THE JCIO UNDER THE MICROSCOPE

The Judicial Conduct Investigations Office has been a topic here on more than one occasion.  It oversees all quangos and government bodies authorised and controlled by the Ministry of Justice.  Rarely are the professional judiciary the subject of disclosure within this authority although from time to time District Judges and tribunal members or coroners are called to account. Generally their failings have been on a procedural level rather than on the personal.  More senior judiciary rarely appear on this site.  Perhaps that is because they are so well trained and ensconced in their profession that personal or procedural errors are as rare as hens` teeth.  There is of course a nagging doubt that within the elevated investigative process of possible misdemeanours of senior judiciary  a behind closed doors form of retribution is involved.  Be that as it may for 14,576 Justices of the Peace the buck stops at the JCIO recent decisions of which might lead to some raised eyebrows at its scope and consistency.  

The sanctions available to the JCIO are as follows:-

• Formal advice

• Formal warning

• Reprimand

• Removal

It operates under this guidance. 

Take the case of Nargis Alsadiq.  There seems to be an unexplained delay in her being thrown out of the magistracy.  Such paucity of reporting can lead to wild speculation.  Was she being protected by those around her?  We, the general public, will never know.  How long had she been sitting in judgement on her fellow citizens? We are not privy to such knowledge. Was her earlier judicial performance trustworthy? We will never know. 

Mr Joseph Lindo ex JP had also failed to meet the minimum number of sittings required. From my own and colleagues` experiences the onerous [to some] time commitments necessary to meet a minimum level of the hurdles placed before aspiring JPs can hope for selection should have been at the forefront of the appointment committee.  He too has been dismissed.  

I find it difficult not to have some sympathy for Daniel Barker JP.  Having been in a similar situation myself with a colleague assigned [headmistress by profession] to appraise me as a winger and whose manner was overbearing and condescending I cannot but be mindful that the report is but a summary.  Were his colleagues approached by him or the investigator?  We`ll never know. 

The report on Valerie Humphrey tells us nothing of her history.  Once again the most common cause for removal is non fulfilment of minimum sittings.  

A formal warning of misconduct was the sanction employed against Jonathan Dannatt JP.  Some might consider he got off lightly. 

Formal advice for misconduct  was then result of multiple occasions of social media activity by Kirk Master JP. According to the report he "confirmed that he did not refer to his judicial status in any of the posts".  Some might query the less severe outcome for him cf MMr Dannatt above.  

Ms Justine Dyson JP lives to sit again another day.  Does her receiving a light tap on her knuckles square with others?  There are many investigators and decisions on different cases are not comparable or sometimes compatible. 

Finally today  Mr Edwin Hastings-Smith JP is able to continue offering suitable announcements and/or pronouncements from the middle chair.  It seems inconceivable but obviously wasn`t for a presiding magistrate to allow his tongue to run wild as his did.  

Generally 15-20 magistrates are removed annually from the bench.  The above is just a recent sample.  But some decisions leave this observer just a little bewildered.  Inconsistency seems inevitable.  Anonymity is the order of the day for those sitting in judgement.  Are thresholds varied according to the rank of those under investigation? For presiding magistrates it seems obvious to me at least that a missing sanction could be demotion to status as winger for a fixed period.  Similar results for misdeeds are common in other professions.  But then the Ministry of Justice thrives on the virus of secrecy which is transmitted to so many supervisory bodies in this country as we are well aware.  Secret processes, secret processors, secret decision making in so many aspects of our society are gradually being exposed to a public previously kept in the dark until an awful calamity is revealed having happened as a direct result of that secrecy. Certainly innocent people won`t be murdered, die unnecessarily, be unjustly imprisoned or be aggrieved by magistrates failing to live up to the rules they have accepted on appointment. Sometimes the greater the emphasis or wordiness on or within a judicial or quasi judicial process is inversely proportional to the common sense required for that process to be based on simple logic and/or fairness. The arguably arbitrary judgements of the JCIO are symbolic of much that could be improved in many aspects of the decisions made by those who rule over our daily lives as citizens.  

There was a popular TV programme some years ago about looking through the keyhole.  Perhaps the JCIO needs examination under a legal microscope. 

JUST ANOTHER TYPICAL DAY FOR COURTS

 

DO WE NEED LAY MAGISTRATES?

Failings of many public bodies have been filling air waves of broadcasting, pages of print and gigabytes of digital media for years. I would surmise that these failings have increased greatly this millenium although that opinion is possibly to have originated from whistleblowers and investigative journalists less likely to have been intimated by the authorities than in previous years.  Indeed just last week Sir Julian Hartley the newly appointed  chief executive of the Care Quality Commission  admitted that the public could no longer trust safety ratings when choosing a care home for elderly relatives. The point I have posited previously is whether the failure of such bodies should be blamed upon the ineptitude of those who appoint the overseers.




When it comes to the constitution of magistrates courts about 10% of criminal cases are presided over by a professional District Judge the remainder by a bench of three Justices of the Peace. At the turn of the millenium there were about 300 courts, 30,000 magistrates and about 100 District Judges [MC]. Currently there are 150 magistrates courts and 14,576 magistrates an increase of 2,907 since the start of the Magistrate Attraction and Recruitment Campaign in January 2022 which is thought to have cost up to £2 million. Of the increase in numbers, 786 were re-appointments following changes to the Mandatory Retirement Age. There are around 300 District Judges a limited number of whom can earn up to £180,00 p/a although an average is £143,000. In 2023 District Judges and their deputies sat on 17.56% of cases at magistrates courts.




Lord Justice Auld's Review of the Criminal Courts {2001} indicated that that there could be a marginal reduction in costs if magistrates were superseded by DJs such margins increasing if legal advisors were also dismissed. Similar soundings are currently being undertaken at Petty France. But for the present, in 2023 there were 1.37 million cases undertaken at magistrates courts and at 30/9/2024 there were 327,228 cases outstanding. Since 18th November last year magistrates have had the power to sentence up to 12 months custody for a single offence. With such an onerous responsibility how can we be certain that those on the bench are competent for the task? During my 17 years on that bench, the majority as a presiding magistrate, I was appraised twice; once as a winger during a sitting by a presiding magistrate colleague of my own bench and once from the well of the court by a presiding magistrate from another bench as I was active in the middle chair for a full sitting. There was another occasion when three well dressed middle aged men sitting at the back of the court over which I was presiding spent a whole sitting taking copious notes the whole time. Who they were or for what purpose I knew not then and am non the wiser now.




For the Judicial College Activities Report Summary of expenditure 2022-2023 £19 million was the total allocated for judicial training. There is not a single sentence on what was allocated to the continuous training of magistrates. Current figures are unavailable but ten years ago a Freedom of Information request provided the following:-

I would like to know: 

1) how much was spent on the training of lay magistrates by a) the Judicial College and b) HMCTS (nationally or locally) in 2014/15

2) and the annual cost of training for District Judges and Deputy District Judges (both magistrates' courts) for the same year.

 Answers

Question 1(a)

I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for and this is provided as follows:

Training Development Committee £22,700

Bench Chairmanship Course £37,540

Family Panel Chairmanship   £4,500

Magistrates Association Grant (for joint training projects) £10,000

TOTAL £74,740

Question 1(b)

The Judicial College does not hold information that you have asked for as it belongs to HMCTS. Each Magistrates’ Area Training Committee (MATC) is asked to produce an annual training plan and agree funding with its local HMCTS delivery director. 

Each MATC is required to provide a range of information on an annual basis to show what training it delivered during the year, and how much money was spent. So, I can advise you on a discretionary basis and outside the scope of the FOIA that from the reports that each MATC is required to provide, there is a collated figure of £632,201 for the period 2014/15. Unfortunately, one MATC did not advise the actual figure spent on training but has since confirmed it was within its budget of £43,921. This figure was included in the collated figure instead which means the total is not exact but very close.  

Question 2

I can confirm that the department holds information that you have asked for. It is not possible to fully separate the budget figures between the DJ(MC)s and their deputies as some continuation training events are attended jointly. Where it is possible to show separation it has been done. 

Deputy District Judges £28,000

District Judges & Deputies (joint) £122,000

Total £150,000

A 2019 parliamentary report of the House of Commons Justice Committee highlighted the fact that there was inadequate funding of continuing training for magistrates.  It is highly unlikely that that situation has improved.  

The question now is for how much longer can this country continue to appoint lay magistrates whose competence cannot be assured when financially professional judges sitting without the need for legal advisors are possibly cheaper.  The idea often heralded by senior judiciary and their masters in government is that local justice for local people is a time honoured tradition which works well, so why change it.  It might have worked well when towns and villages were often isolated owing to the insularity of 19th century England, the limitations of local assizes and the limited jurisdiction of itinerant judges.  Entering the second quarter of the 21st century with pounds and pence being counted even more assiduously by the necessarily most  parsimonious government since 2010 it would not take much financial persuasion if the government were to effect yet another U turn on magistrates by restricting their court powers and relegating them to back up District Judges as JP wingers do for Crown Court Judges at appeals against the lowers courts` verdicts or sentences.  

Do we need lay magistrates?

Do we want lay magistrates?

Can we afford their demise? 

FROM THE STABLES AT PETTY FRANCE

 

From the mouth of the horse at Petty France today

Sarah Sackman The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice

Recruitment rates for the magistracy are published in the annual Judicial Diversity Statistics, found here. As of 01 April 2024, there were 14,576 active magistrates in England and Wales, an increase of 2,907 since the start of the Magistrate Attraction and Recruitment Campaign in January 2022. Of these, 786 were re-appointments following changes to the Mandatory Retirement Age. The next set of statistics for the period April 2024 to March 2025 will be published in July 2025.

BIG WIGS, BIGGER WIGS AND BIGGEST WIGS

Almost two years ago the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police warned all who cared to listen that there would be monthly improvements in the Met`s handling of misconduct cases.  It seems that unsurprisingly there has been kick back an example of which is the case of  Sergeant Lino Di Maria. It seems there is hardly a supervisory body in this country which has not been shown to be unable or unwilling to fulfil its prime function in ensuring that those where there is a responsibility to expose for misconduct or failure are actually punished. The media generally are interested in the mackerels and not the spratts. However it is within the "spratt" communities from architects to zoologists that the noses of misconduct sniff the possibilities of evading professional restrictions for devious purposes.



There were many arbitrary decisions made by public bodies during the pandemic that passed by most observers but this decision  re  Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council’s refusal to renew the licenses of six taxi drivers during the Covid-19 pandemic does seem to be inconsistent.  It is extremely unlikely that the matter will be taken any further owing to the high costs which would be required.  The eight year old age restriction of taxis does not appear to be founded on inspection.  And to quote the report, "But Mr Justice Linden suggested that the district judge’s ruling could logically mean that “anyone who was able to show that they could not afford a new vehicle could argue for an exception” and warned this could “risk inconsistent decision making and thereby undermine the policy of the council.”  It hardly needs pointing out but who is to say that "the policy of the council" does not need some undermining.  

Yet again a criminal behaviour order [CBO] has been reported  in local press media.  They can be obtained against anyone over the age of 10. For a CBO the threshold is that the person has engaged or is likely to engage in behaviour that is almost certain to cause harassment, alarm or distress and that the CBO will help in preventing it. They are one half of the regime introduced by the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 to replace the perhaps better-known ASBOs when those orders were abolished in England and Wales. The other half of the regime is the civil injunction.  They are issued on the civil standard of proof: i.e. more likely than not as distinct from the criminal standard, beyond reasonable doubt or sure.  They are effectively displacement orders about which I have railed for years.  Indeed I sat on the very first case ever brought.  We rejected that application as it had not been presented according to the legal requirements. The MOJ is reticent on numbers requested or applied but figures showed that in 2016 932 CBOs were issued following conviction, an increase of 35% on the previous year.  Subsequent attempts to seek current numbers were refused under Freedom of Information Act cost restrictions. 

In an age when increasingly service of important documents by mail is unavailable and e mail is the single method employed it is refreshing to know that landlords can legally send essential tenancy documents in the post.  Whether this decision at the Appeal Court will be known by many tenants and landlords remains to be seen as will the argument of non receipt, lost in the post be acceptable cause for action or inaction.

And final snippet today is the duly and patiently awaited result of an application that the judges involved in the sad case of Sarah Sharif are to be identified.  The original decision of anonymity has been castigated here and in many places where much higher levels of  legal brain power have been applied.  There are so many aspects of our legal, quasi legal systems and organisations whose workings are held to be not suitable for public knowledge that any dictator would relish as a wonderful base on which to control this country.  With political extremes likely to be every day conversation in 2029 this is a timely reminder as in the Metropolitan Police that when in doubt let secrets out.  

IS REFORM UK A RALLYING CRY OR A WARNING?

I assume by now that my reader has watched or read at least some of the goings on yesterday in Washington DC. Today on the news I watched our prime minister in typical lawyerly tones admit that there was much amiss with the process of investigation and outcomes of the failure to predict the intent of the killer of those three children in Southport and his other crimes on that awful day.  The presentation was flat and very boring in comparison with the re-elected POTUS #47. I asked myself , "does presentation or rhetorical ability matter?" "Does it have any bearing on our voting intentions or implications for our democratic systems?"  In my humble opinion the answer must be in the affirmative.  The follow up therefore could be does such an ability signify competence for the chosen job; namely as a democratically elected person to further his/her political intentions and the answer to that must surely be in the negative. 

There are amongst those who are all too ready to believe what to most are outlandish theories covering many walks of life.  In broad terms their refusal to face fact is based on a lack of transparency from the authorities or personnel associated with the matter in question.  So it could be posited that the flames of conspiracy theories are fanned by the very people who are trying to negate those who in our tech age can spread their rivers of poison to an ocean of those whose political or psychological make up renders them susceptible to all manner of mumbo jumbo.  Nowhere is this more true than in the justice system because when there appears to have been drawn a curtain over some legal or illegal process additional crumbling of that pillar of our democracy takes place whether it is further shunning of local elections and/or political vacuum filling by rabble rousers.   The case of Mr Justice Williams and his banning of the publication of  the identity of a fellow judge and the names of those involved in the aforementioned apparent incompetence pre the Southport murders must be considered to have left a gap in the minds of some who are all too willing to fit their own theories to the known facts. A well reasoned article can be accessed here.  

Perhaps the most ridiculous belief for a diminishing coterie of the unhinged is the "flat earther" There are still those who do really believe the Earth is flat.  The reality of such unscientific nonsense is not confined to our age of instant information true or false; it was demonstrated  in January 1875 at the trial at the Essex Assizes.  A little light hearted relief might be of interest.

Belief in the outlandish is perhaps part of the human condition.  There is no doubt that Aristotle was and is a towering figure amongst the billions who have lived in the last two millennia.  But it took a practical man of science, Leonardo, to lay the foundations of inter alia engineering, anatomy and perspective in art to push aside theory for experiment to form the basis of much of our understanding of the modern world. 

Often it`s been said that what happens in America happens in Britain a short time later.  Are we on a timeline which validates such an observation?  Those who seek unjustifiably to prevent public knowledge of the many drivers and levers, controls and artifices  which determine the structure of our society are themselves the propagandists and initiators of those who would undermine them like the person in his ignorance on a tree branch trying to get down by sawing away the very item which is keeping him alive.  Is the re-election of Donald Trump a rallying cry for reform within our society or a warning of what`s ahead? 

A FLY ON THE WALL @ THE MOJ

Not unexpectedly 2025 has begun with the pillars designed to uphold our justice system being further worn away.  The erosion being enacted before our eyes can I suppose be compared to the situation where an anorexic patient is verging on self destruction despite the restorative and/or palliative measures family and medical staff undertake.  The question arises as to when a point of no return is reached.  Sentencers have officially been told to avoid wherever and whenever possible the imposition of immediate custodial sentences.  They have also been told with ever increasing volume to put victims first.  There is a code of practice to this effect.  Personally I have always thought that justice should be blind but such a position now appears to be obsolescent.  

When judges follow the first directive mentioned above it would appear extremely unlikely that they are satisfying the second. Every day in every court there are offenders who are benefitting from the overcrowding in our prisons.  Each such judicial decision is an afront to justice and each, like the so called Chinese water torture, reduces resistance to opposing such policy by the drip drip effect of undermining public  confidence that the application of law will apply in all cases.  Public trust is diminished and self reliance becomes the order of the day. Whilst that attitude might be suitable in a country with less strict laws on defending one`s property or person it has been tempered in this country by society`s acceptance that the state will be there to protect the innocent and punish the guilty appropriately. 

In 2002 David Howard, a former teacher, engaged in sexual activity while in a position of trust.  That society might have been better served had he been jailed is a moot point.  What is also questionable is the increasing trend of charges being brought without time limit on their alleged occurrence.  There is more on that at the conclusion to this post. 

A suspended custody order was also placed recently on George Szulhan for a sexual offence against a young girl.  Many observers might conclude that that too was an afront to justice. 

Mold Crown Court was the venue where Brett Wilding was sentenced for one offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm and one of strangulation against his then partner.  His 20 month custodial sentence was suspended for 18 months.  I remember very clearly the worst case of domestic abuse during my 17 years on the bench. A young man had pulled his heavily pregnant girl friend down a flight of stairs by her hair and was  consequently charged  with "assault by beating". He had caused her severe bruising but thankfully no harm to the unborn child.  We gave him 6 months immediate custody.  But around the turn of the millenium there was still arguably a functioning justice system where offenders generally were sentenced in a manner to which their crimes warranted without fear or favour, Sentencing Guidelines or government directive. 

As alluded to above there is virtually no statute of limitations under the English legal system.  TV programmes of recent years have earned millions of viewers when the topic has been of cold cases: Waking the Dead, New Tricks  The rise of the Me Too movement has prompted many hundreds of alleged victims to come forward with claims of unlawful unwanted sexual activities against them.  There have also been scandals of such cases where the accuser has been shown to be a liar and has been jailed for perverting the course of justice.  Ex MP Harvey Procter has been a long standing example of the harm that can follow such unfounded accusations.   For those interested in the arguments for and against a statute of limitations a good place to begin is here , here and here. 

With no sign of the courts` backlog decreasing any time soon; indeed it will probably increase, it is likely that defendants and their lawyers will offer "memory lapse" as an argument against prosecution witnesses.  With a guilty requirement necessitating a juror to be "sure" of his/her decision this doesn`t bode well for the future.  The current Secretary of State for Justice [how long will she last] has offered all sorts of possible proposals to alleviate this situation. However they are but paper tokens in a hurricane. Ministry of Justice permanent secretary Dame Antonia Romeo has been forced to come clean.  It would have been interesting to have been a fly on the wall when she subsequently spoke to the Secretary of State.  

CAN OPTIMISM BE ENOUGH FROM NOW TO 2029?

Traditionally the first entry in a diary or history reflects in the new year on the highs and lows of that previous. Some commenters are telling us that the  peak of "woke" has passed and that the western world has started to recover its senses.  That is certainly a matter of opinion. 

 With the justice system being subjected to yet more conjecture on how the headlong gallop to systemic breakdown might be averted notwithstanding that every day between 20% - 25% of all the crown courts available are not being utilised a brief look at the structure of advisory committees is of some interest.  If courts are the engines of the system the committees are the designers and assemblers of these engines.  Their "rules of engagement" govern a typically British way of doing things.  Unlike eg USA where many posts in the public domain are elective the British way is of appointment.  The Advisory Committee responsible for the appointment  of magistrates, its composition and its rules is available here.  Of particular or peculiar interest is the following on pp13:-

Application procedure for Advisory Committee members

1.66 These principles apply to the handling of all applications:

• applications must be handled fairly, consistently and expeditiously;

• candidates must be assessed on merit – no other factors must be

considered;  [my bold] 

• candidates must be treated with courtesy and respect;

• it is unlawful for candidates to be excluded or disadvantaged based on

any protected characteristics as set out in the Equality Act 20105; and

• information about an individual gained through the selection process is confidential

All above seems fair and square or does it.  From Official Statistics:- 

User guide to diversity of the judiciary statistics

Updated 17 December 2024 is the following:

2.2 Judicial appointments

The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (CRA) enshrined in law the independence of the judiciary and changed the way judges are appointed. As a result of the Act, the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) was set up in April 2006 to make the appointments process clearer and more accountable. Under the CRA, the JAC’s statutory duties are to:

select applicants solely on merit [my bold] 

select only those with good character

encourage a diverse range of applicants

As part of its diversity strategy, the JAC publishes the diversity profile of applicants at application, shortlisting and recommendation stages.

Perhaps somebody can argue that the bold requirement can live equally with the last of the three "statuary duties"?

Having selected those suitable for judicial appointment those same committees are responsible for advising the Lord Chancellor on the chastisement of those who break the judicial guidelines.  In the calendar year just ended 15 magistrates were removed from the judiciary and 4 tribunal members were similarly ousted.  Not a single judge from recorder to the highest level was fired although there were other lesser sanctions for transgressors. Even  Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram had his fall from grace cushioned when many thought dismissal appropriate.  But then that would be the big wigs admitting failure and that cannot be allowed; can it?  There have been accusations that the Metropolitan Police are operating two tier policing with regard to the almost rampant unpunished  displays of antisemitism by supporters of Gazans.  Surely such double thinking cannot be happening under the auspices of the Ministry of Justice? 

In a nation where we are all becoming inured to politicians refusing to answer legitimate questions is the judiciary becoming just another tool of government when the political establishment feels threatened; eg the very harsh sentences as a result of the summer riots. Many jurisdictions since 1945 have been in thrall to government diktat.  Who`s to say that in this country that would never happen?

As per my post of last week my glass is still half full but for how long can optimism be enough from now to 2029?