CHOICES AND POLITICS

It`s unlikely that more than perhaps  a few fanatics would argue that Christianity in England is anything other than a religion.  Of course that observation would be ridiculed if it were applied to Ireland north and the republic of, Germany where the Christian Democratic Union of Germany has become the largest party after the weekend`s general election.  I suppose  The European Christian Political Movement is a European political party exclusively working on promoting Christian values and of course evangelical Christians are a major source of support for both Democrats and Republicans in America. The 2021 United Kingdom census recorded an irreligious population of 25.3 million or 37.8% in England. But rarely a month goes by without a report of some woke tribunal, organisation or employer becoming newsworthy by virtue of its decisions on whether certain actions inspired by religious belief are lawful or not. 

The case of Kristie Higgs, a Christian school worker who was sacked for sharing posts criticising LGBT+ teaching, reached its finale earlier this month.  Anti abortion campaigners are  treading a thin line.  One such stalwart having been twice arrested for praying silently near an abortion clinic  has successfully sued police for wrongful arrest.  Although apparently inspired by their religious beliefs those cases were not political in the common sense understanding of that word:  connected with the state, government or public affairs although there is an argument that every action of a government  connects the individual to the state. 

However since October 7th 2023 many bets are off or [to use betting companies` terms] have been politically  laid off when the political affiliations of workers combined with religious fervour directly intimidate customers, fellow workers or the public in general.  The wearing of badges supporting those in Gaza and blatantly the ruling terrorist organisation which is in power and/or wearing similar such indications whether in the workplace or on the streets during supposed political demonstrations has crystallised  the legal nomansland  where religious freedom and real manifestations of hate crime collide; not the hotch potch of police defined "non hate crime".  The Guardian which is probably the most woke mass media publication in the country has a long report on such a case here. 

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 makes it an offense to cause harassment, alarm, or distress by using threatening, abusive, or insulting words or behavior. It can also include displaying threatening, abusive, or insulting writing or signs. 

Penalties 

The maximum penalty for summary conviction is six months in prison, an unlimited fine, or both

Racially or religiously aggravated Section 5 is a non-imprisonable offense with a maximum penalty of a level 4 fine

Defenses 

A defense may be available if the accused can show that they had no reason to believe that someone would be harassed, alarmed, or distressed 

Reform 

In 2013, the government agreed to reform Section 5 to protect free speech. The Christian Institute led a campaign to remove the word "insulting" from the act

Public Order Offences incorporating the Charging Standard

8 Aug 2022 — The maximum penalty on summary conviction is six months' imprisonment or an unlimited fine or both. 

Last month in a little reported case at the High Court  an appeal by a Christian preacher against his conviction  under that very  Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 for causing “harassment, alarm and distress" was refused.

I can remember when most law abiding folk would find few matters supported by Liberty {founded in 1934} to be against their own consciences or a natural view of what is right and what is wrong.  All that has changed. The first protests against Israel soon after October 7th [New York] and London October 8th have shown what thin line the authorities are on when religion opposes politics and vice versa. The Met Police have revealed that the first request for a national demonstration against Israel came on October 7 2023 at 12:50pm – just hours after the Hamas attack began and before any retaliation by IDF.  There is a strong body of opinion that there has developed in this country "two tier" policing brought about by a perceived difference between dealing with Muslim suspected criminality and the rest the former being treated with kid gloves for fear of religious sensitivity and historical revelations of child abuse tolerated or ignored when Muslims are involved. As a result Muslim organisations, many based on the ethos of the Muslim Brotherhood [banned in Egypt, Jordan and other Muslim countries], are lobbying for a blasphemy law to prevent not just criticism of Islamic practices but of Muslims per se.  This has met with some sympathy in Whitehall.  

Government and its servants could be described as trying  to ride two horses at once. Dr Doolittle perhaps had it more accurately in the description of the pushmepullme.  Indeed currently the Ministry of Justice has recently endorsed the increase of magistrates` courts powers from six months immediate custody to twelve whilst simultaneously a government commissioned independent review concluded that short custodial sentences be abolished.  

Government is about choices and politics is about how best to make those choices.  In so many ways our current masters are swimming in a sea of treacle trying to make headway eyes closed guided by the loudest voices trying to assist them.   

    

GONE TODAY AND GONE TOMORROW

 

NO COURT TODAY;THE JUDGE HAS GONE ASTRAY

 

IS ANY MINISTRY MORE WOKE THAN THE MOJ?

I would suggest that most readers are aware of Donald Trump`s war on woke.  I make no apology for my own opinion on such actions as not before time.  I would also suggest that historically this country tends to follow the social trends in USA albeit with a year or three`s delay.  

Of all government departments the Ministry of Justice is perhaps the most sensitive to being on the right side of those "progressive thinkers" who fight against any relaxation of Diversity Equality and Inclusion.  As surely as J K Rowling rails against the concept of trans women with penises being real women the MOJ seeks to be whiter than white [to coin a phrase] in its pursuit of the ephemeral.  As far as the magistracy is concerned the watchword is local justice for local people by local magistrates.  In real terms what does this mantra mean and what are its contradictions? 

In real world no nonsense terms perhaps an extract from a recent Freedom of Information Request which elicited the following says it all:-

"Between 1 April 2022 and 31 March 2023, 8 Muslims were appointed to the magistracy. Between 1 April 2023 and 31 March 2024, 71 Muslims were appointed to the magistracy." 

The table below is self explanatory if a magnifier virtual or actual is available.

Ethnicity of the professional judiciary is below.

Does the ratio of the ethnicity of District Judges cf magistrates affect outcomes?  I would venture to suggest it does not.  The appointment of District Judges or more senior judiciary does not for obvious reasons have being local as a requirement and nobody in his/her right mind would suggest otherwise.  

In recent months social media posts of  some MPs have elicited for those concerned some unpalatable information.  Within some supervisory bodies subsequent to serious crimes a similar tale of indiscretion or worse has been revealed to an astonished public.  From time to time magisterial indiscretions of one form or another have been posted here. Terrorist supporting registered medical personnel working in the NHS have been exposed on "X" yet magistrates`or applicants`  on line histories are not part of any vetting such  vetting as it is of candidates to the magistracy being carried out by the Disclosure and Barring Service.  Other than that the MOJ does not carry out any further checks except receiving references.  Even the Deputy Senior District Judge Tanweer Ikram CBE was issued with a formal warning for misconduct for his perceived support of a terrorist organisation. To quote the JCIO "On 14 February, an article appeared in The Times stating that Judge Ikram had “liked” a post by a barrister on LinkedIn, which read:

“Free Free Palestine. To the Israeli terrorist both in the United Kingdom, the United States and of course Israel, you can run, you can bomb but you cannot hide – justice will be coming for you.”

How can the public be certain others similar might effectively  be judge, juror and sentencer sitting as a lay magistrate.  The Reform Party in particular is using immigration legal and illegal and particularly the number of Islamic immigrants as an electoral hand grenade blowing apart the official sentiments and incoherence of other parties on the subject.  Aside from factual information the following is advice for applicants to the magistracy:-

"Character questions. These include providing details of any Fixed Penalty Notice, past or present convictions/cautions/motor offences/bankruptcy proceedings. Has a spouse, partner, close family member or close friend received convictions or cautions which could affect your application to become a magistrate? Is there anything else in your private or working life, past or present, which could damage your credibility as a magistrate if it became known to the public?"

The last sentence is interesting. Would a Muslim candidate eg admit to being a supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood; a banned organisation in many Muslim countries but not in the UK? With five MPs elected in July apparently behaving as if they are the MPs for the Gaza constituency and consequently being publicly reprimanded or reminded who their voters are how can the MOJ be confident that there is not another political scandal brewing if or when politics interferes with the legal process in magistrates courts? 

From the MOJ some additional facts:-

13. Magistrates in Post

---

In comparison to judges, a higher proportion of magistrates are female, or from an ethnic minority background.

---

Sex

Of the 14,576 magistrates in post across England and Wales as at 1 April 2024, 57% were female (five percentage points higher than in 2014). There was no strong variation amongst the regions, ranging from 54% to 61% (Figure 46).

Figure 46: Proportion of female magistrates by region, 1 April 2024

Ethnicity

As at 1 April 2024, ethnic minority individuals together constituted 13% of all magistrates (a five percentage-point increase from 2014 when 8% declared themselves as from an ethnic minority). More specifically for each ethnic minority group^{[footnote 46]}:

• Asian or Asian British individuals constituted 7% of magistrates.
• Black or black British individuals constituted 4% of magistrates.
• Mixed ethnicity individuals constituted 2% of magistrates.
• Individuals from other ethnicities constituted 1% of magistrates.

These proportions showed some variation at a regional level, where London had at least double the proportion of Asian individuals compared to all but one of the regions, and at least treble the proportion of black individuals compared to all other regions (Figure 47).

Figure 47: Proportion of magistrates from each ethnic minority group by region, 1 April 2024

Intersection of Sex and Ethnicity

Table 3.7 shows that just under half (49%) of all magistrates as at 1 April 2024 were white and female. This was followed by the white male group with 38%, and then the ethnic minority female and ethnic minority male groups (8% and 5% respectively).

Age

Magistrates tended to be older than judges on average, with 81% of those in post being 50 and over.

13.1 Magistrates - leavers and new entrants

The proportion of magistrates that left during 2023/24 who were female (55%) or of an ethnic minority background (13%) were both slightly lower than the equivalent proportion of new entrants in 2023/24, at 58% and 15% respectively.

---

14. Magistrates Recruitment

On 17 January 2022, an updated magistrates’ recruitment process was launched. This update introduced a new applicant tracking system (ATS) which collects information on magistrate recruitment across England and Wales and includes more diversity data on applicants and recommendations for appointment to the magistracy.

This is the second year for which ATS magistrates’ recruitment data is being published^{[footnote 47]}. Figures are now shown on the number of appointments of magistrates, rather than recommendations, with updated figures for 2022/23 given in Table 3.8a.

Beginning with this year’s report, figures are shown for the number of applications concluded on the ATS, made up of those not shortlisted, not appointed and appointed during the year. These will be in contrast to and not comparable with the number of applications started in the year.

---

The proportions of female individuals and ethnic minority individuals appointed to the magistracy are comparable to those already in post.

---

14.1 Applications

Table 3.8b shows that during 2023-24, there were 4,025 applications made to become a magistrate^{[footnote 48]}.

Sex

More than half (55%) of all magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24 were from female individuals, comparable to the 57% of magistrates already in post. There is some variation by region where the proportion of female candidates for the South East and South West are each below 50% (Figure 48).

Figure 48: Proportion of female magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24, by region

Ethnicity

In total, ethnic minority individuals constituted about 30% of all magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24, more than twice as high as the 13% of magistrates in post^{[footnote 49]}. A wide variation in the proportion of ethnic minority applicants is seen at the regional level (Figure 49), from 9% in the South West and Wales to 51% in London. More specifically:

• Asian or Asian British individuals constituted 16% of applications.
• Black or Black British individuals constituted 9% of applications.
• Mixed ethnicity individuals constituted 4% of applications.
• Individuals from other ethnicity backgrounds constituted 2% of applications.

Figure 49: Representation of ethnic minorities among magistrate applications submitted in 2023-24, by region

Age

On average, those who applied to the magistracy in 2023-24 were younger than magistrates currently in post. 53% of magistrate applications were from candidates aged 50 or over, compared to 81% of magistrates in post.

14.2 Appointments^{[footnote 50]}

Table 3.8b shows that during 2023/24, 2,008 appointments to the magistracy were made in England and Wales^{[footnote 51]}.

Sex

Female individuals represented 58% of all magistrate appointments made in 2023-24. The female proportion of appointments by region ranged from 49% in the North West to 67% in London (Figure 50).

Figure 50: Proportion of female magistrate appointments made in 2023-24, by region

Ethnicity

In total, ethnic minority individuals constituted 16% of all magistrate appointments made in 2023-24. More specifically:

• Asian or Asian British individuals constituted 7% of recommendations.
• Black or black British individuals constituted 5% of recommendations.
• Mixed ethnicity individuals constituted 3% of recommendations.
• Individuals from other ethnicity backgrounds constituted 1% of recommendations.

By region, the proportion of those appointed who were from an ethnic minority background ranged from 8% for the South West and Wales, to 36% for London (Figure 51).

Figure 51: Representation of ethnic minorities among magistrate appointments made in 2023-24, by region

Age

Of all the magistrates appointed in 2023-24, 59% of them were aged 50 or over.

 

 

WHY?

 

DO WE?????????

Do we have confidence that the quality of appointees will be assured?  Can we be certain that an emphasis on diversity inclusion and equality will not be detrimental to that quality?

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?