THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS, YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW AND TIME WILL TELL

Are we ruled by government or lawyers?  For those with a passing interest in government viewing the scene from the top of that proverbial Clapham omnibus  that question in one form or another has been a feature of leader writers and opinion formers for some months.  The riots last July subsequent to the awful murders in Southport were a likely starting point for the topic to break into public discourse.  However the increasingly obstructive antics of fanatical supporters of some ecological cause or another have affected many British hearts and minds.  My enlarged prostate did not take kindly to being held up for two hours on the M25 not by highwaymen but by climate protesters a couple of years ago.   The recent jail sentences for sixteen environmental activists [a few reduced on appeal] caused an uproar by some "progressive" lawyers and others insofar as they considered that the end  i.e.  the planet`s welfare, justified the means. 

Indeed some commenters have suggested that the cases of non-violent disruptive protesters should be governed by what they call “the integrity principle”. This would spur a radical rethink of how the courts approach the trials of such protesters.  This is a dangerous path to take and for lawyers a deliberate attempt to allow politics to be a factor in determining guilt and/or sentence.  If this advice were to be followed where would it end?  I would suggest its end of the road would be confirmation of the end of our democratic tradition where equality before the law is still just about hanging on if rather precariously. The Guardian, that most woke of publications, offers an insight into the minds of those who consider means justify ends.  

Considering the title of this blog I would opine that many readers will have been aware that the numbers of magistrates courts is now about half the number of 15 years ago and consequently the numbers of Justices of the Peace until recently declined in tandem.  As with police numbers many current magistrates are relative newbies with fewer old timers around to offer advice and direction.  The latest advertising recruitment splurge of which this is an example emphasises the benefits to an employer for allowing a staff member to apply and be accepted as a magistrate with some emphasis that this will be beneficial to that successful applicant insofar as being on the bench will offer advantages to employees in rising up the employment ladder.  In simple terms the advertisement  is geared to showing an applicant that being a magistrate is primarily a selfish voluntary act to propel his/her own ambitions in business or profession.  When I applied in the 1990s I found that most of my new colleagues had become magistrates for the position itself and what they could offer with no consideration of how that position might enhance their life outside court in their chosen occupations. There were of course a few exceptions and the crucial point is that most of the bench saw those self seekers for what they were; arrogant aggrandising individuals who were less able than the vast majority.   

As the old adages say, the end justifies the means; you reap what you sow; and time will tell.