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.
No comments:
Post a Comment