch with relatives that lived abroad and that he had shared the posts because he thought they were humorous.

Mr Payne admitted that he had not made himself aware of the guidance on the use of social media and, having read this and reflecting further, he realised that others may see the posts differently.

He also confirmed that he had deleted his account."

A formal warning was the outcome. 

To sum up:-  Judicial misconduct is categorised as minor, serious, or gross and the sanction for misconduct is determined by the seriousness of the conduct:

Formal advice: A sanction for lower level misconduct

Formal warning: A sanction for more serious misconduct

Reprimand: A sanction for more serious misconduct

Removal from office: A sanction for the most serious misconduct 

The Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor jointly agree on the sanction for each case of misconduct. Factors that are considered when deciding the sanction include:

Whether the office-holder accepted responsibility for their actions

Whether the conduct affected others or damaged the reputation of the judiciary

Whether personal issues affected the office-holder's behaviour

Any previous disciplinary findings against the office-holder

Having regard to the selection of the above recent rulings I find it astonishing that those selected for the position of Justice of the Peace with all the responsibilities of that office can allow their tongues to be light years ahead of their brains. Personally when active I reported winger colleagues whose activities included whilst on the bench sleeping, doodling, mind blowing incompetence and agreeing with every argument guilty or not guilty when discussing verdict in the retiring room. But these complaints were put to the Deputy Justices Clerk who had private words with those involved. However when I saw a letter in a newspaper signed by a Mr X J.P. I did report him to the advisory committee. 



I am of the opinion that considering there are 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1 April 2024, up 9% compared to the previous year those reported today are a small minority. But the rate of increase is perhaps outpacing the resources available to ensure adequate training especially with the imminent retirement of experienced presiding justices notwithstanding the ability to sit until aet 75 which some [many?] will not undertake. It`s no secret that many of the judiciary and legal profession would prefer to see the end of or at least a diminished role for magistrates. I do think that on a scale of zero to 100 where 100 represents the end of the magistracy in its current form we are at around 70. Time will tell.