CONFIDENCE IN DEMOCRACY DEPENDS ON CONFIDENCE IN THE LEGAL SYSTEM

With widespread social media available to all with topics and sources  designed to lure individuals from tots and teenagers to astronomers to zoologists there is little that can be kept secret from prying eyes especially if these eyes know where to look. If an optometrist does not perform his/her duties to a required standard there is the General Optical Council to convene a disciplinary committee to investigate. The General Medical Council`s disciplinary committees have been busy of late and the dental profession has similar oversight. Indeed where the public is putting its faith in a licensed profession there are public processes available to those aggrieved with the performance of those licensed. But in that part of the UK`s often and perhaps optimistically termed "unwritten constitution" which is as Churchill described USSR in 1939 "a riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma" no public accountability when judges fail in their professional competence. 

Whilst the Judicial Conduct Investigations Office (JCIO) investigates complaints of misconduct by judges it has no part in sanctioning judges for any apparent failing in their application of the law.  Judicial capability issues are managed entirely within the judiciary under the final authority of The Lord Chief Justice (LCJ). A capability concern is usually identified by: 

A senior judge reviewing court performance

Repeated issues flagged by other judges

Feedback from court staff, legal professionals, or persistent patterns in appeals

Serious problems noted during case audits

Appeal rates themselves do not automatically trigger anything but patterns can lead to internal monitoring.

If a leadership judge (e.g., a Resident Judge, Designated Family Judge or Presiding Judge) believes a judge is struggling they may initiate:

Private meeting with the judge

Advice or mentoring

Adjusting case allocation (e.g., fewer high-complexity cases)

Support from a senior colleague

If considered appropriate LCJ  can order observation in court by senior judiciary

Mandatory retraining

Performance improvement plans

Regular monitoring

Temporary removal from sitting

If a judge cannot meet judicial standards even after support, the LCJ and Lord Chancellor jointly have the power to suspend  or remove the judge from office (in extreme cases).

But all of the above is hidden from us; the great British public. Some cases do become newsworthy; the following recent examples where incompetence or unacceptable performance are in the public domain are a world away from misconduct cases investigated by the JCIO; eg the judge who fell asleep on the bench. Perhaps the most newsworthy example of late became public knowledge only because it was revealed during the inquiry into the Post Office Scandal.  Former senior prosecutor Sir David Calvert-Smith publicly criticised a number of judges for not scrutinising the prosecution’s case deeply enough in the Horizon IT scandal leading to wrongful convictions. He argued that some judges failed to challenge prosecution evidence or push for disclosure in the trials.  Sometimes information of judicial failings is revealed only as a secondary factor in a public inquiry an example being  the inquiry into the Lucy Letby case (the deaths and collapses of babies at Chester hospital) Dr Michael Hall, a neonatologist and medical expert, strongly criticised the opening remarks made by Lady Justice Thirlwall.  Hall asserted that Thirlwall’s comments mischaracterised those who questioned the convictions and said that some of his expert medical evidence (and possibly that of other defence experts) was not sufficiently presented in the original trial. Thirlwall defended her position but the fact that such critique came out in an official inquiry means the judicial role was publicly challenged.

A Commons inquiry report in 2022 suggested that judicial independence may be under political pressure. The report found that certain ministers had conflated “decisions with political consequences” with “political decisions,” giving a misleading impression that judges were acting outside their constitutional role. 

Under the Constitutional Reform Act 2005, the Lord Chancellor can remove a judicial office holder (below High Court level) for “inability to perform the functions” of the office but only after a tribunal under section 135.  There do not appear to have been in government, judicial or academic sources  a removal tribunal convened since 2020 that publicly concluded a judge was “unable to perform their duties” (i.e., a formal “capability” removal).  There seem to be no secret “Lord Chancellor competence investigation” culminating in removal of a judge for legal incompetence.  A reasonable conclusion could be that either such cases are very rare or very secret or even both. 

The legal professions from whom judges are chosen are becoming ever more aware that they and/or their members are being associated with political/constitutional opinions; leftie lawyers, immigration tribunal judges and family court judges have all had more than their fair share of recent publicity but after the newspaper headlines have receded any further investigations as to their competence will have ascended to cloud cuckoo land.  There are those who will proudly say this is the British way.  This point of view has little left to commend it. There are many criticisms of the continental way of running a nation or of an America where many posts are dependent upon election and not appointment as in UK. A certain conclusion is that if there is doubt in the competence of the legal system and its supervision there will arise doubt as to the efficacy of the democratic conventions from which it arose and developed. 

BLADED ARTICLES

 

I have posted here more than a few times that there are statistics and there are criminal activity statistics. Perhaps none of those is of more concern to ordinary law abiding people than those on knife crime. Along with illegal drugs, possession of knife or bladed article is a prime reason why stop and search is so important to the safety of communities and especially to the teenage members of such communities. When these communities are of a high proportion of ethnic minority citizens the consequences for a number of reasons can be volatile.


Police-recorded possession offences in 2024 were similar to those of 2020. The number dealt in magistrates’ courts has been broadly stable or slightly lower in the 2020–2024 period. Courts were closed during 2020 lockdowns. Immediate custodial outcomes for knife/offensive-weapon offences fell in the most recent year to 2024.

The proportion of offenders receiving immediate custody has fallen from around ~33 % in the earlier years to ~29–31 % in more recent data

For the year ending March 2024: offences = 18,572. 

For the year ending December 2024: offences = 20,422. 

Proportion receiving immediate custody for year ending March 2024 = 29%. 

Proportion receiving immediate custody for year ending December 2024 = 30.9%. 

Prior to 2020/2021 levels: the proportion had been as high as ~38-39% in years ending June 2020. 

It`s interesting to note that the percentage of offenders receiving immediate custody has fallen from ~38-39% in around 2020 to ~29-31% in more recent years. The much vaunted mantra of Justice Secretaries for decades has been to reduce knife crime and to severely punish those guilty of such.  It would take a brave and overconfident statistician to argue that their targets have been achieved.  

And finally for those who prefer a single picture to 1,000 words:-

 

SHORT AND NOT SO SWEET

 

So you`re thinking about becoming a magistrate?

MURDER, DIMINISHED RESPONSIBILITY, SECURE HOSPITALS AND DEMOCRATIC PARADOX

In the last couple of years this country has seen what at first glance appears to be an almost monthly number of convicted murderers having their crimes reduced to that of manslaughter by diminished responsibility and sentenced to time in a secure psychiatric hospital such institutions known to my generation colloquially as loonie bins. With ever more frequent live television of the sentencing of such offenders the question arises whether or not there is a causal relationship between such killings and the closure of aforesaid psychiatric hospital beds. 

A case which still makes news sources is that of Valdo Calocane who killed three people and attempted to kill three others in Nottingham in June 2023. Although initially charged with murder the prosecution accepted his guilty pleas to manslaughter based on diminished responsibility. This decision was supported by four psychiatrists who concluded he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia which impaired his ability to make rational judgments and exercise self-control. Calocane received an indefinite Hospital Order instead of a prison sentence.  That decision sparked public outrage and calls for reviews of homicide laws.

In October 2024 David Gower pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his wife, Jane Gower, by reason of diminished responsibility. The recognised medical condition was a moderate depressive disorder. Given strong personal mitigation his age and ill health he was sentenced to one year and eight months' imprisonment, suspended for two years.

Barry Donnelly (Court of Appeal ruling January 2025): While this case was an appeal regarding sentencing length the initial conviction was for manslaughter on the grounds of diminished responsibility due to schizophrenia. The Court of Appeal provided guidance on sentencing for such cases and dismissed the appeal finding the nine-year minimum term was not excessive.

A final example of recent cases of diminished responsibility being reversed in murder convictions is that of Shaine March.  He murdered his pregnant girlfriend Alana Odysseos in July 2024. He initially admitted manslaughter on the basis of diminished responsibility but during his trial an expert withdrew their support for the claim and he subsequently admitted murder and was sentenced to life imprisonment. This case illustrates a situation where the defence was initially pursued but ultimately not accepted.

In those cases above and others similar including perhaps those in the headlines this week it is not outlandish to consider whether the closure of secure hospitals begun in 1979 and the corresponding increase in the numbers of those with severe mental problems on the streets has any relationship with the numbers of  random killings of innocent victims unknown to their assailants.  

The sentencing guideline for judges in such matters is here.  Hard statistics are just not available to consider directly whether the reduction of psychiatric beds is in any way related to those who are committed under the legislation.  As at 31 December 2020 there were 7,796 restricted patients in England & Wales.  In 1979 there were in England 88,425 available staffed mental hospital beds.  In 1987/88 there were 67,100 mental health beds falling to about 18,400 in 2018/19; a fall of roughly 73% in that period. 

England currently has three high-security hospitals, Broadmoor, Ashworth and Rampton.  These three hospitals have a combined accommodation of approaching 800 beds.  Whether or not there is a direct relationship between the reduced accommodation for seriously affected psychiatric patients/offenders and those committing serious crimes is not immediately discernible.  It appears that there are so many sources involved that it would take highly qualified researchers with access to perhaps dozens of sources and millions of bits of information to come to a possible conclusion.  My rule of thumb by a very basic read through indicates that there were the following cases of  murder being reduced to manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility for selected years as below 

 2006: ≈ 32

2008: ≈ 36

2014: 23 (Sentencing Council reported value / sample)

2016:  ≈ 24

From the above a cynic might argue that with regard to those who for no apparent logical reason enter upon a killing spree our governments have and had literally no knowledge as to the causation and in particular that their own policies have contributed to the current situation. We hear almost daily about victims.  They are the unfortunate results of a country driven by its governors spending tax payers` taxes on aftercare and overlooking pre care. As in other societal aspects research on so many subjects is sacrificed to cosseting those who choose to spend their £ on TV contracts, gambling, holidays and other ancillary examples of their self defined entitled lifestyle.  

The disturbing conclusion is that perhaps our form of democratic government can no longer be relied upon to deliver that which is best for the majority of the population. The current Cabinet has made it quite obvious that its prime purpose is to be re-elected; a target which many within have realised is unobtainable. That same venerable cynic might suggest that faith in our leaders has hit the nadir. During his campaign for the Labour leadership in 2020 Keir Starmer indicated a desire for electoral reform and a move toward proportional representation (PR) saying that the current First Past the Post (FPTP) system caused millions of votes to be wasted and that this "has got to be addressed".  Then it suited his purpose to say that but how times have changed. In the run-up to the 2024 general election and after becoming Prime Minister he explicitly stated that electoral reform was "not a priority for me" and that Labour would contest the election under the existing FPTP system. Last year he also indicated that FPTP was "the right system" as it provides a strong and stable government. 

The debacle that has become our justice system with all the ramifications for all of us is the thin edge of a very large wedge in the shape of Marxists, Greens, Fascists and Islamists in a combined diabolical journey pushing at the boundaries of our very democracy. The timing of the democratic paradox is fast approaching when the will of the majority collides with individual rights and non democratic means must be employed to protect those rights. 

THE ARK OF JUSTICE

"So sick of this. Also we aren’t allowed to call them “junior doctors” anymore. They are meant to be “resident doctors “

But they are never there."

Recently I asked a family friend who is an NHS consultant what she thought of the then impending doctors` strike.  Her reply is above.  I then researched the oath taken by new doctors which essentially has discarded the classical Hippocratic Oath by making a public statement that they will do no harm.   They do not take a single, mandatory oath but they must pledge their commitment to professional standards upon registration with the GMC. Many medical schools use versions of the Declaration of Geneva or a modified Hippocratic Oath during graduation ceremonies which are considered important statements of ethical commitment to the principles of medicine.  Whatever the soothing words of their leaders it appears that those on strike are in breach of their undertaking and yet are allowed to continue.  

On the other hand judicial office holders take the following oath and woe betide them if they are suspected of breaking that oath. “I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign King Charles the Third in the office of ________ , 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.” Witnesses in court take the following oath or affirmation:-

"I swear by Almighty God that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."


"I do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth."

In light of the above it is apparent in many trials with evidence presented and sworn that there have been statements made which have been knowingly false.  Perjury:-  the offence of wilfully telling an untruth or making a misrepresentation under oath.

The current case of the alleged spies for China is a case in point.  Judging by the many published comments from behind the scenes some diametrically opposing statements have been made by or on behalf of the two formerly accused parties. Of course outwith court proceedings lying is a natural human trait distasteful, distressing, necessary, convenient or even stimulating for us all at various times, occasions or events.  But in court it`s a criminal offence. Perjury or perverting the course of justice is triable only on indictment with a maximum of life imprisonment and an offence range of community order – 7 years’ custody.(seems a contradiction but copied from sentencing guideline)


With such a serious offence it would be logical to think that it occurs only in such cases where there are very serious outcomes or matters at stake. It might be logical but we do not know. None of the organisations involved publishes appropriate statistics. The question is why is there secrecy on such an important feature of the justice system. One can only speculate. There is of course the standard conspiracy theory to be applied: there would be government discomfort if the offence seems widespread and doubt of the courts` efficiency if the offence were considered so rare as to be not worth recording. In other words you`re hanged if you do and hanged if you don`t.


The bottom line for a bench of magistrates or a panel of jurors is to use their common sense and natural abilities to ascertain whether a witness`s testimony is credible. And the obvious follow up is to inquire whether those involved have these abilities. The recent Channel 4 programme The Jury demonstrated only too clearly the vagaries in the system.


The justice system boat is holed in many places. It is society`s ark to harmonious living on this overcrowded island [England only]. With politicians of the centre being pressured from right and left, west to east and north and south and "diversity" becoming somewhat less than harmonious it seems that one day all that will remain for us to cling on to will be faith in the above oaths still being able to carry with confidence the burden of a free people that their governors are capable of keeping their oath of office. Without a written constitution it is arguable that the safeguards to society of the UK being a republic are open to some doubt.


The oath of allegiance taken by MPs and members of the House of Lords to sit in Parliament.


Wording: "I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles the Third, his heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God."
Taking the oath: MPs can swear on a religious text of their choice. The oath can also be taken with an "uplifted hand," which is the standard manner in Scotland.


Affirmation: A solemn affirmation is available for those who do not wish to swear a religious oath. Its wording is: "I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to His Majesty King Charles, his heirs and successors, according to law."


Other languages: While the oath must legally be in English, MPs can request oath and affirmation cards in other languages, such as Welsh, Scottish Gaelic, Irish Gaelic, and Cornish.

THE LAW OF ENGLAND & WALES ALL AROUND US

We are told that it is commonly thought by foreigners that if s/he is eg stuck in a lift with an English person or waiting in a queue for a late arriving bus that if there is an irresistible urge to break the silence then one subject that is unlikely to be ill received is to discuss the weather.  This is understandable insofar as we are all in one location subject to the same aberrations of climate.  In a wider sense we are all citizens living under the same law but outside those directly involved few take any interest until they or friends and/or family are personally involved.  I suppose that in some infinitesimally small way this blog has been purposed to offer a single ray of light on the legal umbrella  supposedly offering all of us equality before the law and the prevention of injustice striking us down.  Truth be told we all know that is just pie in the sky but as an ancient Chinese adage tells us every journey however long begins with just one step.  

Faith in the high standards of our judiciary has been a mantra politically for decades if not for centuries; that is until events show the contrary.  If eg a surgeon`s statistics reveal an unusual number of failed outcomes sooner or later some investigative body or another will announce the results of its inquiries and with appropriate press releases  police will be called in.  But what happens when we learn of senior level judges proving to be wanting in their sentencing decisions when an Appeal Court`s findings are diametrically different.  In this case it seems that it was not just literally an error of judgement.  Will we ever hear of any resulting  chastisement of the judge?

Today the Met Commissioner announced that his force will no longer investigate non crime hate incidents.  This decision follows the recent arrest at gunpoint of the writer of the wonderful TV series Father Ted.  Perhaps this is an indication that the British idea of free speech lives to fight another day.  Whatever one`s opinion this lengthy article might stimulate some consideration of the subject.   

An unashamed publication advancing its own political viewpoint is protected in our society and rightly so.  However not all its readers will want to know or be aware of an opposing outlook.  This example would not want to inform its readers that for this country arms trade balance with Israel is very much in favour of the UK.   In the most recent year for which full UK figures are available the UK granted export licences for military goods to Israel worth £18 million in 2023.

More than once I have offered my thoughts on the inevitability of AI sentencing at the magistrates courts.  This article in the Law Society Gazette and the comments of those perhaps likely to be involved might shed some light on the thinking of some legal eagles. 

The phrase "all human life is there" is strongly associated with the John Hilton Bureau, an advice column run by the News of the World newspaper from 1942 to 1969. This phrase became the title of historical articles and analyses about the bureau and its role in advising the public on a vast range of personal matters during and after the Second World War.  Nothing could better describe this report in Tees Side Live.  Having occasionally mourned the death or dearth of local court reporting this item gives me pause for thought however distasteful. 

The highest fine ever imposed by a bench where I was presiding was on a "company" fly tipping: that figure was some thousands less than the rogues involved here required to stump up.  The big question is when if ever will the fines and costs be paid. Precedence does not predict a happy conclusion.  

Re my comment above on court reporting it is truly wonderful that Cornwall Live about whom I have been happy to offer praise has invested time and money in reporting news from the county`s courts.  Such reports as here used to be commonplace where a suburb or district had its own print news outlet.  Sadly these days are history but from this furthest west county of England is a fine example of what is possible.  The next step will be the live transmission from the actual magistrates remand court when legal and financial limitations are overcome.  

Next month the City of Westminster council will require every property within its boundary to be registered and licensed if it is rented out to tenants; from the swankiest self contained penthouse apartment within parliament`s division bell to houses of multiple occupation in areas with the highest levels of deprivation  including Queens Park, Mozart Estate, Lisson Green Estate (Church Street) and Warwick Estate.  Compulsory questions that must be answered by those in receipt of rents include mortgage details, leaseholder(s), tenant agreement,  criminal history (if any), room sizes and positions, facilities and/or appliances in kitchen and bathroom(s) and much more.  All this to cost the landlord close to £1,000 with a fine of up to £30,000 for those landlords who fail to register but continue to let their properties. Annual retention fees are as yet unknown.  No doubt there will be unintended consequences.  Things are done differently in Sheffield. 

Finally for today there are those drivers who enjoy the occasional alcoholic beverage who are unaware of the law concerning being "in charge" of a vehicle whilst intoxicated. This driver was fortunate that according to the sentencing guidelines which were followed by the bench, he was allowed to drive from court if he wanted to.  

In 2023, there were 29,529 people convicted for the offence of “driving or attempting to drive a motor vehicle while having an alcohol concentration in excess of the prescribed limit”.  Surprisingly there are no figures for the numbers convicted for the offence as was the driver above. The only numbers available seem to be that between 2005 and 2015 there were 15,454 convictions for being in charge while over the limit (S.5(1)(b)). My researches show that fewer than 1,000 – 1,200 convictions per year in England & Wales and only a minority (perhaps one in five) results in a disqualification;  most receive endorsement points instead as did our offender above. 

It is strange as to why there is little information from the MOJ on this offence. It raises some points eg a solitary figure sitting in the driver`s seat is unlikely to arouse police suspicions, are the figures correct because there are few such offenders, police are more concerned with those who are actually driving intoxicated and have fewer worse crimes to investigate with their limited resources.  

Finally it seems that pressures from Islamists that criticism of their religion constitutes an offence akin to antisemitism but without the safeguards that the latter has in law is not going as planned.  Its protagonists refuse to accept that the latter is hate against Jews for what they are but any so termed phobia is just criticism of a religion which can be likened to accusations of blasphemy the legislation on which was repealed in 2008 under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act.

But there it is all around us: above and below left and right; the law of England & Wales. 

COMMON OR NAPOLEONIC BUT IT`S JUST MUSICAL CHAIRS

It`s often shouted from legal and political rooftops that the justice system is a development of the common law as if that is explanation enough for its supposed benefit to society.  A similar claim based on the history of England is that we have a superior form of governance owing to our not having a written constitution.  

I would suppose that clarity and accessible civil codes are written and comprehensive giving citizens, lawyers and judges clear rules in one coherent document.  The constitution of the United States is a fine example and a philosophical triumph considering the times when it was created. Common law relies on precedent which can be fragmented, complex and difficult for non-specialists to understand. Codified law provides consistent application across cases reducing judicial discretion whereas common law depends on judicial interpretation leading to variable outcomes and possible inconsistency between jurisdictions. Indeed "leftie judges" and their influence in immigration tribunals has become a political hot potato.   Common law gives judges law making power which critics see as undemocratic or lacking accountability. Common law evolves case by case making it slow, costly and dependent on litigation to establish principles. In practice this means judges can temper punishment or adapt doctrines to new situations. From Magna Carta to the present day it is argued that common law is centred around the rights of the individual as opposed to those of the nation state. Trial by jury and an adversarial system rather than an inquisitorial judicial process are often cited as the prime reasons for the differences between the English derived system and that of those countries which apply a platform based upon the Napoleonic Code.


As a former presiding magistrate I have experienced situations where truth and justice have seemed to be in opposition to due process. I do not think it is controversial to opine that there are occasions where the quality and ability of advocates pleading in magistrates courts is lacking, such situations leading to the possibility of the guilty being acquitted or horror of horrors the innocent being found guilty. With the risk of such miscarriages of justice being on the horizon I have intervened in court and become more inquisitorial than the legal advisor at the court review would have deemed appropriate. Usually in such matters my colleagues agreed with my interventions. Who is to argue that if such interventions were more frequent there might be fewer decisions at the crown court going to appeal?


With tens of thousands of cases before magistrates every week below are just a few which caught my eye today.


If ever there was a case which demonstrated the inability of our judicial system to cater for drug induced criminality this must surely be it. A life ruined and with the knowledge that the sentencing options are totally inadequate to rehabilitate the offender the costs to her and society should be a spur to innovation. I have long advocated that a model workhouse fit for this century would be of benefit to offenders and our society. When all else has failed there must be innovation. For further thoughts please insert "Bring back the workhouse" in the search box.


Nine years ago I commented on the lack of public lavatories in Chester and York. [Type "Piss up in Chester and York" in the search box for access]. Whether this offender would have benefitted from improved provision of public lavatories is a moot point but there is no doubt that such availability is a limited resource. With pubs often catering for a young clientele it might be that those in need of such facilities are inhibited from pursuing their physiological needs.  By most measures of availability, cleanliness, technology, accessibility and design Japan has the best and most widely available public lavatories in the world.  It is nothing short of a national disgrace that the negative of all the preceding adjectives describes the position in Britain. 

I have long been against the ever increasing use of what I term displacement orders whereby a usually prolific offender is prohibited from certain geographical locations and therefore his law breaking becomes a matter for another county or police jurisdiction. Such orders are issued under various powers by police or courts.  It used to be ASBOs; now there are  PSPO breaches/dispersals, Section 34/35 dispersals, Community Protection Notices (CPNs), Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs), Civil injunctions/ASBIs, closure orders) and others.  There is no doubt that with increasing police involvement in so called non hate crime and/or accusations of causing offence that the law abiding citizen is much more likely than s/he was 25 years ago in being a statistic in the police national computer. 

A recent interesting case at Swansea crown court will be of particular instruction to magistrates.  The warning is that it is precarious for one bench to assure a witness or defendant that another bench will take a pre determined or particular course of action at a subsequent sitting.  

In 15 months this government is now on its second Justice Secretary.  The Tories had 10 such ministers between 2010 and 2024. Is it any wonder that justice in this country is just a merry go round or a game of musical chairs?

ANTISEMITISM: THE CANARY IN THE COALMINE

I make no apology today for commenting on the despicable actions taking place today in places of learning and on the streets to glorify the happenings two years ago which shocked the world except for those who expressed their glee at the murder of Jews at a rate unseen since 1945. My particular ire is the feigning arguments of this and previous government that they are unable to prevent these heinous activities taking place.

 "Yesterday, December 7, 1941—a date which will live in infamy the United States of America was suddenly and deliberately attacked by the naval and air forces of the Empire of Japan." 9/11 is an event that will be remembered in history although the year might be forgotten [2001].  7/7 train and bus bombing in London 2005 by Islamist terrorists killed 52 on their way to and from work.  7th October 2023 the date when 1,200 music attendees and civilians were murdered in Israel and 250 hostages taken into Gaza. 

Apart from the number 7 being a statistical oddity a distinguishing feature of the above is that the events of two years ago are being celebrated by an assortment of evil, ignorant hateful people from unashamedly nazi inspired ex professors and MPs and clandestine colleagues of similar opinions, luvvies who consider their celebrity status elevates their opinions to those of righteousness and students who have had their minds invaded by the aforementioned educationalists and encouraged almost daily by visual media of the traditional and current on line form.  Student demonstrations lauding the terrorist activities of October 7th are taking place in  

London;  An “Inter-University March” is scheduled, departing from King’s College near the Strand, passing LSE, UCL, SOAS, finishing at other campuses including Queen Mary University, London

Glasgow — Protests are slated at Strathclyde University and University of Glasgow. 

Edinburgh — Events are due to take place at the University of Edinburgh. 

Leeds — A protest is expected on the Leeds campus. 

Additionally, universities across other UK cities (e.g. Sheffield) have planned events.  They are described as "protests".  The victim terminology of the current era has been infused with a hatred of Jews which has been held in suspended animation for 80 years and which has been fostered in a form to infiltrate those who are easily influenced by puppet masters using Roubles and Rials to pull the strings of opinion formers in the western world. And yet within the last few days government figures, including Keir Starmer our plastic prime minister, repeat like hypnotised rabbits that they can do nothing to prevent such hate mongering which was influential in the synagogue killings last week on Yom Kippur the date on which in 1973 Egypt chose to wage yet another war of aggression against the State of Israel following their failures in 1948 and 1967 to eradicate Jews from the river to the sea.

Starmer with as much eloquence as he can summon, an effort in itself, has stated in reference to today`s anticipated events that those involved have a "total loss of empathy and humanity". He goes on to describe their activities as "unBritish" and concludes "we will not be silent or indifferent to hatred aimed at anyone in our society".   

And back he goes to Downing Street to wash his hands telling all who will listen that in our free society he can do nothing to prevent these openly antisemitic demonstrations of supposed solidarity with people who rejoice in the death of Jews.  Those far higher up the tree of legal knowledge than I could ever aspire have made it clear that he is talking nonsense and that a British government has all the legislation it needs to put a stop to these deliverers of hate. 

Under the Public Order Act police may impose conditions on processions or assemblies (time, place, route, maximum numbers) to prevent serious public disorder, criminal damage, disruption, etc. Those conditions must be necessary and proportionate. A Commissioner or Chief Constable can prohibit a protest in a certain area for up to 3 months with the Home Secretary’s agreement.  

The Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022  strengthened police powers in relation to protests including more scope for conditions, seizure of items used to cause disruption and powers to direct persons away from certain areas. It introduced or reinforced offences relating to ‘locking on’, serious disruption, and non-compliance with conditions.   

Under the Terrorism Act 2000 / Proscription powers; if a protest is directly linked to a proscribed terrorist organization (or its support) then existing counter-terrorism law can be invoked. Under the Terrorism Act 2000 “proscribed organisations or groups” are banned; membership, encouragement, support, displaying symbols, or even public expression in favor of them are criminalised. The UK government proscribed the group “Palestine Action” under these powers.  Once an organisation is proscribed public support (speech, display, banners, logos) may attract arrest and prosecution.  

With injunctions / civil orders / banning orders a government (or local authority / police) might seek court injunctions (civil remedies) to prevent particular gatherings or assemblies, especially if they anticipate breach of public order, incitement to violence or other unlawful acts.

The proposed “Public Order Bill” (in the policy / debate stage) includes ideas of “banning orders” on individuals (preventing them attending protests)  though such measures are controversial and raise strong civil liberties objections.

There are many arguments against imposing a ban on situations I have indicated but the essence of this post is that there are ways to ban or control the proposed demonstrations.  The government is unwilling to admit that these avenues are available to it.  Like so much that has been heard from number 10 since 4/7/24 words bear little connection to reality or action needed.  All that can be hoped for today and the days ahead is that there can be some effective opposition to the deadly undercurrent of antisemitism in this country which is being exploited by an inglorious combination of Islamists, Marxists and Fascists.  This poisonous brew is being fanned daily and sometimes even hourly by a fetid combo of academics, luvvies and various media outlets  financed by those who would dearly love to see the cohesion of this society fall apart.  That must not happen. The canary in the coalmine is having difficulty finding its voice. 

HANDCUFFING IS OUT OF CONTROL

This is just a brief insight into the activities of the police in their increasingly aggressive tactics when interviewing those whom they consider are involved in the now notorious "non hate crime".  Increasingly it seems that such supposed offenders are being handcuffed on their doorsteps and arrested.  They are being handcuffed usually in the painful position of behind the back as opposed to the frontal position. They are usually compliant.  This is scandalous.

The following is the Metropolitan Police "text book" on using handcuffs.  Perhaps some criminal lawyers might want to read it prior to attending court if the situation comes to that with the more serious offenders. 

MAGISTRATES YESTERDAY TODAY AND TOMORROW

Around 95% of criminal court cases begin and end at magistrates courts. The application process for appointment of lay magistrates is onerous to say the least. Data on lay magistrates when probing behind the raw numbers, age, sex and the ubiquitous "diversity" statistics is rather thin on the ground. What is known is that on 01/04/2025 there were 14,636 listed lay magistrates. In most regions over the last couple of years there have been advertisements on or in various media asking members of the public to apply to the magistracy with emphasis that the position is for "ordinary" people. The numbers of JPs have halved since 2010 in line with the closure of half the country`s courts. In a parliamentary answer given on 17 July 2025 the MOJ said: “We do not have a set number of magistrate vacancies on 9 July 2025.” Despite that, it is understood that the target is to recruit 2,000 people annually. The Magistrates Association speculates that there is a current shortfall of 4,000 to 5,000 magistrates. Latest figures show that of 4,112 applicants 898 were appointed but in the previous year 2023/24 of 4,025 applicants 2,008 were successful in their applications. It doesn`t take an observer to have a PhD in statistics to notice that it was twice as likely to be an unsuccessful applicant in the current tranche of applications than in the previous twelve months.


Whether this variation is powered by a supply/demand consideration from the MOJ is unknown. What is known is the number of magistrates removed from office over the last 15 years.

2010–11: 22 magistrates removed. 

UK Parliament Data

2011–12: 19 magistrates removed. 

UK Parliament Data

2012–13: 17 magistrates removed. 

UK Parliament Data

2013–14: (reported in JCIO annual report)

2014–15: 19 magistrates removed. 

jciodev.microsoftcrmportals.com

2015–16: 15 magistrates removed. 

jciodev.microsoftcrmportals.com

2016–17: 15 magistrates removed 

UK Parliament Data

2017–18: 11 magistrates removed

2019-20: 13,177 magistrates — 12 removals — 9.11 per 10,000. 

jciodev.microsoftcrmportals.com

2020-21: 12,651 magistrates — 15 removals — 11.86 per 10,000. 

Judicial Conduct Complaints

2021-22: 12,506 magistrates — 6 removals — 4.80 per 10,000. 

Judicial Conduct Complaints

2022-23: 13,340 magistrates — 4 removals — 2.99 per 10,000. 

Judicial Conduct Complaints

2023-24: 14,576 magistrates — 17 removals — 11.66 per 10,000

Judicial Conduct Complaints

It`s not unlikely that the Covid epidemic had a major effect on the figure for 2022/3.  However considering that in 2010 there were around 30,000 magistrates and 22 were sacked but in 2023/24 17 were removed from half the number of the  2010 cohort perhaps the criteria for removal have been lowered.  

Readers can judge for themselves whether those recently *removed should have known better that their actions were not compatible with their position on the bench.  Have the advisory committees which do the appointing have anything to answer for?  Should magistrates as a form of hybrid between the professional and lay judiciary be held to different standards than currently is the case?  Should magistrates powers be permanently limited to non custodial matters?  Even considering the current review, as with much surrounding the judiciary, there are many unanswered questions.  

Magistrates of today are as changed from those of 1945 as those predecessors were of their namesakes in 1901.  The future status and activity of the institution is as unimaginable as piloting a spacecraft to a moon landing would have been to the Wright brothers.  

   

*Some current removals in the last couple of months can be viewed here,  here and here.  For a complete result look here. 

UNHEARD TALES OF WOE

I suppose it was Rumpole of the Bailey 1978-1992 and Crown Court 1972 - 1984 which were the forerunners of UK television producers` obsession with legal drama just as it was Dixon of Dock Green 1955 - 1976 which heralded the infinitely variable police series for British audiences.  Indeed the first and last mentioned of these productions became almost a metaphor for the real life activities of their fictional characters. At their root of course was character and plot; the essential ingredients of any first class story whether in print, celluloid or electrons.  The following few tales hardly represent even <1% of daily offerings in the drama of our courts but in the fertile minds of legal and crime writers they could be the seeds to stimulate yet another tale of good - v - evil, prosecution - v - defence , police - v - criminal, justice -v - injustice: all grist to the mill of crime writing.

The wave of support for the cause of Palestinians has gone through western society like a dose of salts through a constipated fatso with middle class students amongst the most vociferous both in America and here.  No campus has arguably been seen as more affected than Cambridge.  In summing up the confrontation between police and students the judge in this case said, "rights to free speech and assembly did not give protesters an "unqualified right" to choose where and how to protest."  

The proscribing of Palestine Action has given very serious overtones to those who might be described as rent-a-protester filling the streets against use of oil, against deniers of climate change, against deniers of immigration limitation and any cause which seems to be worthy of  being defined as "progressive" in their circumscribed mindset.  That so many deny an underlying racist element in their opposition to the legislation is exemplified by the first of three comments published in this report which going by its free subscription is akin to a stalking horse for those who would remake western society and its historic legacy. 

The courts and the public have to listen to some truly evil offenders whose aim is to destroy the very essence of witnesses who testify against them despite ever more efforts to protect them through the legal process. In the days of the razor gangs in the East End and South Side of Glasgow in the 1920s and 1930s that city was described in the novel of the same name as No Mean City.  Whilst the current weaponry of a drug riven society might have changed the sociopaths on trial can be as evil as their forebears when their treatment in the dock is protected by decades of liberal legislation.  As in many cases concurrent sentences for dissimilar offences seem incongruous.  A fine example of current court reporting is available here.  

The case of Clive Freeman should serve as another warning to those who still consider that British justice is the world`s finest where it`s more important that the guilty are acquitted than the innocent are convicted. The recent TV programmes on fictitious juries sitting on "real" cases should be a warning to all that our current jury system is arguably not fit for purpose. This blog 02/09/2025. 

When there is a former soldier who served in Northern Ireland  on trial for committing  murder in 1972 we should be concerned. The trial of former British paratrooper Lance Corporal Soldier F opened this week in Belfast. He is charged with two murders and five attempted murders on Bloody Sunday in Derry in 1972. In 1991 with The Troubles at their bloody height three men in the province were found guilty of plotting to kill members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary.  The Appeal Court has recently overturned their convictions.  If ever serious insurrection took place in Great Britain the law has overwhelming power to render the illegalities in Northern Ireland in that period as merely a prelude to what would happen here.  

With a direct instruction from the Ministry of Justice by its former boss that custodial sentences should be carefully rationed how can we be sure that sentencing is still under the control of the courts i.e. judges and magistrates consider all the evidence and applying the Guidelines come to a reasoned conclusion?  In simple terms; we can`t.  Colin Robson-Durrance appears to be a beneficiary of legal conjuring the effect of which is not unlikely to diminish public faith and confidence in our justice system as much as any tinkering at the legal edges. 

Most of us will not approach any of the scenarios which engulfed those described above but around each case a talented author could produce a tale of woe of which  Kafka would have been proud encompassing our legal processes.  Next time a riveting story as described in the opening paragraph holds some fascination consider that it might be based on hundreds of cases of which we will never have heard.  

PRISON CELL SHORTAGE TAIL WAGS THE DOG OF SENTENCING

Over the last few weeks my posting has been looking at magistrates courts through what some readers might consider perhaps the wrong end of the telescope.  This was not the intention. Public events appeared to be of some significance for us all.  Perhaps in popular jargon the observations of the last month or two might be described as having been commenting from a macro point of view on the justice system.  However from the position of a magistrate, the micro position faces similar conflicts as I faced for seventeen years with considerably more flexibility than those currently on the bench.  Magistrates in the last century were certainly in much greater control of their situation than now.  We were free to discuss in our opinion what truly mattered to us in private meetings three or four times a year.  Whether that freedom made us better at the job is not for me to opine.  So, returning to what has actually happened in our courts recently the sample of cases below is not necessarily typical of a days sitting and they are  but a tiny example of the thousands of cases weekly which generally stimulate little public interest.

A police officer on duty is bitten by a woman who says she has aids and assaults another.  Her custodial sentence is suspended. Seems that for all the bluster from government on the protection of police officers and other public servants the reality is that owing to a broken jail system the bench had no other  option [possibly after advice from their legal advisor]. The sentencing guideline for the offence is here.   

Stalking became a specific criminal offence in England and Wales on November 25 2012 through amendments to the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 introduced by the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Before this date stalking was often dealt with under the more general harassment laws but the new legislation created separate, specific offences for stalking.   I cannot remember sitting on such a case but I was around when measures to protect a witness giving evidence were in play. So congratulations to the bench in  Haverfordwest who were able to decide that an alleged victim`s live evidence was essential for a case to continue despite CPS protestations. When justice so often puts the "victim" before common sense and innocent until proved guilty I would opine that it takes a strong and well led bench to act as that bench has done.  

The numbers of trading standards officers have been cut to the bone in many{most} boroughs with the result that children find it fairly easy and risk free to source a retail outlet where tobacco and alcohol products are available. Hartlepool is no exception. There is no public register of how many such people are employed by that borough.  A Hartlepool committee agenda (Neighbourhood Services Committee 4 Nov 2024) lists staffing in the Trading Standards section and includes 3 × Senior Trading Standards Officers and 1 × Graduate Trading Standards Officer. Information seems to being deliberately withheld or almost impossible to verify. That being the case I am certain the council were pleased to read the following report. As is so often the case in such matters the lowly shop worker is chastised and the owner, private or corporate, goes scot free. 

In the Tony Blair era government brought in the gone but not forgotten ASBO primarily to enable the scourge of unruly neighbours to be confronted by the civil law a breach of which was a criminal offence.  It was replaced in 2014 by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act which spawned Criminal Behaviour Orders (CBOs), Civil Injunctions, Community Protection Notices (CPNs), Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs) and Dispersal Powers.  This offender in the Isle of Wight must have been as the devil incarnate for his neighbours and in a society which offered adequate resources for the mentally disabled might have avoided his decline which affected those living nearby. The District Judge[MC] uttered comments which we as magistrates were strongly advised to resist, do not say anything which might indicate a future sentence by a future bench. 

In Cornwall the local reporter has relayed to the public reading CornwallLive a masterpiece of court reporting; reporting  as it used to be in the 20th century before the age of the internet. Thomas Hammersley seems, as many others, to have been the recipient of a sentence not meeting the seriousness of the crime.  Even if the image is generic a baseball bat with nails in it is a deadly weapon. 

It seems the composition of  Swansea Council’s Trading Standards team is a secret known only to those who pay their wages.  My guess is that like so many other towns, boroughs, counties and cities the department of trading standards has been pruned to the limit resulting in only a tiny percentage of infractions being acted upon never mind being charged. What is reported in Swansea is an indication of what serious repercussions can result when we the public are sold contaminated or unsuitable food.    

If ever there was an example of why dog owners should have thought as to how to secure their pet when driving this is it.  Sentencing has been postponed.  I wonder if that will be another example of the tail of the prison cell shortage wagging the dog of justice.